It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
'Afternoon pb. I've had an amazingly busy bank holiday weekend. I have any amount of anecdata to regale you with, but I can't actually be bothered - just rest assured it backs up whatever conclusions about the UK you had already reached. But more excitingly, I have: - been to a wedding - been to the tip - been to a match in the rugby world cup - met/fed/stroked a capybara (two capybaras, in fact.) - discovered an awesome new animal (the binturong - look him up - he's ace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binturong (when I say 'discovered', I'm talking in a purely personal sense - other humans already knew about him) - flown a kite - won a toy seagull in a game of skill (darts) - been involved in a family drama about a lost bracelet, thrillingly resolved after an hour with the use of a big stick - watched a glorious sunset with my daughters - erected a tent - hosted a children's party (at which, impressively, someone is playing 'Never Gonna Give You Up' on the kazoo, quite well.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
'Afternoon pb. I've had an amazingly busy bank holiday weekend. I have any amount of anecdata to regale you with, but I can't actually be bothered - just rest assured it backs up whatever conclusions about the UK you had already reached. But more excitingly, I have: - been to a wedding (though only the night time - I didn't know them that well) - been to the tip - been to a match in the rugby world cup - met/fed/stroked a capybara (two capybaras, in fact.) - discovered an awesome new animal (the binturong - look him up - he's ace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binturong (when I say 'discovered', I'm talking in a purely personal sense - other humans already knew about him) - flown a kite - won a toy seagull in a game of skill (darts) - been involved in a family drama about a lost bracelet, thrillingly resolved after an hour with the use of a big stick - watched a glorious sunset with my daughters - erected a tent - hosted a children's party (at which, impressively, someone is playing 'Never Gonna Give You Up' on the kazoo, quite well).
Roger you need to look at it with both eyes. Consider what Hamas is doing. I support neither side bar the right to defend
I've always admired Roger. I couldn't be that consistently wrong about everything, all the time, even if I tried.
Think about it: even through sheer random chance, Roger ought to be occasionally right about something at sometimes purely due to the law of averages and basic statistical anomalies. And, yet, he isn't - ever.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art. In fact, I'm rather jealous.
But he didn't vote Leave. So he beats you hands down for judgement.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
Roger you need to look at it with both eyes. Consider what Hamas is doing. I support neither side bar the right to defend
I've always admired Roger. I couldn't be that consistently wrong about everything, all the time, even if I tried.
Think about it: even through sheer random chance, Roger ought to be occasionally right about something at sometimes purely due to the law of averages and basic statistical anomalies. And, yet, he isn't - ever.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art. In fact, I'm rather jealous.
He's correctly called the Oscars winners on several occasions.
That's the only exception, yes.
Why?
Because it's full of people who think just like him.
'Afternoon pb. I've had an amazingly busy bank holiday weekend. I have any amount of anecdata to regale you with, but I can't actually be bothered - just rest assured it backs up whatever conclusions about the UK you had already reached. But more excitingly, I have: - been to a wedding (though only the night time - I didn't know them that well) - been to the tip - been to a match in the rugby world cup - met/fed/stroked a capybara (two capybaras, in fact.) - discovered an awesome new animal (the binturong - look him up - he's ace: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binturong (when I say 'discovered', I'm talking in a purely personal sense - other humans already knew about him) - flown a kite - won a toy seagull in a game of skill (darts) - been involved in a family drama about a lost bracelet, thrillingly resolved after an hour with the use of a big stick - watched a glorious sunset with my daughters - erected a tent - hosted a children's party (at which, impressively, someone is playing 'Never Gonna Give You Up' on the kazoo, quite well).
Steampunk at Lincoln for me and my family this weekend. Thoroughly enjoyable and utterly mad.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I think far right encompasses wanting the mass deportation of immigrants and the children of immigrants to be given fewer rights. There's a couple of regulars here who espouse such views.
Western societies are being polluted and risk being taken over by alien cultures (esp Islam) is a Far Right totem, I'd say. You can believe this and not be Far Right, or you can be Far Right and not believe it, but I doubt there'd be many in either category.
We literally have a de facto blasphemy law, enforced by the threat of death, because we have imported Islamic beliefs
Go ask the teacher in hiding in Batley
You simply deny this is happening. You lie - probably to yourself as well as the world. And then you can pretend that anyone who points this is “far right”
It’s kinda pitiful. And dangerously stupid
No, I was precise. I said it's possible (although quite rare) to subscribe to this core belief of the Far Right (that we are being overrun by Muslims) and yet not be Far Right.
And to prove the point here's you staking a claim to be one of these rather special people.
Roger you need to look at it with both eyes. Consider what Hamas is doing. I support neither side bar the right to defend
I've always admired Roger. I couldn't be that consistently wrong about everything, all the time, even if I tried.
Think about it: even through sheer random chance, Roger ought to be occasionally right about something at sometimes purely due to the law of averages and basic statistical anomalies. And, yet, he isn't - ever.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art. In fact, I'm rather jealous.
But he didn't vote Leave. So he beats you hands down for judgement.
That rather proves the point.
However, for all I disagree with him on a vast range of political issues, I would say that Roger is on the side of the angels as far as his view of Israel under the current leadership is concerned.
Pushed to me in the 'For you' section of Twix: an anti-NHS, anti-immigrant story - naturally enough, with the 'victim' being an elderly lady. An elderly lady, naturally enough still running a pub, has a health issue. The foreign doctors mistreat her, whilst migrants arrive in police vans and are seen immediately.
A story that reeks heavily of b/s.
It seems that the fascists realise that the NHS relies on immigrants, and are therefore trying to destroy the "services will fail if it wasn't for immigrants" argument.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
That's too wide imo. Racism is the USP of the Far Right. I would never apply the term to anybody who I don't consider seriously racist. They can as socially conservative as they like, anti abortion, death penalty for littering, bring back national service, whatever, but without the racism they're falling short in my book.
Is there a subtle difference between nativism, if you consider that putting the interests of your country’s existing nationals way ahead of “incomers” and racism, an irrational hatred of people with different colour skins/cultures.
I think there is a difference and both can be bad, but do we fail to find solutions because we lump every fear or concern about “the other” as racism and so kill any chance of sensible debate?
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
You're comparing your current fantasy world with your earlier fantasy world.
Without considering which of them people who live in this country might actually prefer.
Though perhaps one reason you might think there are fewer Europeans in Britain is that many of them have integrated and now speak English.
Not at all. It was a more transitory population. My ex lives the life of a hippy in Crete and lives with a revolving population. She loves it. She's never been happier. Different people turn up at different times and they live a great life. If success is your thing she's had that. If your thing is six pints of beer on a Saturday night then little in the UK will have changed.
The Spanish have a saying about 'The smell of the paint' which is just another way of describing 'the vibe' and to a lot of people it doesn't matter at all. Leon despite his tales of derring do is one of them. I don't think there's a more MOR person on here. He swoons over Taylor swift and thinks Sydney Sweeney is the most alluring person he's seen. That's fine. That's his taste. Take a look at his room featured on here often. Enough said! Not everyone is sensitive to what goes on around them or the styling of the place they live in and that's why some like you and Leon like Brexit and others like me don't
lol
You are a low watt minor-public-school retired tampon advertising executive who lives in a neo fascist enclave surrounded by Russian noovs
You are, without question, the most vulgar person on here
I don't think Roger has ever sunk to vulgarly displaying pics of his garish soft furnishings, but chacun à son goût.
When we post waspish put downs accusing others of vulgarity, perhaps we could avoid splitting the infinitive.
When we waspishly accuse others of splitting an infinitive, we should make sure there is an infinitive to split.
(Hint: infinitives don't end with -ing and "to" is an adverbial particle belonging with "sink". Sunk isn't an infinitive either)
Lucky is a pedant in training. Cut him a little slack.
Thankfully I am cutting you a little slack, as the split infinitive was there, obvious, and acknowledged by the original poster, you utter pillock.
Maybe find out what an infinitive is before calling people names.
Boys put your handbags down and move along
It's a teachable moment, malc.
Have only just wandered into this carnage, but surely "sunk to" is a prepositional verb i.e. "to" belongs with "sunk" not with "displaying".
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I think far right encompasses wanting the mass deportation of immigrants and the children of immigrants to be given fewer rights. There's a couple of regulars here who espouse such views.
Western societies are being polluted and risk being taken over by alien cultures (esp Islam) is a Far Right totem, I'd say. You can believe this and not be Far Right, or you can be Far Right and not believe it, but I doubt there'd be many in either category.
We literally have a de facto blasphemy law, enforced by the threat of death, because we have imported Islamic beliefs
Go ask the teacher in hiding in Batley
You simply deny this is happening. You lie - probably to yourself as well as the world. And then you can pretend that anyone who points this is “far right”
It’s kinda pitiful. And dangerously stupid
No, I was precise. I said it's possible (although quite rare) to subscribe to this core belief of the Far Right (that we are being overrun by Muslims) and yet not be Far Right.
And to prove the point here's you staking a claim to be one of these rather special people.
No, you clearly deny this tenet because you say it is typical of far right beliefs. And yet is is indisputably true
We have a de facto blasphemy law enforced by the death penalty because we have imported Islamic beliefs and we are fearful of Islamic anger. We cower
And people like you lead the cowering by simply pretending it isn’t happening
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
Britain First British Democrats (BDP) British First Party British National Party (BNP) Homeland Party National Front National Liberal Party
And as "right to far right"...
English Democrats Scottish Family Party UKIP
It's an interesting question because there are certainly some topics that Reform voters are very long distance away from the median voter on. They regularly come up as huge outliers, far more than Green voters do. But it's not every topic and on fiscal stuff they tend to be more centrist that the Tories.
I don't think their concern over the small boats is "far-right" - that's actually very close to the median. A blanket deportation policy? Possibly, particularly if they accidentally report UK citizens like Trump's ICE. There's also a significant difference between Reform policy and Reform voters.
Roger you need to look at it with both eyes. Consider what Hamas is doing. I support neither side bar the right to defend
I've always admired Roger. I couldn't be that consistently wrong about everything, all the time, even if I tried.
Think about it: even through sheer random chance, Roger ought to be occasionally right about something at sometimes purely due to the law of averages and basic statistical anomalies. And, yet, he isn't - ever.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art. In fact, I'm rather jealous.
But he didn't vote Leave. So he beats you hands down for judgement.
That rather proves the point.
However, for all I disagree with him on a vast range of political issues, I would say that Roger is on the side of the angels as far as his view of Israel under the current leadership is concerned.
70,000 Palestinians killed, more than twice that number injured, 2 million displaced, many repeatedly, starvation and famine, a place with no air defence bombed relentlessly to rubble, the brutal collective punishment of an entire population, most of them innocent, most of them women and children.
It's a terrible crime that Israel has committed and continues to commit. That it was triggered by a terrible crime against them changes this not one iota.
The idea that Hamas would detain foreign journalists is nonsense . It’s in their best interests to elicit sympathy from the west , holding journalists would do the opposite. The IDF Netenyahu apologists are defenders of genocide. The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti semitism are the actions of the IDF and Netenyahu.
The level of Hamas advocacy on here is quite startling and disturbing
I don’t want to make assumptions about your antecedents, but do the IDF take gentile foreign volunteers? Perhaps time for another empty gesture?
The IDF seem to be doing quite well at grinding down Hamas by themselves.
They should just keep up the good work until there are zero Hamas supporters left alive, or they surrender unconditionally.
Just as we did with WWII with both Germany and Japan.
I believe the IDF is suffering from battle fatigue and trauma from all those double tapped kids and bulldozed women. Is there an historical parallel whereby a nation saved their brave soldiers from the disgusting but necessary task of personally slaughtering women and kids by thinking up a more clinical method of dispatch, a final solution if you will?
Why do you doubt the humanity of the IDF?
Three Israeli hostages mistakenly killed by soldiers in Gaza on Friday had used leftover food to write signs pleading for help, Israel says.
The men had been staying at the building next to where they were shot "for some period of time", according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The head of the IDF told troops that they are "absolutely not" permitted to shoot those surrendering.
"The IDF doesn't shoot a person who raises their hands," said Herzi Halevi.
He said Gazans with a white flag must be arrested and not shot "if they lay down their arms and raise their hands"...
...Israeli officials have admitted that killing the three men who were holding a white flag was a breach of "rules of engagement".
Israel tells its troops NOT to shoot innocents or those surrendering, though mistakes will always happen in the fog of war.
Hamas tells its fighters TO shoot innocents.
The way to end the fighting is to fully defeat Hamas and everyone who supports them, until they surrender unconditionally and there's no more fog of war.
From your link it is clear that Israel's policy is not to fire at civilians and allegations that some have are being investigated by the "military advocate general".
Any criminal who breaks the law should face charges, but the Israelis investigate their own and have standards.
Hamas don't investigate those who shoot innocents they tell them to do so and reward them.
Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza, https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-soldier-describes-arbitrary-killing-of-civilians-in-gaza-13393422An Israeli reservist who served three tours of duty in Gaza has told Sky News in a rare on-camera interview that his unit was often ordered to shoot anyone entering areas soldiers defined as no-go zones, regardless of whether they posed a threat, a practice he says left civilians dead where they fell.
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
The transactional analysis types will tell you that the Abuser / Victim / Rescuer triad often has the various parties swap roles from time to time. Spend long enough as the under dog & you decide that being on top looks pretty good, even though its ultimately just perpetuating the cycle.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected) Barbecue. & Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
What is this nonsense ? The US administration seems to believe it has the right to force an unstable peace, on disadvantageous terms to Ukraine, and then take no responsibility for policing it.
Given it's Europe's future that's at stake, and Europe that's expected to pay for Ukraine's security, why do they get to decide our future ?
Russia will “have some stake” in discussions about security guarantees for Ukraine — US Vice President J.D. Vance.
“How can you reasonably provide security guarantees without talking to the Russians about what would be necessary to bring the war to a close?” Vance said during an NBC News interview.
Vance also reiterated that the US won't deploy American military personnel to Ukraine, while emphasizing that European nations and other countries would take on significant responsibilities. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1959875270610989128
Israel is a very very sick society and the sooner it is recognised it the better. All the support they had a few months ago is now gone. They are for the most part racists plain and simple.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I think far right encompasses wanting the mass deportation of immigrants and the children of immigrants to be given fewer rights. There's a couple of regulars here who espouse such views.
Western societies are being polluted and risk being taken over by alien cultures (esp Islam) is a Far Right totem, I'd say. You can believe this and not be Far Right, or you can be Far Right and not believe it, but I doubt there'd be many in either category.
We literally have a de facto blasphemy law, enforced by the threat of death, because we have imported Islamic beliefs
Go ask the teacher in hiding in Batley
You simply deny this is happening. You lie - probably to yourself as well as the world. And then you can pretend that anyone who points this is “far right”
It’s kinda pitiful. And dangerously stupid
No, I was precise. I said it's possible (although quite rare) to subscribe to this core belief of the Far Right (that we are being overrun by Muslims) and yet not be Far Right.
And to prove the point here's you staking a claim to be one of these rather special people.
No, you clearly deny this tenet because you say it is typical of far right beliefs. And yet is is indisputably true
We have a de facto blasphemy law enforced by the death penalty because we have imported Islamic beliefs and we are fearful of Islamic anger. We cower
And people like you lead the cowering by simply pretending it isn’t happening
I am not "leading the cowering". I am simply identifying a core belief of the far right.
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
The transactional analysis types will tell you that the Abuser / Victim / Rescuer triad often has the various parties swap roles from time to time. Spend long enough as the under dog & you decide that being on top looks pretty good, even though its ultimately just perpetuating the cycle.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected) Barbecue. & Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
What is this nonsense ? The US administration seems to believe it has the right to force an unstable peace, on disadvantageous terms to Ukraine, and then take no responsibility for policing it.
Given it's Europe's future that's at stake, and Europe that's expected to pay for Ukraine's security, why do they get to decide our future ?
Russia will “have some stake” in discussions about security guarantees for Ukraine — US Vice President J.D. Vance.
“How can you reasonably provide security guarantees without talking to the Russians about what would be necessary to bring the war to a close?” Vance said during an NBC News interview.
Vance also reiterated that the US won't deploy American military personnel to Ukraine, while emphasizing that European nations and other countries would take on significant responsibilities. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1959875270610989128
We need to take a much firmer line with the US. If they want us to look after ourselves (which is good) then they don't get to tell us what we can and can't do with regard to threats against ourselves and our neighbours.
Frankly I am of the opinion that the US can go fuck themselves.
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
The transactional analysis types will tell you that the Abuser / Victim / Rescuer triad often has the various parties swap roles from time to time. Spend long enough as the under dog & you decide that being on top looks pretty good, even though its ultimately just perpetuating the cycle.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected) Barbecue. & Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
Carfax conduit?
Very good!
Worth braving the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Centre open day to visit it - I’m told if you turn up and ask nicely they’ll let you walk up to it almost any time though.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
That's too wide imo. Racism is the USP of the Far Right. I would never apply the term to anybody who I don't consider seriously racist. They can as socially conservative as they like, anti abortion, death penalty for littering, bring back national service, whatever, but without the racism they're falling short in my book.
Is there a subtle difference between nativism, if you consider that putting the interests of your country’s existing nationals way ahead of “incomers” and racism, an irrational hatred of people with different colour skins/cultures.
I think there is a difference and both can be bad, but do we fail to find solutions because we lump every fear or concern about “the other” as racism and so kill any chance of sensible debate?
Well it's how I use the term. In practice there's probably little difference since nativism and racism usually co-exist imo.
Roger you need to look at it with both eyes. Consider what Hamas is doing. I support neither side bar the right to defend
I've always admired Roger. I couldn't be that consistently wrong about everything, all the time, even if I tried.
Think about it: even through sheer random chance, Roger ought to be occasionally right about something at sometimes purely due to the law of averages and basic statistical anomalies. And, yet, he isn't - ever.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art. In fact, I'm rather jealous.
But he didn't vote Leave. So he beats you hands down for judgement.
That rather proves the point.
However, for all I disagree with him on a vast range of political issues, I would say that Roger is on the side of the angels as far as his view of Israel under the current leadership is concerned.
70,000 Palestinians killed, more than twice that number injured, 2 million displaced, many repeatedly, starvation and famine, a place with no air defence bombed relentlessly to rubble, the brutal collective punishment of an entire population, most of them innocent, most of them women and children.
It's a terrible crime that Israel has committed and continues to commit. That it was triggered by a terrible crime against them changes this not one iota.
Not sure (genuinely) if that was meant to be a counter to what I said or support? If the former then you have clearly misunderstood me and my view of the Israeli regime.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
Roger you need to look at it with both eyes. Consider what Hamas is doing. I support neither side bar the right to defend
I've always admired Roger. I couldn't be that consistently wrong about everything, all the time, even if I tried.
Think about it: even through sheer random chance, Roger ought to be occasionally right about something at sometimes purely due to the law of averages and basic statistical anomalies. And, yet, he isn't - ever.
It's a remarkable piece of performance art. In fact, I'm rather jealous.
But he didn't vote Leave. So he beats you hands down for judgement.
That rather proves the point.
However, for all I disagree with him on a vast range of political issues, I would say that Roger is on the side of the angels as far as his view of Israel under the current leadership is concerned.
70,000 Palestinians killed, more than twice that number injured, 2 million displaced, many repeatedly, starvation and famine, a place with no air defence bombed relentlessly to rubble, the brutal collective punishment of an entire population, most of them innocent, most of them women and children.
It's a terrible crime that Israel has committed and continues to commit. That it was triggered by a terrible crime against them changes this not one iota.
Not sure (genuinely) if that was meant to be a counter to what I said or support? If the former then you have clearly misunderstood me and my view of the Israeli regime.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
Absolutely!
As a Carnivore I have never, ever tried to compel anyone to eat meat that doesn’t want to.
I have had meat free or plant based bullshit spread to me by others trying to make my diet somehow wrong or not catered for.
The polite thing to do is cater for everyone. Trying to make it all vegan or all carnivore when people of both stripes exist is immoral.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
It seems to me that the difference with vegans is that in mixed company, they expect everyone to eat vegan - even vegetarians. Omnivores and vegetarians don’t expect everyone to eat what they are eating.
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
The transactional analysis types will tell you that the Abuser / Victim / Rescuer triad often has the various parties swap roles from time to time. Spend long enough as the under dog & you decide that being on top looks pretty good, even though its ultimately just perpetuating the cycle.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected) Barbecue. & Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
They are basically the Illuminati.
(I think even it wasn't for vegans your corporate bites would be that way simply because it's the cheapest way to provide food to people with various religions, allergies, tolerances. It's certainly not made its way to all the woke weddings I've attended. Had beef at the last one, unreal).
If you're upset about not having any meat, take it up with your firm, don't blame the vegans.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I think far right encompasses wanting the mass deportation of immigrants and the children of immigrants to be given fewer rights. There's a couple of regulars here who espouse such views.
Western societies are being polluted and risk being taken over by alien cultures (esp Islam) is a Far Right totem, I'd say. You can believe this and not be Far Right, or you can be Far Right and not believe it, but I doubt there'd be many in either category.
We literally have a de facto blasphemy law, enforced by the threat of death, because we have imported Islamic beliefs
Go ask the teacher in hiding in Batley
You simply deny this is happening. You lie - probably to yourself as well as the world. And then you can pretend that anyone who points this is “far right”
It’s kinda pitiful. And dangerously stupid
No, I was precise. I said it's possible (although quite rare) to subscribe to this core belief of the Far Right (that we are being overrun by Muslims) and yet not be Far Right.
And to prove the point here's you staking a claim to be one of these rather special people.
No, you clearly deny this tenet because you say it is typical of far right beliefs. And yet is is indisputably true
We have a de facto blasphemy law enforced by the death penalty because we have imported Islamic beliefs and we are fearful of Islamic anger. We cower
And people like you lead the cowering by simply pretending it isn’t happening
Why people hate and want to "own" da Libz:
(1) De facto blasphemy laws (2) Book thrown at anyone White who does a racial; excuses for those who are not - both because of "Community Relations" (3) Sneering at patriotism as "far-right", and a desire to eliminate its celebration (unless in service of an EDI cause) (4) Hectoring to them that any scepticism of immigration is down to their lack of education (5) Vegans being noble and gentle folk, who you bend to unless you're an arsehole (6) Disgust and embarrassment at all cornerstones of national history and institutions (unless EDI controlled)
Sum it all up: you've got pomposity, arrogance, self-entitlement and cowardice there. And not only do they not listen, they are always in charge, so you're left with no choice but to "own" them.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
Absolutely!
As a Carnivore I have never, ever tried to compel anyone to eat meat that doesn’t want to.
I have had meat free or plant based bullshit spread to me by others trying to make my diet somehow wrong or not catered for.
The polite thing to do is cater for everyone. Trying to make it all vegan or all carnivore when people of both stripes exist is immoral.
Ricky Gervais was most annoyed when he was hosting the Golden Globes and the food was vegetarian.
He said, 'Tonight, the meal was all vegetables. As are all members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.'
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
They are basically the Illuminati.
(I think even it wasn't for vegans your corporate bites would be that way simply because it's the cheapest way to provide food to people with various religions, allergies, tolerances. It's certainly not made its way to all the woke weddings I've attended. Had beef at the last one, unreal).
If you're upset about not having any meat, take it up with your firm, don't blame the vegans.
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
The transactional analysis types will tell you that the Abuser / Victim / Rescuer triad often has the various parties swap roles from time to time. Spend long enough as the under dog & you decide that being on top looks pretty good, even though its ultimately just perpetuating the cycle.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected) Barbecue. & Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
Carfax conduit?
Very good!
Worth braving the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Centre open day to visit it - I’m told if you turn up and ask nicely they’ll let you walk up to it almost any time though.
Nice photo too! But - as a public water dispenser - it really must have been a traffic-blocker in the main crossroads at Oxford before it got carted off by the relevant Harcourt gentry to Nuneham Courtenay.
It's amazing what turns up in odd corners. A chap has been doing a blog on his rousting around in nearby grand houses and parks for the various bits of the original Scottish Parliament which got handed out to assorted lords, rather like the conduit got handed out to Lord Harcourt.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
They are basically the Illuminati.
(I think even it wasn't for vegans your corporate bites would be that way simply because it's the cheapest way to provide food to people with various religions, allergies, tolerances. It's certainly not made its way to all the woke weddings I've attended. Had beef at the last one, unreal).
If you're upset about not having any meat, take it up with your firm, don't blame the vegans.
What is a "woke wedding"?
I'm curious.
Rejected first version of Billy Idol’s 1982 smash “White Wedding” I understand.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
They are basically the Illuminati.
(I think even it wasn't for vegans your corporate bites would be that way simply because it's the cheapest way to provide food to people with various religions, allergies, tolerances. It's certainly not made its way to all the woke weddings I've attended. Had beef at the last one, unreal).
If you're upset about not having any meat, take it up with your firm, don't blame the vegans.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
The Israelis have turned into Nazis. It will be a study for years to come. There's hardly a Jew in Europe who are still making excuses for Israel. Even the Americans have caught on. You can barely find an excuse for Israel anymore
The transactional analysis types will tell you that the Abuser / Victim / Rescuer triad often has the various parties swap roles from time to time. Spend long enough as the under dog & you decide that being on top looks pretty good, even though its ultimately just perpetuating the cycle.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected) Barbecue. & Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
Carfax conduit?
Very good!
Worth braving the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Centre open day to visit it - I’m told if you turn up and ask nicely they’ll let you walk up to it almost any time though.
Nice photo too! But - as a public water dispenser - it really must have been a traffic-blocker in the main crossroads at Oxford before it got carted off by the relevant Harcourt gentry to Nuneham Courtenay.
It's amazing what turns up in odd corners. A chap has been doing a blog on his rousting around in nearby grand houses and parks for the various bits of the original Scottish Parliament which got handed out to assorted lords, rather like the conduit got handed out to Lord Harcourt.
Yes, if you read the history it was clearly an enormous pain, not helped by St.Martin’s church that had also been built on Carfax & blocked the way for years until the town eventually demolished it in 1896.
The conduit itself was clearly one of those “be careful about which gifts you accept” things.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
They are basically the Illuminati.
(I think even it wasn't for vegans your corporate bites would be that way simply because it's the cheapest way to provide food to people with various religions, allergies, tolerances. It's certainly not made its way to all the woke weddings I've attended. Had beef at the last one, unreal).
If you're upset about not having any meat, take it up with your firm, don't blame the vegans.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
Whenever I’m in the Royal Squre here I can’t help but think of The Battle of Jersey. When you see the space it took place in with the French in spitting distance of the English and Jersey Militia with the Scots regiments firing down onto the square from a big hill overlooking its brutal. A few thousand men facing off with no cover.
Even though a number of the buildings have changed it’s quite strange. There are still plenty of holes in existing buildings from musket and cannon balls.
The height of it was depicted in a great (and huge) painting in the Tate below. Interestingly the leader of the French, the Baron de Rullecourt, is buried in the church yards away and his headstone is a simple square of Granite with just “De Rullecourt” engraved.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
It seems to me that the difference with vegans is that in mixed company, they expect everyone to eat vegan - even vegetarians. Omnivores and vegetarians don’t expect everyone to eat what they are eating.
... they don't? I'm starting to wonder if it's just something they do to you guys to wind you up.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The more I read about it, the more I conclude that battle (and war) is horrible in almost every single way.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
Whenever I’m in the Royal Squre here I can’t help but think of The Battle of Jersey. When you see the space it took place in with the French in spitting distance of the English and Jersey Militia with the Scots regiments firing down onto the square from a big hill overlooking its brutal. A few thousand men facing off with no cover.
Even though a number of the buildings have changed it’s quite strange. There are still plenty of holes in existing buildings from musket and cannon balls.
The height of it was depicted in a great (and huge) painting in the Tate below. Interestingly the leader of the French, the Baron de Rullecourt, is buried in the church yards away and his headstone is a simple square of Granite with just “De Rullecourt” engraved.
Yes exactly
It’s the same at the Somme
It’s only when you go there - to Thiepval - and you realise the British tommies literally WALKED up that hill into the withering German machine gun fire
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
I have taken part in a Battle of Hastings reenactment.
But in general I agree, to understand a battle you need to walk the field. I have done quite a lot of Napoleonic ones. At Austerlitz you understand the scale. Waterloo is brilliant. At Arnhem you can walk the perimeter.
The idea that Hamas would detain foreign journalists is nonsense . It’s in their best interests to elicit sympathy from the west , holding journalists would do the opposite. The IDF Netenyahu apologists are defenders of genocide. The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti semitism are the actions of the IDF and Netenyahu.
The level of Hamas advocacy on here is quite startling and disturbing
I don’t want to make assumptions about your antecedents, but do the IDF take gentile foreign volunteers? Perhaps time for another empty gesture?
The IDF seem to be doing quite well at grinding down Hamas by themselves.
They should just keep up the good work until there are zero Hamas supporters left alive, or they surrender unconditionally.
Just as we did with WWII with both Germany and Japan.
I believe the IDF is suffering from battle fatigue and trauma from all those double tapped kids and bulldozed women. Is there an historical parallel whereby a nation saved their brave soldiers from the disgusting but necessary task of personally slaughtering women and kids by thinking up a more clinical method of dispatch, a final solution if you will?
Why do you doubt the humanity of the IDF?
Three Israeli hostages mistakenly killed by soldiers in Gaza on Friday had used leftover food to write signs pleading for help, Israel says.
The men had been staying at the building next to where they were shot "for some period of time", according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The head of the IDF told troops that they are "absolutely not" permitted to shoot those surrendering.
"The IDF doesn't shoot a person who raises their hands," said Herzi Halevi.
He said Gazans with a white flag must be arrested and not shot "if they lay down their arms and raise their hands"...
...Israeli officials have admitted that killing the three men who were holding a white flag was a breach of "rules of engagement".
Israel tells its troops NOT to shoot innocents or those surrendering, though mistakes will always happen in the fog of war.
Hamas tells its fighters TO shoot innocents.
The way to end the fighting is to fully defeat Hamas and everyone who supports them, until they surrender unconditionally and there's no more fog of war.
From your link it is clear that Israel's policy is not to fire at civilians and allegations that some have are being investigated by the "military advocate general".
Any criminal who breaks the law should face charges, but the Israelis investigate their own and have standards.
Hamas don't investigate those who shoot innocents they tell them to do so and reward them.
Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza, https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-soldier-describes-arbitrary-killing-of-civilians-in-gaza-13393422An Israeli reservist who served three tours of duty in Gaza has told Sky News in a rare on-camera interview that his unit was often ordered to shoot anyone entering areas soldiers defined as no-go zones, regardless of whether they posed a threat, a practice he says left civilians dead where they fell.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
Whenever I’m in the Royal Squre here I can’t help but think of The Battle of Jersey. When you see the space it took place in with the French in spitting distance of the English and Jersey Militia with the Scots regiments firing down onto the square from a big hill overlooking its brutal. A few thousand men facing off with no cover.
Even though a number of the buildings have changed it’s quite strange. There are still plenty of holes in existing buildings from musket and cannon balls.
The height of it was depicted in a great (and huge) painting in the Tate below. Interestingly the leader of the French, the Baron de Rullecourt, is buried in the church yards away and his headstone is a simple square of Granite with just “De Rullecourt” engraved.
Yes exactly
It’s the same at the Somme
It’s only when you go there - to Thiepval - and you realise the British tommies literally WALKED up that hill into the withering German machine gun fire
It is harrowing, in situ
It’s a similar experience to certain war memorials. At school we had the war cloister, designed by Herbert Baker, and it’s stunning but you walk through several times a day and can’t help notice names of the 600 old boys who died in WW1 and the 250 odd in WW2 engraved on the wall. You see these names, young men with the world ahead of them with privilege, titles galore all wasted largely in Belgium and France.
You find yourself in their heads sometimes, even though you can’t really know the horror, but you cannot not be moved daily.
The idea that Hamas would detain foreign journalists is nonsense . It’s in their best interests to elicit sympathy from the west , holding journalists would do the opposite. The IDF Netenyahu apologists are defenders of genocide. The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti semitism are the actions of the IDF and Netenyahu.
The level of Hamas advocacy on here is quite startling and disturbing
I don’t want to make assumptions about your antecedents, but do the IDF take gentile foreign volunteers? Perhaps time for another empty gesture?
The IDF seem to be doing quite well at grinding down Hamas by themselves.
They should just keep up the good work until there are zero Hamas supporters left alive, or they surrender unconditionally.
Just as we did with WWII with both Germany and Japan.
I believe the IDF is suffering from battle fatigue and trauma from all those double tapped kids and bulldozed women. Is there an historical parallel whereby a nation saved their brave soldiers from the disgusting but necessary task of personally slaughtering women and kids by thinking up a more clinical method of dispatch, a final solution if you will?
Why do you doubt the humanity of the IDF?
Three Israeli hostages mistakenly killed by soldiers in Gaza on Friday had used leftover food to write signs pleading for help, Israel says.
The men had been staying at the building next to where they were shot "for some period of time", according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The head of the IDF told troops that they are "absolutely not" permitted to shoot those surrendering.
"The IDF doesn't shoot a person who raises their hands," said Herzi Halevi.
He said Gazans with a white flag must be arrested and not shot "if they lay down their arms and raise their hands"...
...Israeli officials have admitted that killing the three men who were holding a white flag was a breach of "rules of engagement".
Israel tells its troops NOT to shoot innocents or those surrendering, though mistakes will always happen in the fog of war.
Hamas tells its fighters TO shoot innocents.
The way to end the fighting is to fully defeat Hamas and everyone who supports them, until they surrender unconditionally and there's no more fog of war.
From your link it is clear that Israel's policy is not to fire at civilians and allegations that some have are being investigated by the "military advocate general".
Any criminal who breaks the law should face charges, but the Israelis investigate their own and have standards.
Hamas don't investigate those who shoot innocents they tell them to do so and reward them.
Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza, https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-soldier-describes-arbitrary-killing-of-civilians-in-gaza-13393422An Israeli reservist who served three tours of duty in Gaza has told Sky News in a rare on-camera interview that his unit was often ordered to shoot anyone entering areas soldiers defined as no-go zones, regardless of whether they posed a threat, a practice he says left civilians dead where they fell.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
I know the incline but I don't remember getting quite that level of insight from Battle. As with a good number of places, my levels of insight varied somewhat by how much I was chasing the kids' needs round that particular day.
Now, stood atop Stirling Castle and looking out over the English Bannockburn camping positions with, iirc, their backs to the Forth marshlands (and seeing some retained natural marshland further upstream) and little escape, that was eye opening, as in, "bloody hell, the total pillocks".
What is this nonsense ? The US administration seems to believe it has the right to force an unstable peace, on disadvantageous terms to Ukraine, and then take no responsibility for policing it.
Given it's Europe's future that's at stake, and Europe that's expected to pay for Ukraine's security, why do they get to decide our future ?
Russia will “have some stake” in discussions about security guarantees for Ukraine — US Vice President J.D. Vance.
“How can you reasonably provide security guarantees without talking to the Russians about what would be necessary to bring the war to a close?” Vance said during an NBC News interview.
Vance also reiterated that the US won't deploy American military personnel to Ukraine, while emphasizing that European nations and other countries would take on significant responsibilities. https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1959875270610989128
If the USA has no skin in the game, then why indeed, should Vance’s opinions be of significance?
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
It seems to me that the difference with vegans is that in mixed company, they expect everyone to eat vegan - even vegetarians. Omnivores and vegetarians don’t expect everyone to eat what they are eating.
Not my experience of the only 2 I know. In fact we met up a few weeks ago at a carvery.
However I was conscious of how thin they looked. They looked in need of a steak and kidney pie followed by a treacle suet pudding.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I'm right in the middle of that crowd and while you get a small minority with views like that, most people are pretty pragmatic about what path we should take. A lot of the culture war stuff is projection from the right.
E.g. "car bans" = LTNs and pedestrianisation, both of which have been uncontroversial topics advocated for by both parties for several decades. I've never had a vegan make much of a fuss about their diet other than a polite request, but have certainly come across carnivores driven close to madness by their very existence.
It's just a lash tbh.
I agree most people in this country are naturally pragmatic, but of course it's always the other side that "started" the culture war.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
I think you're proving my point. It's basic courtesy to work around what people prefer, their beliefs or whatever as long as it doesn't cost us much to do so. The fact you're so upset about it proves that it's ultimately projection. You're the offended one, the passive aggressive one with all the grumbling.
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
No, I've attended several industry events and conferences were the meal was "vegan" or "plant-based" with no forewarning - or choice - offered to those who were not. It was usually justified by a statement on 'cruelty-free' or climate-change.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
Absolutely!
As a Carnivore I have never, ever tried to compel anyone to eat meat that doesn’t want to.
I have had meat free or plant based bullshit spread to me by others trying to make my diet somehow wrong or not catered for.
The polite thing to do is cater for everyone. Trying to make it all vegan or all carnivore when people of both stripes exist is immoral.
Ricky Gervais was most annoyed when he was hosting the Golden Globes and the food was vegetarian.
He said, 'Tonight, the meal was all vegetables. As are all members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.'
The idea that Hamas would detain foreign journalists is nonsense . It’s in their best interests to elicit sympathy from the west , holding journalists would do the opposite. The IDF Netenyahu apologists are defenders of genocide. The biggest recruiting sergeant for anti semitism are the actions of the IDF and Netenyahu.
The level of Hamas advocacy on here is quite startling and disturbing
I don’t want to make assumptions about your antecedents, but do the IDF take gentile foreign volunteers? Perhaps time for another empty gesture?
The IDF seem to be doing quite well at grinding down Hamas by themselves.
They should just keep up the good work until there are zero Hamas supporters left alive, or they surrender unconditionally.
Just as we did with WWII with both Germany and Japan.
I believe the IDF is suffering from battle fatigue and trauma from all those double tapped kids and bulldozed women. Is there an historical parallel whereby a nation saved their brave soldiers from the disgusting but necessary task of personally slaughtering women and kids by thinking up a more clinical method of dispatch, a final solution if you will?
Why do you doubt the humanity of the IDF?
Three Israeli hostages mistakenly killed by soldiers in Gaza on Friday had used leftover food to write signs pleading for help, Israel says.
The men had been staying at the building next to where they were shot "for some period of time", according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
The head of the IDF told troops that they are "absolutely not" permitted to shoot those surrendering.
"The IDF doesn't shoot a person who raises their hands," said Herzi Halevi.
He said Gazans with a white flag must be arrested and not shot "if they lay down their arms and raise their hands"...
...Israeli officials have admitted that killing the three men who were holding a white flag was a breach of "rules of engagement".
Israel tells its troops NOT to shoot innocents or those surrendering, though mistakes will always happen in the fog of war.
Hamas tells its fighters TO shoot innocents.
The way to end the fighting is to fully defeat Hamas and everyone who supports them, until they surrender unconditionally and there's no more fog of war.
From your link it is clear that Israel's policy is not to fire at civilians and allegations that some have are being investigated by the "military advocate general".
Any criminal who breaks the law should face charges, but the Israelis investigate their own and have standards.
Hamas don't investigate those who shoot innocents they tell them to do so and reward them.
Israeli soldier describes arbitrary killing of civilians in Gaza, https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-soldier-describes-arbitrary-killing-of-civilians-in-gaza-13393422An Israeli reservist who served three tours of duty in Gaza has told Sky News in a rare on-camera interview that his unit was often ordered to shoot anyone entering areas soldiers defined as no-go zones, regardless of whether they posed a threat, a practice he says left civilians dead where they fell.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The more I read about it, the more I conclude that battle (and war) is horrible in almost every single way.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
Otherwise, the tragedy will come again.
That is one area where a fall in birth rates will be beneficial.
Till recently, birth rates, even whilst declining, tended to run ahead of death rates. Governments could wage wars without regard to casualties, in the knowledge that the population would bounce back, fairly rapidly.
For a long time, rates of military mortality, among young men, were fairly similar to rates of maternal mortality, among young women.
Increasingly, the lives of men of military age are becoming more precious. That means, war planners need to keep casualties to a minimum. Stupid governments, like Putin’s, have yet to realise that.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The more I read about it, the more I conclude that battle (and war) is horrible in almost every single way.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
Otherwise, the tragedy will come again.
See John Keegan’s ‘Face of battle’ for a lengthy, detailed version of this post. Can’t help but agree with you. I have read much history, military and not and always wonder how I would have fared. Hope never to have to find out.
And yet major battles tended to be rare. How many set piece battles were there in the Hundred Years War? It was also the case that battles such as Hastings were unusual in duration. It’s really hard to fight in heavy armour with medieval weapons. The fighting at Hastings cannot have been continuous, but surges of activity with gaps between. Most battles were shorter and people tended to flee when things were going South. Still awful though.
All this talk of race and stuff yesterday we went to the Newcastle Mela. Basically a food festival put on by the local Asian community with street food, stalls flogging stuff and music from local acts.
It was lovely. Lots of people from different races and ethnicities all there just enjoying the day. Even there being no booze wasn’t a downer.
Sad we lost this, or only have rare glimpses of it, as a whole.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The more I read about it, the more I conclude that battle (and war) is horrible in almost every single way.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
Otherwise, the tragedy will come again.
See John Keegan’s ‘Face of battle’ for a lengthy, detailed version of this post. Can’t help but agree with you. I have read much history, military and not and always wonder how I would have fared. Hope never to have to find out.
And yet major battles tended to be rare. How many set piece battles were there in the Hundred Years War? It was also the case that battles such as Hastings were unusual in duration. It’s really hard to fight in heavy armour with medieval weapons. The fighting at Hastings cannot have been continuous, but surges of activity with gaps between. Most battles were shorter and people tended to flee when things were going South. Still awful though.
Typically, more soldiers died of disease than in battle, in the majority of wars. And in most conflicts, sieges and raids were far more common than in pitched battles. Mortality rates were usually worse among besiegers than among the besieged, which is why cities that were stormed were treated so savagely.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
If you go underground in to the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho CHi Minh CIty, you can see why the Americans were never going to defeat the Vietnamese. Anybody who would willingly put themselves through such subterranean horrors was always going to beat a force where home comforts were so important.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
I want you to pray for me and not cry over me, so I can remain happy. I want you to make me proud, to succeed, to excel, to stand strong, and to become a capable businessman, my love.
I want you, my dear, never to forget me. I always did everything to make you happy, to keep you joyful and comfortable, and to give you everything.
When you grow up, get married, and have a daughter, name her Maryam after me. You are my love, my heart, my support, my soul, and my son who always makes me proud and brings me joy with his good reputation. I entrust you, Gaith, to your prayers—your prayers, your prayers, my dear.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The more I read about it, the more I conclude that battle (and war) is horrible in almost every single way.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
Otherwise, the tragedy will come again.
And yet, if the attempts to avoid it fails, you may need to go to war. Whether we should have declared war in 1914 is contentious (and has been debated on here recently...), but there is very little doubt that declaring war in 1939 was the right thing to do.
Someone like Hitler or Putin cares little for your good preparation, deterrence, determination, education or very skilled diplomacy. They want something, and will go to war to get it. If you are the victim of their aggression, it becomes a case of either submitting to their will or fighting.
And your eloquent post shows why people like Hitler and Putin should be damned for eternity.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
If you go underground in to the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho CHi Minh CIty, you can see why the Americans were never going to defeat the Vietnamese. Anybody who would willingly put themselves through such subterranean horrors was always going to beat a force where home comforts were so important.
I was amused/saddened to hear from a collague recently returned from working in Vietnam that in some cases they have widened the tunnels substantially so that American tourists can fit down them.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
Britain First British Democrats (BDP) British First Party British National Party (BNP) Homeland Party National Front National Liberal Party
And as "right to far right"...
English Democrats Scottish Family Party UKIP
That list does smack, more than just a little, of the Peoples Front of Judea sketch.
The horseshoe theory, again.
And the reason for the multiplicity of parties is, indeed, similar. Weird, strong personalities, each seeking to be The Leader multiplied by imagined/invented doctrinal differences.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The more I read about it, the more I conclude that battle (and war) is horrible in almost every single way.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
Otherwise, the tragedy will come again.
See John Keegan’s ‘Face of battle’ for a lengthy, detailed version of this post. Can’t help but agree with you. I have read much history, military and not and always wonder how I would have fared. Hope never to have to find out.
And yet major battles tended to be rare. How many set piece battles were there in the Hundred Years War? It was also the case that battles such as Hastings were unusual in duration. It’s really hard to fight in heavy armour with medieval weapons. The fighting at Hastings cannot have been continuous, but surges of activity with gaps between. Most battles were shorter and people tended to flee when things were going South. Still awful though.
Awful as battle is, war is worse, as it is not even a zero sum game - over time it’s a negative sum one - which effects entire societies, and retards civilisation. It seems to have taken millennia to work that out.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
If you go underground in to the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho CHi Minh CIty, you can see why the Americans were never going to defeat the Vietnamese. Anybody who would willingly put themselves through such subterranean horrors was always going to beat a force where home comforts were so important.
I’ve been to the cu chi tunnels and that’s a very good example. Horrifyingly claustrophobic. The idea of fighting down there omfg
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
If you go underground in to the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho CHi Minh CIty, you can see why the Americans were never going to defeat the Vietnamese. Anybody who would willingly put themselves through such subterranean horrors was always going to beat a force where home comforts were so important.
I was amused/saddened to hear from a collague recently returned from working in Vietnam that in some cases they have widened the tunnels substantially so that American tourists can fit down them.
I was there in the early 90's. They may have raised the ceiling heights somewhat by then, but they were big enough to move broken down artillery pieces through them, so were never tiny.
However, they had not touched the second level. Only two of us took the challenge to go down there. You had to crouch on your haunches to get through. The humidity was horrific down there.
Beneath that was another level, only big enough for a child to take messages.
We have a family friend whose father was a tunnel rat. Possibly the most terrifying job of the Vietnam war.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
In which case there's no reason to ban it. Just let it not happen by market forces, or if a firm can make it viable, then they can get on with it.
A bit like the North Sea. We get people saying that North Sea oil and gas is no longer viable, while simultaneously saying it should be banned. If its not viable, don't ban it.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
If you go underground in to the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho CHi Minh CIty, you can see why the Americans were never going to defeat the Vietnamese. Anybody who would willingly put themselves through such subterranean horrors was always going to beat a force where home comforts were so important.
I was amused/saddened to hear from a collague recently returned from working in Vietnam that in some cases they have widened the tunnels substantially so that American tourists can fit down them.
One of the Petrovietnam buildings was the one where the famous chopper evacuation flights left from Saigon.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
My dissillusionment with the whole oil industry started early in my career when I realised that there were instances where it was far better for company directors if we didn't find any oil than if we did. Very much smacked of an industry version of The Producers.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
The problem is that most of the people who support fracking have very little idea of what is involved. And, I'm not talking about environmental impact or net zero. I'm talking about the fact that, in the US, it is done in massive areas with no people. No one is fracking in the suburbs or outside pretty villages, they're fracking on massive empty ranches with a population density of fuck all.
The UK isn't like that. The UK - even the less populated bits - still has lots of people.
And fracking is fundamentally very land intensive. It involves setting up a drill pad, drilling horizontal wells, then bringing in massive diesel pumps to do hydraulic fracturing of the rock,
To make that all economic you need to run the gear 24 hours a day. If you're only doing it 8 hours a day, it costs 3x as much to produce. And there aren't many* communities in the UK that will want drilling and fracking equipment running 24/7 for six months in their local environs.
Finally: we've drilled some wells. And the results have not been great. There's not been a single well by iGas or one of the other players in this space that's encountered commercial quantities of gas. Now, it may be that -with time- that can be overcome. It took a long while to get some of the US shale plays producing economically. But if you put the two things together: (1) much higher costs, because the UK is a dense country, and (2) the lack of any formations that are clearly economically viable, and you can see why iGas and Caudrilla lost 99% of their value before there were any bans on fracking in the UK.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't really interesting projects that could be economically viable. I quite like in-situ gassification of old coalfields under the sea. (And which, by the way, might be remarkably economic as well as not being anywhere near as disruptive.)
But just saying 'fracking' demonstrates you really don't know very much about energy production.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
My dissillusionment with the whole oil industry started early in my career when I realised that there were instances where it was far better for company directors if we didn't find any oil than if we did. Very much smacked of an industry version of The Producers.
I have some very entertaining stories I can share over a beer on just this subject.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
My dissillusionment with the whole oil industry started early in my career when I realised that there were instances where it was far better for company directors if we didn't find any oil than if we did. Very much smacked of an industry version of The Producers.
I'm curious about one thing with the whole fracking business: in the UK is it remotely even comparably economic to do it when there is clearly still oil and gas in the North Sea and there is the actual infrastructure there and the skills to just drill it out?
Norway announced last week they had discovered a whole ton more in one their zones thanks to improved discovery tech iirc.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
In which case there's no reason to ban it. Just let it not happen by market forces, or if a firm can make it viable, then they can get on with it.
A bit like the North Sea. We get people saying that North Sea oil and gas is no longer viable, while simultaneously saying it should be banned. If its not viable, don't ban it.
I am not bothered one way or another about the ban. What I would say is that any company directors embarking on a fracking project should be held personally responsible as individuals for the full costs of cleaning it all up afterwards when it has failed to become economic (which it will). No ability to declare bankruptcy, no escaping from their responsibilities.
I am currently planning the abandonment of the Forties Oil Field. It will cost Apache hundreds of millions and to their credit they are doing it properly. Too many smaller companies have popped up, failed to ind anhything and then left a mess behind for the tax payer to clean up.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
In which case there's no reason to ban it. Just let it not happen by market forces, or if a firm can make it viable, then they can get on with it.
A bit like the North Sea. We get people saying that North Sea oil and gas is no longer viable, while simultaneously saying it should be banned. If its not viable, don't ban it.
I am not bothered one way or another about the ban. What I would say is that any company directors embarking on a fracking project should be held personally responsible as individuals for the full costs of cleaning it all up afterwards when it has failed to become economic (which it will). No ability to declare bankruptcy, no escaping from their responsibilities.
I am currently planning the abandonment of the Forties Oil Field. It will cost Apache hundreds of millions and to their credit they are doing it properly. Too many smaller companies have popped up, failed to ind anhything and then left a mess behind for the tax payer to clean up.
Some of the bigger oil companies sell to smaller ones solely to dodge clean up costs. The smaller one runs it for a few years, doesn't save for the cleanup, pays the Directors massive bonuses, and then goes bust.
It's the oil and gas equivalent of the guys who stripped Rover or that department store.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
In which case there's no reason to ban it. Just let it not happen by market forces, or if a firm can make it viable, then they can get on with it.
A bit like the North Sea. We get people saying that North Sea oil and gas is no longer viable, while simultaneously saying it should be banned. If its not viable, don't ban it.
I am not bothered one way or another about the ban. What I would say is that any company directors embarking on a fracking project should be held personally responsible as individuals for the full costs of cleaning it all up afterwards when it has failed to become economic (which it will). No ability to declare bankruptcy, no escaping from their responsibilities.
I am currently planning the abandonment of the Forties Oil Field. It will cost Apache hundreds of millions and to their credit they are doing it properly. Too many smaller companies have popped up, failed to ind anhything and then left a mess behind for the tax payer to clean up.
Some of the bigger oil companies sell to smaller ones solely to dodge clean up costs. The smaller one runs it for a few years, doesn't save for the cleanup, pays the Directors massive bonuses, and then goes bust.
It's the oil and gas equivalent of the guys who stripped Rover or that department store.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
If you go underground in to the Cu Chi tunnels near Ho CHi Minh CIty, you can see why the Americans were never going to defeat the Vietnamese. Anybody who would willingly put themselves through such subterranean horrors was always going to beat a force where home comforts were so important.
I was amused/saddened to hear from a collague recently returned from working in Vietnam that in some cases they have widened the tunnels substantially so that American tourists can fit down them.
One of the Petrovietnam buildings was the one where the famous chopper evacuation flights left from Saigon.
Americans were very keen to go up on that rooftop, for some reason.
I suspect @Leon 's point is well made because reading about a battle can't bring to the fore how all important the terrain is to the situation in many battles.
The marshy land around Tannenberg being a good example.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
Britain First British Democrats (BDP) British First Party British National Party (BNP) Homeland Party National Front National Liberal Party
And as "right to far right"...
English Democrats Scottish Family Party UKIP
The National Liberal Party must have travelled some way since Hezza stood for them in the Gower in '59
The National Liberal Party for which Heseltine stood as a candidate was formally dissolved and wound up in 1968. One of the last National Liberal MPs was David Renton who was the last Chairman and MP for Huntingdon until 1979 when he was succeeded by one John Major (whatever happened to him?).
Whatever current incarnation has appropriated the name is no relation to the party which was dissolved in 1968. The current SDP, however, can be traced back to those who opted to continue the party even after the then leadership decided to dissolve the organisation after the first Bootle by-election in May 1990.
It’s hard to overstate what a disaster Boris Johnson turned out to be. It’s likely none of the present tensions would be happening in the UK if he hadn’t done this. The worst thing is, I couldn’t tell you if he did it on purpose or by accident. Either is quite possible.
At the time I remember plenty of Brexiteers saying things like "it's not about the numbers, it's about control" and claiming that immigration from the Commonwealth would be less unpopular with the sort of people who don't like immigration than immigration from the EU. I have to say that both arguments seemed implausible at the time.
With the odd exception, I don't think immigration from the commonwealth is a problem. Immigration from India is very visible in my part of the world, but it isn't really a problem: these are by and large skilled immigrants whom Britain has sought and who integrate easily. The problem is illegals and dubious asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa.
It's the Euroopeans who have disappeared that I miss the most. You could go round towns and cities all over the UK and it was full of young attractive people speaking a multitude of languages. It's like that in the Sounth of France everywhere and it used to be like that in England. It's difficult to realise how it's changed over the last nine or ten years
Ah, Europe, the continent where there are no ugly young people, just attractive ones, so many in fact that they could send tens of thousands over to work in the UK and display their beauty. And shame on the rest of the world for not supplying us with attractive guest workers to perv over.
This country.
It's the vibe that's changed. That you aren't able to feel it dioesn't surprise me at all.
In your mindset certainly but more generally I very much doubt it
You can compare us to your southern France utopia but frankly it has as many problems as the rest of us
Roger literally lives in a corner of France - Villefranche-sur-Mer - which is so far right it elected a Len Pen person on the first round at the French elex
All his lovely neighbours in that lovely place are neo-fash
He’s a ludicrous dummy who went to Millfield. The school for people to stupid to go to a comprehensive. Ignore
Perhaps that’s why his corner of France is so nice to live in - it’s mainly populated by RN supporters and pieds noirs.
France is paradoxical as always
In Britain we associate the hard or far right with unlovely and downtrodden towns, cities, regions. This is probably true of most western countries
However in France it is quite often the nicest and richest corners that are far right. Like villefranche sur mer where roger chooses to live
Last year I went to the source of le penisme, south Brittany near Carnac where the le pens have their compound. It’s very pleasant. Much nicer than inland Brittany (which can be seriously bleak)
My theory is that the rich far right French and Roger are voting le pen to PRESERVE what they have
I also think this is beginning to happen in the UK. See my posh Notting Hill friends switching to Reform
Supporting the far right is more respectable in France than in other countries. Checking the result in 2024, I see indeed that the RN MP won 56% on the first round in this constituency . Overall, RN hold 5 out of 9 seats in Alpes-Maritimes.
In recent years, FN/RN have expanded into bleak towns in the North East that used to vote Communist.
What does far-right actually mean these days?
I've seen Farage called it, Le Pen, and Meloni.
None have come close to initiating brutal wars of conquest that abrogate the laws of war, glorifying death and violence, started genocides or militarised their whole societies, whilst totally suspending democracy, so far as I can tell.
I would guess it’s to be socially conservative, anti-immigration, small c conservative and believe in industrial/national protectionism in its widest range.
I think Farage would probably be part of the more fiscally liberal coalition.
To some people anyone who has right of centre views they don’t like is far-right which doesn’t help political discourse. Like saying everyone left of centre is socialist. Racism and intolerance have their bailiwick in the extreme reaches of the far right as socialism has its own dark heart.
Yes, which shows how devalued the term has become. Anyone who's not prima facie a "Centrist Dad".
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
In which case there's no reason to ban it. Just let it not happen by market forces, or if a firm can make it viable, then they can get on with it.
A bit like the North Sea. We get people saying that North Sea oil and gas is no longer viable, while simultaneously saying it should be banned. If its not viable, don't ban it.
I am not bothered one way or another about the ban. What I would say is that any company directors embarking on a fracking project should be held personally responsible as individuals for the full costs of cleaning it all up afterwards when it has failed to become economic (which it will). No ability to declare bankruptcy, no escaping from their responsibilities.
I am currently planning the abandonment of the Forties Oil Field. It will cost Apache hundreds of millions and to their credit they are doing it properly. Too many smaller companies have popped up, failed to ind anhything and then left a mess behind for the tax payer to clean up.
Always quite surprised at the relative success of O&G decommissioning. How are we able to make that work but are unable to compel Trump to build all the stuff he promised up in Aberdeenshire? Or a big housing developer to retain an historic pub instead of letting it fall into disrepair?
And there's more to life than market forces. If market forces mean half of England is ripped up for a marginal economic gain that does not provide energy security then the costs far outweigh the benefits.
Maybe it’s an equivalent of the old X% of CEOs are psychopaths in that an enhanced % of people who want to be famous are sex-monsters. Maybe something to do with a level of ego or narcissism required to have your life played out in public needs feeding by some sort of sexual “reward” or need to be adored.
What is this nonsense ? The US administration seems to believe it has the right to force an unstable peace, on disadvantageous terms to Ukraine, and then take no responsibility for policing it.
It's been the Vance and Trump stance from the beginning. Unfortunately they have the ability to choke Ukraine into accepting such a thing, and then get everyone to claim it was inevitable afterwards I expect (which it clearly wasn't, if the Vance side or the Corbynesque side abotu how fighting is always wrong - including defending yourself - then Ukraine would have even less territory than it currently holds, given it won some back).
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
I have taken part in a Battle of Hastings reenactment.
But in general I agree, to understand a battle you need to walk the field. I have done quite a lot of Napoleonic ones. At Austerlitz you understand the scale. Waterloo is brilliant. At Arnhem you can walk the perimeter.
Culloden's worth a visit. The battle site is, well, remarkably unremarkable. Just a bit of moorland with flags to mark the lines. Even so, evocative.
And you soon realise what a blunderer the Bonnie Prince was.
As we approach the end of the Bank Holiday weekend, I suspect that the organisers and instigators of the asylum hotels demonstrations, and the 'Operation raising the colours' campaign, will be pretty disappointed. Both events have had, proportionately, trivial numbers of people involved. The call for the indigenous English masses to rise up in protest against the metropolitan elite and in favour of mass deportations has been largely ignored in favour of the beach, the pub, and other lovely activities. Unless I've missed something, there haven't been any significant outbreaks of disorder. Even Lucy Connolly is fading from the news. All in all, it's the dog that didn't bark.
Good news, I think. The febrile atmosphere that some have tried to engender should gradually fade away as people return to school, college and work next week. Here's hoping that more measured solutions to the problems we have will return to the fore.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
My dissillusionment with the whole oil industry started early in my career when I realised that there were instances where it was far better for company directors if we didn't find any oil than if we did. Very much smacked of an industry version of The Producers.
I'm curious about one thing with the whole fracking business: in the UK is it remotely even comparably economic to do it when there is clearly still oil and gas in the North Sea and there is the actual infrastructure there and the skills to just drill it out?
Norway announced last week they had discovered a whole ton more in one their zones thanks to improved discovery tech iirc.
Answer to your fracking question is no. It isn't. Even the guy who was running the project up outside Blackpool made that admission a couple of years ago.
Norway are going full on with exploration and expanding their oil and gas industry. Equinor - the rebranded Statoil - came out to the COSL Innovator where I was working in May to visit the crew as the rig was moving to Norway after the end of the UK contract. Their purpose was to reassure the Britsh crew that they would not be replaced by Norwegians. The reason was simple. They don't have the people to replace them. They are desperately short of rigs and experienced crews not least because they have plans to drill 120 wells over the next 2 years. That is just one company. In the UK we probably won't drill 10 wells in that same period.
The Norwegian Government has also given permssion for 42 E&A wells this year. The net cash flow to the Norwegian Government for Oil and Gas revenues in 2025 is predicted at 698 billion NOK - about £50 billion. And no small amount of that will be paid by the British taxpayer to import OIl and Gas from Norway as we are not producing it ourselves - and yes it is there. We have just made a political decision not to extract it.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
My dissillusionment with the whole oil industry started early in my career when I realised that there were instances where it was far better for company directors if we didn't find any oil than if we did. Very much smacked of an industry version of The Producers.
I'm curious about one thing with the whole fracking business: in the UK is it remotely even comparably economic to do it when there is clearly still oil and gas in the North Sea and there is the actual infrastructure there and the skills to just drill it out?
Norway announced last week they had discovered a whole ton more in one their zones thanks to improved discovery tech iirc.
Answer to your fracking question is no. It isn't. Even the guy who was running the project up outside Blackpool made that admission a couple of years ago.
Norway are going full on with exploration and expanding their oil and gas industry. Equinor - the rebranded Statoil - came out to the COSL Innovator where I was working in May to visit the crew as the rig was moving to Norway after the end of the UK contract. Their purpose was to reassure the Britsh crew that they would not be replaced by Norwegians. The reason was simple. They don't have the people to replace them. They are desperately short of rigs and experienced crews not least because they have plans to drill 120 wells over the next 2 years. That is just one company. In the UK we probably won't drill 10 wells in that same period.
The Norwegian Government has also given permssion for 42 E&A wells this year. The net cash flow to the Norwegian Government for Oil and Gas revenues in 2025 is predicted at 698 billion NOK - about £50 billion. And no small amount of that will be paid by the British taxpayer to import OIl and Gas from Norway as we are not producing it ourselves - and yes it is there. We have just made a political decision not to extract it.
While the Norwegians expand their oil and gas industry, we continue to self-flagellate our industry.
Fracking is culture war stuff, Reform have an annoying habit of trying to copy/emulate everything Trump does in the belief it's the key to electoral success here - whilst making themselves look nutjobs in the process. We almost certainly shouldn't be doing it, for both environmental and economic reasons, and it will be very unpopular.
However, it's a consequence of the dogma over Net Zero here - far too many activists want to hang eco-socialism, veganism, quasi-rationing, car-bans and anti-capitalism off the back of it, and make people pay far more for less.
It's the backlash to the lash.
I have a hunch that fracking in the UK would be a good idea.
You would be wrong.
It would be very good. For some people.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site. 2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small. 3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company. 4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
My dissillusionment with the whole oil industry started early in my career when I realised that there were instances where it was far better for company directors if we didn't find any oil than if we did. Very much smacked of an industry version of The Producers.
I'm curious about one thing with the whole fracking business: in the UK is it remotely even comparably economic to do it when there is clearly still oil and gas in the North Sea and there is the actual infrastructure there and the skills to just drill it out?
Norway announced last week they had discovered a whole ton more in one their zones thanks to improved discovery tech iirc.
Answer to your fracking question is no. It isn't. Even the guy who was running the project up outside Blackpool made that admission a couple of years ago.
Norway are going full on with exploration and expanding their oil and gas industry. Equinor - the rebranded Statoil - came out to the COSL Innovator where I was working in May to visit the crew as the rig was moving to Norway after the end of the UK contract. Their purpose was to reassure the Britsh crew that they would not be replaced by Norwegians. The reason was simple. They don't have the people to replace them. They are desperately short of rigs and experienced crews not least because they have plans to drill 120 wells over the next 2 years. That is just one company. In the UK we probably won't drill 10 wells in that same period.
The Norwegian Government has also given permssion for 42 E&A wells this year. The net cash flow to the Norwegian Government for Oil and Gas revenues in 2025 is predicted at 698 billion NOK - about £50 billion. And no small amount of that will be paid by the British taxpayer to import OIl and Gas from Norway as we are not producing it ourselves - and yes it is there. We have just made a political decision not to extract it.
Are our remaining reserves potentially of a similar magnitude ?
Comments
I now effectively ignore any labelling accordingly.
I'm not sure you've met many vegans though. It's the first thing they say, and then they passively aggressively demand you accommodate them - which usually means levelling down to their level, to avoid giving "offence" - which is why they drive many omnivores mad.
Britain First
British Democrats (BDP)
British First Party
British National Party (BNP)
Homeland Party
National Front
National Liberal Party
And as "right to far right"...
English Democrats
Scottish Family Party
UKIP
Why?
Because it's full of people who think just like him.
So I take it you yourself will never use the term to describe Farage or Reform as such, then, yet alone the Conservatives?
And to prove the point here's you staking a claim to be one of these rather special people.
However, for all I disagree with him on a vast range of political issues, I would say that Roger is on the side of the angels as far as his view of Israel under the current leadership is concerned.
A story that reeks heavily of b/s.
It seems that the fascists realise that the NHS relies on immigrants, and are therefore trying to destroy the "services will fail if it wasn't for immigrants" argument.
What lovely people they are.
I think there is a difference and both can be bad, but do we fail to find solutions because we lump every fear or concern about “the other” as racism and so kill any chance of sensible debate?
We have a de facto blasphemy law enforced by the death penalty because we have imported Islamic beliefs and we are fearful of Islamic anger. We cower
And people like you lead the cowering by simply pretending it isn’t happening
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KP0FN25kgAE
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TKnBIW5UQKQ
It's a bit annoying for me because I eat meat (though not much beef) but I'll accommodate my friends at my BBQs because I'm not an arsehole.
I don't think their concern over the small boats is "far-right" - that's actually very close to the median. A blanket deportation policy? Possibly, particularly if they accidentally report UK citizens like Trump's ICE. There's also a significant difference between Reform policy and Reform voters.
It's a terrible crime that Israel has committed and continues to commit. That it was triggered by a terrible crime against them changes this not one iota.
Weekend activities here have included:
Funeral. (sad, but not unexpected)
Barbecue.
& Visiting this place in the blazing sun today:
Bonus points to anyone that recognises this one! Hint: it’s in Oxfordshire.
The US administration seems to believe it has the right to force an unstable peace, on disadvantageous terms to Ukraine, and then take no responsibility for policing it.
Given it's Europe's future that's at stake, and Europe that's expected to pay for Ukraine's security, why do they get to decide our future ?
Russia will “have some stake” in discussions about security guarantees for Ukraine — US Vice President J.D. Vance.
“How can you reasonably provide security guarantees without talking to the Russians about what would be necessary to bring the war to a close?” Vance said during an NBC News interview.
Vance also reiterated that the US won't deploy American military personnel to Ukraine, while emphasizing that European nations and other countries would take on significant responsibilities.
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1959875270610989128
Israel is a very very sick society and the sooner it is recognised it the better. All the support they had a few months ago is now gone. They are for the most part racists plain and simple.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3z2mUc7aiWc
We need to take a much firmer line with the US. If they want us to look after ourselves (which is good) then they don't get to tell us what we can and can't do with regard to threats against ourselves and our neighbours.
Frankly I am of the opinion that the US can go fuck themselves.
Worth braving the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Centre open day to visit it - I’m told if you turn up and ask nicely they’ll let you walk up to it almost any time though.
Vegans exert a strong gravitational pull on the choices of others. Through fear of causing offence to them through serving or others consuming meat organisers and hosts often default to it on the basis that it's something "everyone can eat". This is done seemingly oblivious to the fact that by doing so they've directly made a choice on behalf of everyone else.
That's not accommodation, that's dictation. Which to me is something only an arsehole does. What drives carnivores (your words) mad is that they are then made out to be the offended ones whilst politely enduring their sanctimony under duress.
Well, why shouldn't they be? It's a basic courtesy for one's own choices not to affect or influence others.
That is the test vegans routinely fail.
If carnivores are now emulating it it's because they've learned that the wheel that squeaks gets the grease, and politely suffering in silence gets you nowhere - and, in fact, concedes ground which vegans are quite happy to take.
Today Lord Blunkett and Graham Stringer are telling Starmer to leave the ECHR
Last time I looked they were a Labour Lord and a Labour MP
Cooper has promised today that the first to be fast tracked under her new system will be the boat people.
Great for the smugglers - you will get fast tracked if you come on one of our boats
They haven't a clue have they ?
As a Carnivore I have never, ever tried to compel anyone to eat meat that doesn’t want to.
I have had meat free or plant based bullshit spread to me by others trying to make my diet somehow wrong or not catered for.
The polite thing to do is cater for everyone. Trying to make it all vegan or all carnivore when people of both stripes exist is immoral.
(I think even it wasn't for vegans your corporate bites would be that way simply because it's the cheapest way to provide food to people with various religions, allergies, tolerances. It's certainly not made its way to all the woke weddings I've attended. Had beef at the last one, unreal).
If you're upset about not having any meat, take it up with your firm, don't blame the vegans.
(1) De facto blasphemy laws
(2) Book thrown at anyone White who does a racial; excuses for those who are not - both because of "Community Relations"
(3) Sneering at patriotism as "far-right", and a desire to eliminate its celebration (unless in service of an EDI cause)
(4) Hectoring to them that any scepticism of immigration is down to their lack of education
(5) Vegans being noble and gentle folk, who you bend to unless you're an arsehole
(6) Disgust and embarrassment at all cornerstones of national history and institutions (unless EDI controlled)
Sum it all up: you've got pomposity, arrogance, self-entitlement and cowardice there. And not only do they not listen, they are always in charge, so you're left with no choice but to "own" them.
Why would it be any different?
He said, 'Tonight, the meal was all vegetables. As are all members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.'
I'm curious.
Nice photo too! But - as a public water dispenser - it really must have been a traffic-blocker in the main crossroads at Oxford before it got carted off by the relevant Harcourt gentry to Nuneham Courtenay.
It's amazing what turns up in odd corners. A chap has been doing a blog on his rousting around in nearby grand houses and parks for the various bits of the original Scottish Parliament which got handed out to assorted lords, rather like the conduit got handed out to Lord Harcourt.
To truly understand a battle, or even a war, you have to visit it - where it happened. I don’t know why this is true, but it is
I got this insight two years ago when - for the first time - I visited major US civil war battlefields. Like Franklin and Antietam. I realised the scale of the bloodshed, the intensity of the struggle, but also why the war unfolded as it did - this army was here, this railroad was there, that town was in the way. “Ah now I get it”
Now I’ve had the same experience at Battle. I must have read about the Battle of Hastings a hundred times. I knew all about Harold’s eye and the shield wall and the Norman cavalry
Yet I had to go to Battle to see the incline of the hill the Normans were charging up, to see the terrain the English had marched over, so wearily - also to get the sense of the wild carnage (for the time) - 7000 dead. Also a ghost of the historic trauma still lingers there - but you only detect if if you go there
Odd
The conduit itself was clearly one of those “be careful about which gifts you accept” things.
Even though a number of the buildings have changed it’s quite strange. There are still plenty of holes in existing buildings from musket and cannon balls.
The height of it was depicted in a great (and huge) painting in the Tate below. Interestingly the leader of the French, the Baron de Rullecourt, is buried in the church yards away and his headstone is a simple square of Granite with just “De Rullecourt” engraved.
I know this is all very obvious stuff, but it's not just the odd one or two unlucky ones who get hit, with a bit of "occupational hazard" for yourself and always some other Joe who's the unlucky one.
You only "win" by killing a vast number of the enemy, and that usually means taking heavy casualties yourself. That means blood. Lots of blood. YOUR blood.
Which means thousands and thousands of men, dead, in their late teens or twenties, usually very horribly and painfully and with no mercy, and heavily traumatised survivors, often with terrible wounds. That means ruined families, devastated children and deeply-scarred communities. A huge loss of human talent and a tremendous waste of people, energy and treasure.
Almost anything should be done to avoid it, and the best way to do that is through very good preparation, deterrence, determination, education, and very skilled diplomacy.
Otherwise, the tragedy will come again.
It’s the same at the Somme
It’s only when you go there - to Thiepval - and you realise the British tommies literally WALKED up that hill into the withering German machine gun fire
It is harrowing, in situ
But in general I agree, to understand a battle you need to walk the field. I have done quite a lot of Napoleonic ones. At Austerlitz you understand the scale. Waterloo is brilliant. At Arnhem you can walk the perimeter.
You find yourself in their heads sometimes, even though you can’t really know the horror, but you cannot not be moved daily.
Peace has been elusive for decades and generations
Now, stood atop Stirling Castle and looking out over the English Bannockburn camping positions with, iirc, their backs to the Forth marshlands (and seeing some retained natural marshland further upstream) and little escape, that was eye opening, as in, "bloody hell, the total pillocks".
However I was conscious of how thin they looked. They looked in need of a steak and kidney pie followed by a treacle suet pudding.
Till recently, birth rates, even whilst declining, tended to run ahead of death rates. Governments could wage wars without regard to casualties, in the knowledge that the population would bounce back, fairly rapidly.
For a long time, rates of military mortality, among young men, were fairly similar to rates of maternal mortality, among young women.
Increasingly, the lives of men of military age are becoming more precious. That means, war planners need to keep casualties to a minimum. Stupid governments, like Putin’s, have yet to realise that.
I have read much history, military and not and always wonder how I would have fared. Hope never to have to find out.
And yet major battles tended to be rare. How many set piece battles were there in the Hundred Years War? It was also the case that battles such as Hastings were unusual in duration. It’s really hard to fight in heavy armour with medieval weapons. The fighting at Hastings cannot have been continuous, but surges of activity with gaps between. Most battles were shorter and people tended to flee when things were going South.
Still awful though.
It was lovely. Lots of people from different races and ethnicities all there just enjoying the day. Even there being no booze wasn’t a downer.
Sad we lost this, or only have rare glimpses of it, as a whole.
Gaith, you are your mother’s heart and soul.
I want you to pray for me and not cry over me, so I can remain happy. I want you to make me proud, to succeed, to excel, to stand strong, and to become a capable businessman, my love.
I want you, my dear, never to forget me. I always did everything to make you happy, to keep you joyful and comfortable, and to give you everything.
When you grow up, get married, and have a daughter, name her Maryam after me. You are my love, my heart, my support, my soul, and my son who always makes me proud and brings me joy with his good reputation. I entrust you, Gaith, to your prayers—your prayers, your prayers, my dear.
Your mother, Maryam.'
https://nitter.poast.org/AnasAlSharif0/status/1959968075916230746#m
Enough of this right wing wokery.
Someone like Hitler or Putin cares little for your good preparation, deterrence, determination, education or very skilled diplomacy. They want something, and will go to war to get it. If you are the victim of their aggression, it becomes a case of either submitting to their will or fighting.
And your eloquent post shows why people like Hitler and Putin should be damned for eternity.
And the reason for the multiplicity of parties is, indeed, similar. Weird, strong personalities, each seeking to be The Leader multiplied by imagined/invented doctrinal differences.
It seems to have taken millennia to work that out.
However, they had not touched the second level. Only two of us took the challenge to go down there. You had to crouch on your haunches to get through. The humidity was horrific down there.
Beneath that was another level, only big enough for a child to take messages.
We have a family friend whose father was a tunnel rat. Possibly the most terrifying job of the Vietnam war.
The path to profit from dry wells is quite simple.
1) you setup a new company to drill a well/frack a site.
2) you get a ton of investors - indeed your share of the project is quite small.
3) you need a company to actually drill the well. As luck would have it, you own just such a company.
4) the holes are all dry. The company doing the exploration goes bankrupt. You are not entirely downcast, however. Unlike your investors.
So you take the profits from your drilling company and buy the rights to look for oil/gas on a piece of land…
A bit like the North Sea. We get people saying that North Sea oil and gas is no longer viable, while simultaneously saying it should be banned. If its not viable, don't ban it.
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
·
34m
Donald Trump with very visible bruising on his right hand today.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon#/media/File:Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg
Americans were very keen to go up on that rooftop, for some reason.
The UK isn't like that. The UK - even the less populated bits - still has lots of people.
And fracking is fundamentally very land intensive. It involves setting up a drill pad, drilling horizontal wells, then bringing in massive diesel pumps to do hydraulic fracturing of the rock,
To make that all economic you need to run the gear 24 hours a day. If you're only doing it 8 hours a day, it costs 3x as much to produce. And there aren't many* communities in the UK that will want drilling and fracking equipment running 24/7 for six months in their local environs.
Finally: we've drilled some wells. And the results have not been great. There's not been a single well by iGas or one of the other players in this space that's encountered commercial quantities of gas. Now, it may be that -with time- that can be overcome. It took a long while to get some of the US shale plays producing economically. But if you put the two things together: (1) much higher costs, because the UK is a dense country, and (2) the lack of any formations that are clearly economically viable, and you can see why iGas and Caudrilla lost 99% of their value before there were any bans on fracking in the UK.
Now, that doesn't mean there aren't really interesting projects that could be economically viable. I quite like in-situ gassification of old coalfields under the sea. (And which, by the way, might be remarkably economic as well as not being anywhere near as disruptive.)
But just saying 'fracking' demonstrates you really don't know very much about energy production.
* Well, any
Norway announced last week they had discovered a whole ton more in one their zones thanks to improved discovery tech iirc.
I am currently planning the abandonment of the Forties Oil Field. It will cost Apache hundreds of millions and to their credit they are doing it properly. Too many smaller companies have popped up, failed to ind anhything and then left a mess behind for the tax payer to clean up.
It's the oil and gas equivalent of the guys who stripped Rover or that department store.
The marshy land around Tannenberg being a good example.
Drain the swamp. Get rid of the license fee
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/25/strictly-come-dancing-star-arrested-on-suspicion-of-met-police-say
Whatever current incarnation has appropriated the name is no relation to the party which was dissolved in 1968. The current SDP, however, can be traced back to those who opted to continue the party even after the then leadership decided to dissolve the organisation after the first Bootle by-election in May 1990.
To be fair wiki does have a link to explain the difference.
Hezz's lot packed it in 1968 apparently
And there's more to life than market forces. If market forces mean half of England is ripped up for a marginal economic gain that does not provide energy security then the costs far outweigh the benefits.
Makes the love island lot seem quite prudish.
And you soon realise what a blunderer the Bonnie Prince was.
Good news, I think. The febrile atmosphere that some have tried to engender should gradually fade away as people return to school, college and work next week. Here's hoping that more measured solutions to the problems we have will return to the fore.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c78myp0l4gpt
Norway are going full on with exploration and expanding their oil and gas industry. Equinor - the rebranded Statoil - came out to the COSL Innovator where I was working in May to visit the crew as the rig was moving to Norway after the end of the UK contract. Their purpose was to reassure the Britsh crew that they would not be replaced by Norwegians. The reason was simple. They don't have the people to replace them. They are desperately short of rigs and experienced crews not least because they have plans to drill 120 wells over the next 2 years. That is just one company. In the UK we probably won't drill 10 wells in that same period.
The Norwegian Government has also given permssion for 42 E&A wells this year. The net cash flow to the Norwegian Government for Oil and Gas revenues in 2025 is predicted at 698 billion NOK - about £50 billion. And no small amount of that will be paid by the British taxpayer to import OIl and Gas from Norway as we are not producing it ourselves - and yes it is there. We have just made a political decision not to extract it.