That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
There is unquestionably a lot of misogyny in our society both historically and today but the difference in resource, research and treatment for breast cancer and prostate cancer is pretty hard to justify by any sane measure.
Not sure about that. Breast cancer affects women AND men - pro rata allowing for the different quantity of tissue, and the hormonal environmental differences, I suspect: but it's there.
Also - screening for females seems to stop at 71 (though you can ask for later checks). Not sure of the logic of that.
Edit: BC seems to affect women much earlier and with more speedily lethal effects, too, or so I understand it.
According to Cancer UK between 11,200 and 11,500 women die of breast cancer each year in the UK. 12, 200 men die of prostate cancer. Are you seriously suggesting that the latter gets the same priority?
It doesn't.
But the real disparity is what has been spent on research over the last couple if decades.
Everything follows from that.
Exactly, and that includes the quality of the testing currently available. More research producing better and ideally less intrusive testing should be the priority.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
There is a rational argument for that, not sure if I agree with it or whether it is medically correct, but it's basically that it's a slow cancer, treatment can be unpleasant and you'll die of something else first.
Quite. I had a chat with my GP about testing for prostrate cancer and she assured me that if I have it, I'll almost certainly die with it than of it. Quite a relief. I now don't give it a second thought.
Without being alarmist, PC did kill my Dad earlier this year. It may start off a pussy cat, but it will turn into a tiger eventually, as life expectancy has increased, so has the instance of terminal prostate cancer.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
There is a rational argument for that, not sure if I agree with it or whether it is medically correct, but it's basically that it's a slow cancer, treatment can be unpleasant and you'll die of something else first.
Quite. I had a chat with my GP about testing for prostrate cancer and she assured me that if I have it, I'll almost certainly die with it than of it. Quite a relief. I now don't give it a second thought.
If you die of it, you also die with it, so she’s really tricking you with a play on words….
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
Yes but... would you rather screening is based on scientific evidence, or emotion?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
It is, but that’s because most people don’t understand how cancer works or how screening works!
Prostate Cancer Research Chief Executive deeply disappointed with the decision meaning far too many men will be found too late and especially at risk are black men
Seems to be a DT bash Streeting job complete with poll. Who paid for the screening? What was the question? Can't see ...
Prsesumably the question didn't ask "... but the screening might be wrong and you could end up impotent/incontinent, so do you still feelelucky?"
My comments are entirely from Sky reporting
Nothing to do with any other media
But as was shown on Saturday your comments from Sky reporting were very wrong verging on the mendacious.
Stuff like this is important on a betting site - e.g. on Wednesday BigG suggested the Treasury has leaked the budget, which would have been absolutely catastrophic for Reeves.
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
It was not pointless
It was a great relief
Testing you for a thousand diseases and conditions that you don’t have might be hugely relieving, but it would also be a complete waste of public money.
That's no longer entirely true, with the advent of (for example) cheap and rapid gene sequencing, or protein screening.
We're not all that far from a couple of simple blood tests simultaneously looking for dozens, or scores of diseases and conditions.
That was the basis for the Theranos fraud, but it's now getting a bit closer to reality.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
Yes but... would you rather screening is based on scientific evidence, or emotion?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
It is, but that’s because most people don’t understand how cancer works or how screening works!
Prostate Cancer Research Chief Executive deeply disappointed with the decision meaning far too many men will be found too late and especially at risk are black men
Seems to be a DT bash Streeting job complete with poll. Who paid for the screening? What was the question? Can't see ...
Prsesumably the question didn't ask "... but the screening might be wrong and you could end up impotent/incontinent, so do you still feelelucky?"
My comments are entirely from Sky reporting
Nothing to do with any other media
But as was shown on Saturday your comments from Sky reporting were very wrong verging on the mendacious.
Stuff like this is important on a betting site - e.g. on Wednesday BigG suggested the Treasury has leaked the budget, which would have been absolutely catastrophic for Reeves.
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
I did not
I said the OBR had released the budget and Beth Rigby and Sky were outlining the budget during PMQs and both the BBC and Sky continued to quote from the released documents
I did not mention the treasury as it was clear the source was the OBR
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Denning was responsible for a few perverse decisions of his own, as I recall.
I watched him in action in the 1970s. at the height of his fame he could do no wrong; after retirement his failings became apparent, and his approach to law went out of fashion and suddenly he could do no right; I should think he is at the nadir about now.
Perhaps it's time for two things: a more positive appraisal of his general approach to interpretation, the relationship of law and the virtue of justice and the making of judgments; and, even more, a lot more judges whose judgments tell a story, however unpromising the materials, beautifully well with a mixture of poetry and clarity.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
It was not pointless
It was a great relief
Testing you for a thousand diseases and conditions that you don’t have might be hugely relieving, but it would also be a complete waste of public money.
That's no longer entirely true, with the advent of (for example) cheap and rapid gene sequencing, or protein screening.
We're not all that far from a couple of simple blood tests simultaneously looking for dozens, or scores of diseases and conditions.
That was the basis for the Theranos fraud, but it's now getting a bit closer to reality.
Well, maybe and maybe not. We don't know whether all that information actually can pick up diseases with sufficient precision.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
It was not pointless
It was a great relief
Testing you for a thousand diseases and conditions that you don’t have might be hugely relieving, but it would also be a complete waste of public money.
That's no longer entirely true, with the advent of (for example) cheap and rapid gene sequencing, or protein screening.
We're not all that far from a couple of simple blood tests simultaneously looking for dozens, or scores of diseases and conditions.
That was the basis for the Theranos fraud, but it's now getting a bit closer to reality.
For sure.
Provided such a test can be relied upon to flag more cases of genuine concern than a whole host of false positives, it would be great.
PSA is however a test for a single condition, which throws up tons of false positives and another batch of people who had the condition but had no need to worry.
I’m thinking that had BigG been thrown up as a false positive and was now living his life with the consequences of such, he might not be so keen on the test?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
There is unquestionably a lot of misogyny in our society both historically and today but the difference in resource, research and treatment for breast cancer and prostate cancer is pretty hard to justify by any sane measure.
Not sure about that. Breast cancer affects women AND men - pro rata allowing for the different quantity of tissue, and the hormonal environmental differences, I suspect: but it's there.
Also - screening for females seems to stop at 71 (though you can ask for later checks). Not sure of the logic of that.
Edit: BC seems to affect women much earlier and with more speedily lethal effects, too, or so I understand it.
According to Cancer UK between 11,200 and 11,500 women die of breast cancer each year in the UK. 12, 200 men die of prostate cancer. Are you seriously suggesting that the latter gets the same priority?
I don't think you can crudely compare mortality that way for 2 different cancers.
Age of onset is key. Both cancers increase strongly with age (indeed that is the pattern for most cancers) but deaths from breast cancers are often decades younger. Sure it is possible to have a very aggressive prostate Ca quite young, but that also means a shorter asymptomatic phase to pick it up in.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
Yes but... would you rather screening is based on scientific evidence, or emotion?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
It is, but that’s because most people don’t understand how cancer works or how screening works!
Prostate Cancer Research Chief Executive deeply disappointed with the decision meaning far too many men will be found too late and especially at risk are black men
Seems to be a DT bash Streeting job complete with poll. Who paid for the screening? What was the question? Can't see ...
Prsesumably the question didn't ask "... but the screening might be wrong and you could end up impotent/incontinent, so do you still feelelucky?"
My comments are entirely from Sky reporting
Nothing to do with any other media
But as was shown on Saturday your comments from Sky reporting were very wrong verging on the mendacious.
Stuff like this is important on a betting site - e.g. on Wednesday BigG suggested the Treasury has leaked the budget, which would have been absolutely catastrophic for Reeves.
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
I did not
I said the OBR had released the budget and Beth Rigby and Sky were outlining the budget during PMQs and both the BBC and Sky continued to quote from the released documents
I did not mention the treasury as it was clear the source was the OBR
But you were epically wrong when you said this had never happened before and I pointed out it has happened with the 1996 budget which was leaked in its entirety.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
I think the path to diagnosis usually involves a biopsy - which is pretty unpleasant.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
There is unquestionably a lot of misogyny in our society both historically and today but the difference in resource, research and treatment for breast cancer and prostate cancer is pretty hard to justify by any sane measure.
Not sure about that. Breast cancer affects women AND men - pro rata allowing for the different quantity of tissue, and the hormonal environmental differences, I suspect: but it's there.
Also - screening for females seems to stop at 71 (though you can ask for later checks). Not sure of the logic of that.
Edit: BC seems to affect women much earlier and with more speedily lethal effects, too, or so I understand it.
According to Cancer UK between 11,200 and 11,500 women die of breast cancer each year in the UK. 12, 200 men die of prostate cancer. Are you seriously suggesting that the latter gets the same priority?
That is because breast cancer is much more easily detectable, and therefore treatable, than prostrate cancer.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
But the follow up on a false positive still takes up financial and human resources.
And prioritisation is a constant juggle for any medical service, especially a publicly funded one.
These judgements are being made on everything, every day.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
False positives and false negatives both lead to negative outcomes. A false positive doesn't have to lead to intensive treatment, it might lead just to more tests, but that's still a cost to the NHS and a cost to the individual, and those extra tests might still lead to unnecessary intensive treatment down the line.
There are other reasons why mass screening might not be a good idea too. We don't have good treatments for early prostate cancer, so what you gain from an early diagnosis is limited.
The new recommendations have not been published yet. I believe the last review, in 2021, concluded that mass prostate screening was not of benefit. So, that wasn't a cost decision. They were saying it was not effective, not that it was not cost effective.
You asked, "Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?" I'm not certain what you mean here... I think, no. Mass screening would mean you're picking these people up a few years early. There are plenty of people presenting with prostate cancer already. I don't see why you'd speed up the research in this area.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
Yes but... would you rather screening is based on scientific evidence, or emotion?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
It is, but that’s because most people don’t understand how cancer works or how screening works!
Prostate Cancer Research Chief Executive deeply disappointed with the decision meaning far too many men will be found too late and especially at risk are black men
Seems to be a DT bash Streeting job complete with poll. Who paid for the screening? What was the question? Can't see ...
Prsesumably the question didn't ask "... but the screening might be wrong and you could end up impotent/incontinent, so do you still feelelucky?"
My comments are entirely from Sky reporting
Nothing to do with any other media
But as was shown on Saturday your comments from Sky reporting were very wrong verging on the mendacious.
Stuff like this is important on a betting site - e.g. on Wednesday BigG suggested the Treasury has leaked the budget, which would have been absolutely catastrophic for Reeves.
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
I did not
I said the OBR had released the budget and Beth Rigby and Sky were outlining the budget during PMQs and both the BBC and Sky continued to quote from the released documents
I did not mention the treasury as it was clear the source was the OBR
But you were epically wrong when you said this had never happened before and I pointed out it has happened with the 1996 budget which was leaked in its entirety.
I doubt anyone can recount the broadcast media quoting from the budget before the Chancellor stood up
The key name is Tchenguiz, who is currently in hot water for f*cking around leaseholders in buildings where he owns the freehold wrt fire safety charges.
They seem to think they need AI to track who is inside a building or not. Truss told The Times: “This is a significant moment for the business community. A sophisticated network of 700 founding members, at the very top of their professions, powered by both AI and human ingenuity, to perform at their highest potential. It is a £500 million project that will cater for the future of business in Mayfair. Even the people that are leaving this country will have a home to return to.”
Basically, mass prostate screening doesn't work. We're tried it. The evidence is that you don't save lives. Well, that was the situation 5 years ago. Let's see what the new one actually says.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
Yes but... would you rather screening is based on scientific evidence, or emotion?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
It is, but that’s because most people don’t understand how cancer works or how screening works!
Prostate Cancer Research Chief Executive deeply disappointed with the decision meaning far too many men will be found too late and especially at risk are black men
Seems to be a DT bash Streeting job complete with poll. Who paid for the screening? What was the question? Can't see ...
Prsesumably the question didn't ask "... but the screening might be wrong and you could end up impotent/incontinent, so do you still feelelucky?"
My comments are entirely from Sky reporting
Nothing to do with any other media
But as was shown on Saturday your comments from Sky reporting were very wrong verging on the mendacious.
Stuff like this is important on a betting site - e.g. on Wednesday BigG suggested the Treasury has leaked the budget, which would have been absolutely catastrophic for Reeves.
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
I did not
I said the OBR had released the budget and Beth Rigby and Sky were outlining the budget during PMQs and both the BBC and Sky continued to quote from the released documents
I did not mention the treasury as it was clear the source was the OBR
But you were epically wrong when you said this had never happened before and I pointed out it has happened with the 1996 budget which was leaked in its entirety.
I doubt anyone can recount the broadcast media quoting from the budget before the Chancellor stood up
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
Yes but... would you rather screening is based on scientific evidence, or emotion?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Not recommended by NICE?
If so, I think I would rather accept their recommendations rather than (with respect) some random bloke on the internet who feels it is "frankly unacceptable".
As other's have said, false positives mean that screening is not always the right approach.
I expect my view is quite widely held not just on here but in the outside world
It is, but that’s because most people don’t understand how cancer works or how screening works!
Prostate Cancer Research Chief Executive deeply disappointed with the decision meaning far too many men will be found too late and especially at risk are black men
Seems to be a DT bash Streeting job complete with poll. Who paid for the screening? What was the question? Can't see ...
Prsesumably the question didn't ask "... but the screening might be wrong and you could end up impotent/incontinent, so do you still feelelucky?"
My comments are entirely from Sky reporting
Nothing to do with any other media
But as was shown on Saturday your comments from Sky reporting were very wrong verging on the mendacious.
Stuff like this is important on a betting site - e.g. on Wednesday BigG suggested the Treasury has leaked the budget, which would have been absolutely catastrophic for Reeves.
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
I did not
I said the OBR had released the budget and Beth Rigby and Sky were outlining the budget during PMQs and both the BBC and Sky continued to quote from the released documents
I did not mention the treasury as it was clear the source was the OBR
But you were epically wrong when you said this had never happened before and I pointed out it has happened with the 1996 budget which was leaked in its entirety.
I doubt anyone can recount the broadcast media quoting from the budget before the Chancellor stood up
I can, 1996.
Well I am in my 80s amd certainly not a sharp as yourself in more ways than one.!!
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Denning was responsible for a few perverse decisions of his own, as I recall.
I watched him in action in the 1970s. at the height of his fame he could do no wrong; after retirement his failings became apparent, and his approach to law went out of fashion and suddenly he could do no right; I should think he is at the nadir about now.
Perhaps it's time for two things: a more positive appraisal of his general approach to interpretation, the relationship of law and the virtue of justice and the making of judgments; and, even more, a lot more judges whose judgments tell a story, however unpromising the materials, beautifully well with a mixture of poetry and clarity.
Lloyds Bank v Bundy.
Not only a brilliant story but an incredible synthesis of various equitable principles into one overarching principle. One of the truly great judgments. I went past Yew Tree farm recently on holiday. I think it was the right one. I was genuinely excited. For extra geek points I used to use the first part of the judgment to teach judicial pleading. Short, clear sentences largely with a single fact in each. A masterclass of judicial writing.
"Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm, It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. He mortgaged it to the bank. Up to the very hilt. Not to borrow money for himself, but for the sake of his son. Now the bank have come down on him. They have foreclosed. They want to get him out of Yew Tree Farm and to sell it. They have brought this action against him for possession. Going out means ruin for him. He was granted legal aid. His lawyers put in a defence. They said that, when he executed the charge to the bank he did not know what he was doing: or at any rate not the circumstances were such that he ought not to be bound by it. At the trial his plight was plain. The Judge was sorry for him. He said he was a "poor old gentleman". He was so obviously incapacitated that the Judge admitted his proof in evidence. He had a heart attack in the witness-box. Yet the Judge felt he could do nothing for him. There is nothing, he said, "which takes this out of the vast range of commercial transactions". He ordered Herbert Bundy to give up possession of Yew Tree Farm to the bank."
At the risk of a spoiler a story starting like this is not going to end well for the bank.
They played a chunk of an interview with Kemi on Today (approx 6.50am) from a long form with Nick Robinson. She was very engaging, humorous and came across very well. I thought she dealt with his questioning about her budget response tone perfectly.
If the Tories can resist the idiocy of replacing with Jenrick if results in May aren’t perfect and she gets the chance to really build her profile with the electorate then I think she has a chance of beating reform.
I think by the next election people will like the no nonsense attitude and I think her attacks on Reform in the clip are the approach to take.
Other opinions are of course available.
I am minded to agree. Its taken time for her to find her feet but there have been positive signs recently. At the same time the gloss is coming off Farage more than a bit and he's not getting any younger. Hopefully, by the next election, the populists will have lost some ground back to the centre. I'd wish the same thing to happen between the Greens and Labour too but that is looking less likely right now. The polling for Reeves was truly awful (although no worse than she deserves).
The challenge for Badenoch (and Stride) is putting in the hard graft to build a really coherent alternative.
Kemi has just shown that, when on form, she can be a brilliant attack dog. She is good at arguing for and articulating ‘values’, but she’s less good at being clear and precise about what that looks like in practice.
“Reforming welfare” and “shrinking the state” is exactly right, but you need to have a serious conversation about how you build an economy and a growth agenda that works for people around that. And that includes serious Tory blind spots like property, NIMBYism, and pensions - things that I’m still far from convinced the Tories have the appetite to seriously look at (the stamp duty thing is a start to generate the conversation re downsizing; but needs more thought and it’s the easiest of easy wins to sell to the faithful).
The Tories are slowly moving into a space that I can get on board with; but much more work is needed, and Badenoch needs to really seize this moment and mature as a politician into someone who looks, talks and thinks like a serious reforming leader. What I will say, is that I think they’d be stupid to remove her as leader right now.
Mel Stride comes across well too I think. I hadn’t heard him before this week, he looks like someone who’d play the Chancellor in a film
Mel Stride up to second in the new ConHome survey of Conservative Party members of net satisfaction with Shadow Cabinet ministers, Stride overtaking Kemi in the process and now just 2% behind first placed Jenrick with Kemi third
They played a chunk of an interview with Kemi on Today (approx 6.50am) from a long form with Nick Robinson. She was very engaging, humorous and came across very well. I thought she dealt with his questioning about her budget response tone perfectly.
If the Tories can resist the idiocy of replacing with Jenrick if results in May aren’t perfect and she gets the chance to really build her profile with the electorate then I think she has a chance of beating reform.
I think by the next election people will like the no nonsense attitude and I think her attacks on Reform in the clip are the approach to take.
Other opinions are of course available.
I am minded to agree. Its taken time for her to find her feet but there have been positive signs recently. At the same time the gloss is coming off Farage more than a bit and he's not getting any younger. Hopefully, by the next election, the populists will have lost some ground back to the centre. I'd wish the same thing to happen between the Greens and Labour too but that is looking less likely right now. The polling for Reeves was truly awful (although no worse than she deserves).
The challenge for Badenoch (and Stride) is putting in the hard graft to build a really coherent alternative.
Kemi has just shown that, when on form, she can be a brilliant attack dog. She is good at arguing for and articulating ‘values’, but she’s less good at being clear and precise about what that looks like in practice.
“Reforming welfare” and “shrinking the state” is exactly right, but you need to have a serious conversation about how you build an economy and a growth agenda that works for people around that. And that includes serious Tory blind spots like property, NIMBYism, and pensions - things that I’m still far from convinced the Tories have the appetite to seriously look at (the stamp duty thing is a start to generate the conversation re downsizing; but needs more thought and it’s the easiest of easy wins to sell to the faithful).
The Tories are slowly moving into a space that I can get on board with; but much more work is needed, and Badenoch needs to really seize this moment and mature as a politician into someone who looks, talks and thinks like a serious reforming leader. What I will say, is that I think they’d be stupid to remove her as leader right now.
Mel Stride comes across well too I think. I hadn’t heard him before this week, he looks like someone who’d play the Chancellor in a film
Mel Stride up to second in the new ConHome survey of Conservative Party members of net satisfaction with Shadow Cabinet ministers, Stride overtaking Kemi in the process and now just 2% behind first placed Jenrick with Kemi third
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
False positives and false negatives both lead to negative outcomes. A false positive doesn't have to lead to intensive treatment, it might lead just to more tests, but that's still a cost to the NHS and a cost to the individual, and those extra tests might still lead to unnecessary intensive treatment down the line.
There are other reasons why mass screening might not be a good idea too. We don't have good treatments for early prostate cancer, so what you gain from an early diagnosis is limited.
The new recommendations have not been published yet. I believe the last review, in 2021, concluded that mass prostate screening was not of benefit. So, that wasn't a cost decision. They were saying it was not effective, not that it was not cost effective.
You asked, "Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?" I'm not certain what you mean here... I think, no. Mass screening would mean you're picking these people up a few years early. There are plenty of people presenting with prostate cancer already. I don't see why you'd speed up the research in this area.
I would have assumed more data and bigger samples could lead to better and faster analysis?
They played a chunk of an interview with Kemi on Today (approx 6.50am) from a long form with Nick Robinson. She was very engaging, humorous and came across very well. I thought she dealt with his questioning about her budget response tone perfectly.
If the Tories can resist the idiocy of replacing with Jenrick if results in May aren’t perfect and she gets the chance to really build her profile with the electorate then I think she has a chance of beating reform.
I think by the next election people will like the no nonsense attitude and I think her attacks on Reform in the clip are the approach to take.
Other opinions are of course available.
I am minded to agree. Its taken time for her to find her feet but there have been positive signs recently. At the same time the gloss is coming off Farage more than a bit and he's not getting any younger. Hopefully, by the next election, the populists will have lost some ground back to the centre. I'd wish the same thing to happen between the Greens and Labour too but that is looking less likely right now. The polling for Reeves was truly awful (although no worse than she deserves).
The challenge for Badenoch (and Stride) is putting in the hard graft to build a really coherent alternative.
Kemi has just shown that, when on form, she can be a brilliant attack dog. She is good at arguing for and articulating ‘values’, but she’s less good at being clear and precise about what that looks like in practice.
“Reforming welfare” and “shrinking the state” is exactly right, but you need to have a serious conversation about how you build an economy and a growth agenda that works for people around that. And that includes serious Tory blind spots like property, NIMBYism, and pensions - things that I’m still far from convinced the Tories have the appetite to seriously look at (the stamp duty thing is a start to generate the conversation re downsizing; but needs more thought and it’s the easiest of easy wins to sell to the faithful).
The Tories are slowly moving into a space that I can get on board with; but much more work is needed, and Badenoch needs to really seize this moment and mature as a politician into someone who looks, talks and thinks like a serious reforming leader. What I will say, is that I think they’d be stupid to remove her as leader right now.
Mel Stride comes across well too I think. I hadn’t heard him before this week, he looks like someone who’d play the Chancellor in a film
Mel Stride up to second in the new ConHome survey of Conservative Party members of net satisfaction with Shadow Cabinet ministers, Stride overtaking Kemi in the process and now just 2% behind first placed Jenrick with Kemi third
Surprised at Kemi falling below Stride. She seems to be going through a relatively purple patch just now.
It's ConHome....
I trust the ConHome surveys as a barometer of members' feelings. Fairplay to Stride - I think he's a useless wet blancmange, but he's obviously making an impression on some people.
Could be that he's opposing Reeves so appears better by comparison, but then Kemi's opposing Starmer.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
False positives and false negatives both lead to negative outcomes. A false positive doesn't have to lead to intensive treatment, it might lead just to more tests, but that's still a cost to the NHS and a cost to the individual, and those extra tests might still lead to unnecessary intensive treatment down the line.
There are other reasons why mass screening might not be a good idea too. We don't have good treatments for early prostate cancer, so what you gain from an early diagnosis is limited.
The new recommendations have not been published yet. I believe the last review, in 2021, concluded that mass prostate screening was not of benefit. So, that wasn't a cost decision. They were saying it was not effective, not that it was not cost effective.
You asked, "Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?" I'm not certain what you mean here... I think, no. Mass screening would mean you're picking these people up a few years early. There are plenty of people presenting with prostate cancer already. I don't see why you'd speed up the research in this area.
I would have assumed more data and bigger samples could lead to better and faster analysis?
They played a chunk of an interview with Kemi on Today (approx 6.50am) from a long form with Nick Robinson. She was very engaging, humorous and came across very well. I thought she dealt with his questioning about her budget response tone perfectly.
If the Tories can resist the idiocy of replacing with Jenrick if results in May aren’t perfect and she gets the chance to really build her profile with the electorate then I think she has a chance of beating reform.
I think by the next election people will like the no nonsense attitude and I think her attacks on Reform in the clip are the approach to take.
Other opinions are of course available.
I am minded to agree. Its taken time for her to find her feet but there have been positive signs recently. At the same time the gloss is coming off Farage more than a bit and he's not getting any younger. Hopefully, by the next election, the populists will have lost some ground back to the centre. I'd wish the same thing to happen between the Greens and Labour too but that is looking less likely right now. The polling for Reeves was truly awful (although no worse than she deserves).
The challenge for Badenoch (and Stride) is putting in the hard graft to build a really coherent alternative.
Kemi has just shown that, when on form, she can be a brilliant attack dog. She is good at arguing for and articulating ‘values’, but she’s less good at being clear and precise about what that looks like in practice.
“Reforming welfare” and “shrinking the state” is exactly right, but you need to have a serious conversation about how you build an economy and a growth agenda that works for people around that. And that includes serious Tory blind spots like property, NIMBYism, and pensions - things that I’m still far from convinced the Tories have the appetite to seriously look at (the stamp duty thing is a start to generate the conversation re downsizing; but needs more thought and it’s the easiest of easy wins to sell to the faithful).
The Tories are slowly moving into a space that I can get on board with; but much more work is needed, and Badenoch needs to really seize this moment and mature as a politician into someone who looks, talks and thinks like a serious reforming leader. What I will say, is that I think they’d be stupid to remove her as leader right now.
Mel Stride comes across well too I think. I hadn’t heard him before this week, he looks like someone who’d play the Chancellor in a film
Mel Stride up to second in the new ConHome survey of Conservative Party members of net satisfaction with Shadow Cabinet ministers, Stride overtaking Kemi in the process and now just 2% behind first placed Jenrick with Kemi third
Surprised at Kemi falling below Stride. She seems to be going through a relatively purple patch just now.
It's ConHome....
I trust the ConHome surveys as a barometer of members' feelings. Fairplay to Stride - I think he's a useless wet blancmange, but he's obviously making an impression on some people.
Could be that he's opposing Reeves so appears better by comparison, but then Kemi's opposing Starmer.
Haven't most of the non wets buggered off to Reform?
They played a chunk of an interview with Kemi on Today (approx 6.50am) from a long form with Nick Robinson. She was very engaging, humorous and came across very well. I thought she dealt with his questioning about her budget response tone perfectly.
If the Tories can resist the idiocy of replacing with Jenrick if results in May aren’t perfect and she gets the chance to really build her profile with the electorate then I think she has a chance of beating reform.
I think by the next election people will like the no nonsense attitude and I think her attacks on Reform in the clip are the approach to take.
Other opinions are of course available.
I am minded to agree. Its taken time for her to find her feet but there have been positive signs recently. At the same time the gloss is coming off Farage more than a bit and he's not getting any younger. Hopefully, by the next election, the populists will have lost some ground back to the centre. I'd wish the same thing to happen between the Greens and Labour too but that is looking less likely right now. The polling for Reeves was truly awful (although no worse than she deserves).
The challenge for Badenoch (and Stride) is putting in the hard graft to build a really coherent alternative.
Kemi has just shown that, when on form, she can be a brilliant attack dog. She is good at arguing for and articulating ‘values’, but she’s less good at being clear and precise about what that looks like in practice.
“Reforming welfare” and “shrinking the state” is exactly right, but you need to have a serious conversation about how you build an economy and a growth agenda that works for people around that. And that includes serious Tory blind spots like property, NIMBYism, and pensions - things that I’m still far from convinced the Tories have the appetite to seriously look at (the stamp duty thing is a start to generate the conversation re downsizing; but needs more thought and it’s the easiest of easy wins to sell to the faithful).
The Tories are slowly moving into a space that I can get on board with; but much more work is needed, and Badenoch needs to really seize this moment and mature as a politician into someone who looks, talks and thinks like a serious reforming leader. What I will say, is that I think they’d be stupid to remove her as leader right now.
Mel Stride comes across well too I think. I hadn’t heard him before this week, he looks like someone who’d play the Chancellor in a film
Mel Stride up to second in the new ConHome survey of Conservative Party members of net satisfaction with Shadow Cabinet ministers, Stride overtaking Kemi in the process and now just 2% behind first placed Jenrick with Kemi third
Surprised at Kemi falling below Stride. She seems to be going through a relatively purple patch just now.
It's ConHome....
I trust the ConHome surveys as a barometer of members' feelings. Fairplay to Stride - I think he's a useless wet blancmange, but he's obviously making an impression on some people.
Could be that he's opposing Reeves so appears better by comparison, but then Kemi's opposing Starmer.
Haven't most of the non wets buggered off to Reform?
Given that Jenrick is at the top, that seems a rather folorn wet hope. I really don't think there are that many wet Tories in the membership anyway - or frankly in the country.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
I feel a Rolling Stones song coming on....
Now you can't (always get what you want) yeah Now you can't (always get what you want) Now you can't (always get what you want) yeah And if you try sometimes, you just might find You get what you need
Not the worst idea but nothing will work whilst Putin thinks he can win.
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Denning was responsible for a few perverse decisions of his own, as I recall.
I watched him in action in the 1970s. at the height of his fame he could do no wrong; after retirement his failings became apparent, and his approach to law went out of fashion and suddenly he could do no right; I should think he is at the nadir about now.
Perhaps it's time for two things: a more positive appraisal of his general approach to interpretation, the relationship of law and the virtue of justice and the making of judgments; and, even more, a lot more judges whose judgments tell a story, however unpromising the materials, beautifully well with a mixture of poetry and clarity.
Lloyds Bank v Bundy.
Not only a brilliant story but an incredible synthesis of various equitable principles into one overarching principle. One of the truly great judgments. I went past Yew Tree farm recently on holiday. I think it was the right one. I was genuinely excited. For extra geek points I used to use the first part of the judgment to teach judicial pleading. Short, clear sentences largely with a single fact in each. A masterclass of judicial writing.
"Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm, It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. He mortgaged it to the bank. Up to the very hilt. Not to borrow money for himself, but for the sake of his son. Now the bank have come down on him. They have foreclosed. They want to get him out of Yew Tree Farm and to sell it. They have brought this action against him for possession. Going out means ruin for him. He was granted legal aid. His lawyers put in a defence. They said that, when he executed the charge to the bank he did not know what he was doing: or at any rate not the circumstances were such that he ought not to be bound by it. At the trial his plight was plain. The Judge was sorry for him. He said he was a "poor old gentleman". He was so obviously incapacitated that the Judge admitted his proof in evidence. He had a heart attack in the witness-box. Yet the Judge felt he could do nothing for him. There is nothing, he said, "which takes this out of the vast range of commercial transactions". He ordered Herbert Bundy to give up possession of Yew Tree Farm to the bank."
At the risk of a spoiler a story starting like this is not going to end well for the bank.
Yes. These days we have Phipps v Barclays Bank when you sue the bank for doing what you insisted it did and against their advice.
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Denning was responsible for a few perverse decisions of his own, as I recall.
I watched him in action in the 1970s. at the height of his fame he could do no wrong; after retirement his failings became apparent, and his approach to law went out of fashion and suddenly he could do no right; I should think he is at the nadir about now.
Perhaps it's time for two things: a more positive appraisal of his general approach to interpretation, the relationship of law and the virtue of justice and the making of judgments; and, even more, a lot more judges whose judgments tell a story, however unpromising the materials, beautifully well with a mixture of poetry and clarity.
Lloyds Bank v Bundy.
Not only a brilliant story but an incredible synthesis of various equitable principles into one overarching principle. One of the truly great judgments. I went past Yew Tree farm recently on holiday. I think it was the right one. I was genuinely excited. For extra geek points I used to use the first part of the judgment to teach judicial pleading. Short, clear sentences largely with a single fact in each. A masterclass of judicial writing.
"Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm, It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. He mortgaged it to the bank. Up to the very hilt. Not to borrow money for himself, but for the sake of his son. Now the bank have come down on him. They have foreclosed. They want to get him out of Yew Tree Farm and to sell it. They have brought this action against him for possession. Going out means ruin for him. He was granted legal aid. His lawyers put in a defence. They said that, when he executed the charge to the bank he did not know what he was doing: or at any rate not the circumstances were such that he ought not to be bound by it. At the trial his plight was plain. The Judge was sorry for him. He said he was a "poor old gentleman". He was so obviously incapacitated that the Judge admitted his proof in evidence. He had a heart attack in the witness-box. Yet the Judge felt he could do nothing for him. There is nothing, he said, "which takes this out of the vast range of commercial transactions". He ordered Herbert Bundy to give up possession of Yew Tree Farm to the bank."
At the risk of a spoiler a story starting like this is not going to end well for the bank.
Yes. These days we have Phipps v Barclays Bank when you sue the bank for doing what you insisted it did and against their advice.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
Out this morning - the Guardian on the latest YP chaos:
‘We had six MPs and four factions’: inside Your Party’s toxic power struggles
At an early meeting to set the path for what would become Your Party, participants quickly agreed on one thing: given the cliches about leftwingers forever falling out, at all costs they must avoid a descent into factionalism.
Six months on and the Liverpool venue hosting this weekend’s inaugural Your Party conference has been warned to expect potential disruption, including stage invasions by disgruntled members representing particular wings. Extra security guards have been hired.
Even by the standards of fringe parties (see also, all those Re- parties on the right), Your Party is shaping up to be a corker of a fiasco. Any theories as to why it's so bad?
(Mine, apart from hating SKS not being a solid foundation for any party, is that tech makes it too easy to arrange the surface features of a movement when there's nothing underneath.)
I suspect it is some combination of divisions over small policy differences that often fixate the far left, the fundamental contradiction between a socially progressive party and a muslim party (note the reference in the article to trans issues already being a flashpoint), and the characters of Corbyn and Sultana being diametrically opposite personalities in almost every respect?
As a brand new outfit, there is 'everything to fight for' in terms of both its platform and who gets what job and hence where the organisational power lies. And it isn't being formed because of a strong, single imperative (for example the SDP originated from counter-reaction to Labour's opposition to Europe), so they don't have much to unite around other than Gaza.
The headline contradicts the more nuanced article. The sober reality is that there's a gap on the left which Your Party may or may not fill. Labour has quite deliberately moved to the centre (arguably centre-right), the LibDems still can't decide on a firm direction, and the Greens have opted to go left but are mainly known as an environmental movement. There is considerable support for a left-wing party, ideally with a working relationship with the Greens, and Your Party can potentially harvest that if they manage to avoid further splits, have a reasonable conference and build a lasting leadership. Corbyn's speech on Wednesday included the useful insight that British politics traditionally mloves in a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" policies, disguised by cod drama of five-yearly showdowns, and anything seriously left-wing runs into credibility issues magnified by the very limited press. One difficulty that they have is the way media works in Britain - the concept of a party with anonymous collective leadership is completely alien to British media tradition, so they fall back on occasionally giving Zarah an airing as the youngest recognisable semi-leader - contrast with the success of Reform, who seem willing to have Farage make up policy and reverse it at will.
People like me who think Labour has moved too far to the right but aren't very interested in ecology have a choice - do we try to help move Labour leftwards again, give Your Party a try, have a go with the Greens, or do nothing and hope that a way forward becomes obvious. The weekend may cast some light. I wouldn't rely on the media to give the answer, but Your Party badly needs an identifiable leadership.
For me the idea of the left and a shift leftwards (leaving aside environmentalism and climate for a moment) raises interesting alternatives about what it is, how it goes about things, and what it is for.
My start point is this: from 1945 to today the dominant and only forms of government have been versions of incrementally improving (and sometimes standing still and sometimes going a little backwards) social democracy. This is both a narrow window, but also built into 80 years (arguably much longer) of the political order in the UK.
If the Corbyn style left exists as a nice club or a secular non conformist society to be in and argue about, plus some single issue campaigning, that's fine. But if it plans to govern it has to be clear where it stands in relation to who owns what, and the UK and global capitalist order, and our sets of historic alliances.
The left, from a starting point of 8 year olds hauling trucks down mines in 1840, makes perfect sense. The left, after 80 years of quite successful social democracy, less so unless it can explain itself in relation to theory, policy and actual implementation comprehensible to a reader of the Daily Mirror or Mail. Is it able to do so?
Yes, very fair comment. But I'd argue that Sweden, with its high-tax high-welfare model, offers a successful alternative to our current cringe in the face of tiny increases in tax.
In general, parties campaigning on the basis that they might shortly be expected to share power are thin on the ground. Labour and the Tories and Nationalists, sure. LibDems not sure. Greens and Reform no. A new party has a slim potential to become a contender for power-sharing - one of the more substantial criticisms of Farage's "this week's policy is..." approach is that he's not taken that on board at all.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
2030 is the plan.
For even more fun, the deorbit capability has only recently been ordered. So there is no way to do a controlled deorbit, as yet
If abandoned, ISS will break up and reenter randomly.
Reading around it seems Kemi is having a pretty decent post-budget media round for the last couple of days.
At the pub yesterday the message from non-political friends was that it's fundamentally unfair to put taxes up on working people to increase welfare/benefits. The Tories need to really go hard here and have an alternative plan that is fully costed that will show how to cut welfare and not raise taxes on working people. I think this is the opening that they can really make hay with.
She has to call out most of the last Tory administrations for doing the same, however.
Dividend taxes have been creeping up since Osborne. There is almost no fiscal incentive to set up a business now.
If she draws a line in the sand and makes the Tories an actual pro business, anti big-state party, she might just survive as leader till the next election
Tax advantages shouldn't be the reason somebody sets up a business.
They absolutely should be part of it.
Setting up a business is incredibly risky. Something that no-one in the public sector ever appreciates. Not many in the current Govt seem to, either.
The private sector ENTIRELY funds the public sector. Without the risk takers, there would be no public sector. If you stop rewarding risk here, the risk takers will go elsewhere.
The sectors are more of a symbiotic whole, I'd say. That one creates and the other absorbs is reductive and misleading.
But anway, my point is if you're mainly in business for the tax breaks that's unlikely to be the sort of enterprise on which the prosperity of a nation can be built.
Which doesn't mean tax or regs should be punitive of course. That helps nobody. We need those animal spirits. Agree with you there.
All you're doing is showing up your lack of knowledge of how commerce works.
It isn't tax breaks. Giving business owners, the risk takers, a slight advantage over the wage takers (who have ridiculous levels of protection as employees, now), is literally the only way to promote growth. Big State depends upon it. And yet Big State continues to cock a snook at commerce.
France to intercept migrant boats at sea soon apparently
Just what are they going to do with them.
Take them back to France ?
Tow them into British water, I expect.
The French will have a model of tides and winds which will indicate the perfect place to drop the tow and guarantee that they land on an English beach.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
2030 is the plan.
For even more fun, the deorbit capability has only recently been ordered. So there is no way to do a controlled deorbit, as yet
If abandoned, ISS will break up and reenter randomly.
France to intercept migrant boats at sea soon apparently
Just what are they going to do with them.
Take them back to France ?
Tow them into British water, I expect.
The French will have a model of tides and winds which will indicate the perfect place to drop the tow and guarantee that they land on an English beach.
I'm sure the French are as fed up with the whole thing as we are. After all they've got all sorts of tatty camps all over the Pas de Calais.
Basically, mass prostate screening doesn't work. We're tried it. The evidence is that you don't save lives. Well, that was the situation 5 years ago. Let's see what the new one actually says.
The one screening programme I'm on is a UCH run one for lung cancer. I'm high risk being 60+ with a long smoking history. It's basically a scan every 2 years looking for abnormalities. The idea is to spot LC before it gets too advanced to treat (which is often the case if you already have symptoms). This programme is quite new and I'm grateful for it.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
2030 is the plan.
For even more fun, the deorbit capability has only recently been ordered. So there is no way to do a controlled deorbit, as yet
If abandoned, ISS will break up and reenter randomly.
I've just listened to the audiobook "The Falll of Boris Johnson" by Sebastian Payne. It simply does what it says on the cover. No great revelations but what it describes is a Party and membership in disarray. It's easy to forget when you watch Starmer and Reeves struggle quite how disfunctional their predecessors were.
Truss was adored. The right wing press thought she was the Messiah. The Mail doted on her. Crazies like Dorries and Rees Mogg are everywhere. Anyone wishing for a Tory renaissance anytime soon ought to read it.
Good morning
The lesson labour should learn is the Tories got rid of Truss in just 6 weeks not an 18 month slow burn of economic tragedy and incompetence delivered by Starmer and Reeves
I note the markets are expressing concern that because of the back loading of the tax increases towards the next GE the government may attempt to defer the pain until the next parliament
Truss came into office after the Conservatives had been in power for more than a decade - it wasn't as though she won a General Election and became Prime Minister with a mandate - the only one she had was from Conservative Party members.
To conflate her circumstances with those of Starmer and Reeves is ridiculous.
If anything, the "slow burn of economic tragedy and incompetence" could, if I were callous, be described as Continuity Sunak and Hunt and I agree that's the problem. There is the same timidity among this Labour Government as there was with Blair after 1997 but he inherited (thanks to Ken Clarke) as strong an economy as you could wish and Brown followed Clarke's spending until 1999 when, to general agreement, spending started to rise.
Reeves has an understand of the enormity of the problem, no doubt, but she is as bereft of solutions as most other western Governments at this time who are likewise struggling with the post-pandemic inheritance of demographic, technological, socio-economic and geopolitical changes, all of which combine to negate economic growth.
Truss and Kwarteng failed, in part, because their proposals bumped up against people's notion of "fairness" which is not what it was. The perception of encouraging economic growth by making the very wealthy even wealthier and making the poorest and those dependent on Government largesse even poorer might be economically "sound" for growth but it doesn't work politically as all the polling suggests.
Reeves also faces the economic and political conundrum which, simply put, is you can increase everyone's taxes but not mine and you can cut everyone else's services but not the ones I and my family use. Magnify that by 50-60 million and you have the current Gordian Knot which is strangling politics and economics alike.
Blair wasn't timid, so much as trying to build a reputation for competence and financial sense*, while increasing spending on certain areas. Whatever you think of it, it was a joined up plan that was actually possible.
*Remember, that Labour had worked very hard for 15 years (at that point) to have a reputation as lunatic spenders.
Set against a background of cheap food, cheap fuel, cheap money and endlessly rising asset values, yes it was and by 1999 moat agreed some additional public spending was not only justified but necessary.
The problem, as I said on here many times, was what Brown did was the equivalent of force feeding a starving man a banquet. So much money was thrown at the public sector, especially the NHS, and at infrastructures which couldn't properly use it and absorb it a lot was wasted. A more controlled drip-feed of money over a number of years would have been so much better and enabled the organisations to build up the structures which would have allowed the funds to be better used.
The irony was both the Conservatives at the time and the LDs also engaged in this dutch auction of seeing how much they could throw at the public sector. After the events of September 2001, the whole defence and security establishment came with their begging bowl wanting money to combat Islamic terrorism and to fund the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
All this spending was fine while the economy was growing and the tax receipts were coming in but that all stopped in 2008 and that's when our problems really started and I think so much of what has happened since dates from that.
I broadly agree with you except for the last paragraph.
The issue was Brown’s hubris: remember “no more boom and bust”?
He believed that the tax revenues from the City were a permanent step change and therefore he could bake in structural spending. When the inevitable bust came it was very difficult to adjust that. If he had been more thoughtful - and paid down debt or had more temporary spending measures (eg capex vs current account spending) then the post 2008 profile would have been very different.
Out this morning - the Guardian on the latest YP chaos:
‘We had six MPs and four factions’: inside Your Party’s toxic power struggles
At an early meeting to set the path for what would become Your Party, participants quickly agreed on one thing: given the cliches about leftwingers forever falling out, at all costs they must avoid a descent into factionalism.
Six months on and the Liverpool venue hosting this weekend’s inaugural Your Party conference has been warned to expect potential disruption, including stage invasions by disgruntled members representing particular wings. Extra security guards have been hired.
Even by the standards of fringe parties (see also, all those Re- parties on the right), Your Party is shaping up to be a corker of a fiasco. Any theories as to why it's so bad?
(Mine, apart from hating SKS not being a solid foundation for any party, is that tech makes it too easy to arrange the surface features of a movement when there's nothing underneath.)
I suspect it is some combination of divisions over small policy differences that often fixate the far left, the fundamental contradiction between a socially progressive party and a muslim party (note the reference in the article to trans issues already being a flashpoint), and the characters of Corbyn and Sultana being diametrically opposite personalities in almost every respect?
As a brand new outfit, there is 'everything to fight for' in terms of both its platform and who gets what job and hence where the organisational power lies. And it isn't being formed because of a strong, single imperative (for example the SDP originated from counter-reaction to Labour's opposition to Europe), so they don't have much to unite around other than Gaza.
The headline contradicts the more nuanced article. The sober reality is that there's a gap on the left which Your Party may or may not fill. Labour has quite deliberately moved to the centre (arguably centre-right), the LibDems still can't decide on a firm direction, and the Greens have opted to go left but are mainly known as an environmental movement. There is considerable support for a left-wing party, ideally with a working relationship with the Greens, and Your Party can potentially harvest that if they manage to avoid further splits, have a reasonable conference and build a lasting leadership. Corbyn's speech on Wednesday included the useful insight that British politics traditionally mloves in a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" policies, disguised by cod drama of five-yearly showdowns, and anything seriously left-wing runs into credibility issues magnified by the very limited press. One difficulty that they have is the way media works in Britain - the concept of a party with anonymous collective leadership is completely alien to British media tradition, so they fall back on occasionally giving Zarah an airing as the youngest recognisable semi-leader - contrast with the success of Reform, who seem willing to have Farage make up policy and reverse it at will.
People like me who think Labour has moved too far to the right but aren't very interested in ecology have a choice - do we try to help move Labour leftwards again, give Your Party a try, have a go with the Greens, or do nothing and hope that a way forward becomes obvious. The weekend may cast some light. I wouldn't rely on the media to give the answer, but Your Party badly needs an identifiable leadership.
For me the idea of the left and a shift leftwards (leaving aside environmentalism and climate for a moment) raises interesting alternatives about what it is, how it goes about things, and what it is for.
My start point is this: from 1945 to today the dominant and only forms of government have been versions of incrementally improving (and sometimes standing still and sometimes going a little backwards) social democracy. This is both a narrow window, but also built into 80 years (arguably much longer) of the political order in the UK.
If the Corbyn style left exists as a nice club or a secular non conformist society to be in and argue about, plus some single issue campaigning, that's fine. But if it plans to govern it has to be clear where it stands in relation to who owns what, and the UK and global capitalist order, and our sets of historic alliances.
The left, from a starting point of 8 year olds hauling trucks down mines in 1840, makes perfect sense. The left, after 80 years of quite successful social democracy, less so unless it can explain itself in relation to theory, policy and actual implementation comprehensible to a reader of the Daily Mirror or Mail. Is it able to do so?
Yes, very fair comment. But I'd argue that Sweden, with its high-tax high-welfare model, offers a successful alternative to our current cringe in the face of tiny increases in tax.
In general, parties campaigning on the basis that they might shortly be expected to share power are thin on the ground. Labour and the Tories and Nationalists, sure. LibDems not sure. Greens and Reform no. A new party has a slim potential to become a contender for power-sharing - one of the more substantial criticisms of Farage's "this week's policy is..." approach is that he's not taken that on board at all.
Doesn’t Russia deserve Sweden as a buffer zone against NATO?
Or does that only apply to “far off countries of which you know nothing”?
Out this morning - the Guardian on the latest YP chaos:
‘We had six MPs and four factions’: inside Your Party’s toxic power struggles
At an early meeting to set the path for what would become Your Party, participants quickly agreed on one thing: given the cliches about leftwingers forever falling out, at all costs they must avoid a descent into factionalism.
Six months on and the Liverpool venue hosting this weekend’s inaugural Your Party conference has been warned to expect potential disruption, including stage invasions by disgruntled members representing particular wings. Extra security guards have been hired.
Even by the standards of fringe parties (see also, all those Re- parties on the right), Your Party is shaping up to be a corker of a fiasco. Any theories as to why it's so bad?
(Mine, apart from hating SKS not being a solid foundation for any party, is that tech makes it too easy to arrange the surface features of a movement when there's nothing underneath.)
I suspect it is some combination of divisions over small policy differences that often fixate the far left, the fundamental contradiction between a socially progressive party and a muslim party (note the reference in the article to trans issues already being a flashpoint), and the characters of Corbyn and Sultana being diametrically opposite personalities in almost every respect?
As a brand new outfit, there is 'everything to fight for' in terms of both its platform and who gets what job and hence where the organisational power lies. And it isn't being formed because of a strong, single imperative (for example the SDP originated from counter-reaction to Labour's opposition to Europe), so they don't have much to unite around other than Gaza.
The headline contradicts the more nuanced article. The sober reality is that there's a gap on the left which Your Party may or may not fill. Labour has quite deliberately moved to the centre (arguably centre-right), the LibDems still can't decide on a firm direction, and the Greens have opted to go left but are mainly known as an environmental movement. There is considerable support for a left-wing party, ideally with a working relationship with the Greens, and Your Party can potentially harvest that if they manage to avoid further splits, have a reasonable conference and build a lasting leadership. Corbyn's speech on Wednesday included the useful insight that British politics traditionally mloves in a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" policies, disguised by cod drama of five-yearly showdowns, and anything seriously left-wing runs into credibility issues magnified by the very limited press. One difficulty that they have is the way media works in Britain - the concept of a party with anonymous collective leadership is completely alien to British media tradition, so they fall back on occasionally giving Zarah an airing as the youngest recognisable semi-leader - contrast with the success of Reform, who seem willing to have Farage make up policy and reverse it at will.
People like me who think Labour has moved too far to the right but aren't very interested in ecology have a choice - do we try to help move Labour leftwards again, give Your Party a try, have a go with the Greens, or do nothing and hope that a way forward becomes obvious. The weekend may cast some light. I wouldn't rely on the media to give the answer, but Your Party badly needs an identifiable leadership.
For me the idea of the left and a shift leftwards (leaving aside environmentalism and climate for a moment) raises interesting alternatives about what it is, how it goes about things, and what it is for.
My start point is this: from 1945 to today the dominant and only forms of government have been versions of incrementally improving (and sometimes standing still and sometimes going a little backwards) social democracy. This is both a narrow window, but also built into 80 years (arguably much longer) of the political order in the UK.
If the Corbyn style left exists as a nice club or a secular non conformist society to be in and argue about, plus some single issue campaigning, that's fine. But if it plans to govern it has to be clear where it stands in relation to who owns what, and the UK and global capitalist order, and our sets of historic alliances.
The left, from a starting point of 8 year olds hauling trucks down mines in 1840, makes perfect sense. The left, after 80 years of quite successful social democracy, less so unless it can explain itself in relation to theory, policy and actual implementation comprehensible to a reader of the Daily Mirror or Mail. Is it able to do so?
Yes, very fair comment. But I'd argue that Sweden, with its high-tax high-welfare model, offers a successful alternative to our current cringe in the face of tiny increases in tax.
In general, parties campaigning on the basis that they might shortly be expected to share power are thin on the ground. Labour and the Tories and Nationalists, sure. LibDems not sure. Greens and Reform no. A new party has a slim potential to become a contender for power-sharing - one of the more substantial criticisms of Farage's "this week's policy is..." approach is that he's not taken that on board at all.
Your Party, is in no sense, a Social Democratic party.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Denning was responsible for a few perverse decisions of his own, as I recall.
I watched him in action in the 1970s. at the height of his fame he could do no wrong; after retirement his failings became apparent, and his approach to law went out of fashion and suddenly he could do no right; I should think he is at the nadir about now.
Perhaps it's time for two things: a more positive appraisal of his general approach to interpretation, the relationship of law and the virtue of justice and the making of judgments; and, even more, a lot more judges whose judgments tell a story, however unpromising the materials, beautifully well with a mixture of poetry and clarity.
Lloyds Bank v Bundy.
Not only a brilliant story but an incredible synthesis of various equitable principles into one overarching principle. One of the truly great judgments. I went past Yew Tree farm recently on holiday. I think it was the right one. I was genuinely excited. For extra geek points I used to use the first part of the judgment to teach judicial pleading. Short, clear sentences largely with a single fact in each. A masterclass of judicial writing.
"Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm, It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. He mortgaged it to the bank. Up to the very hilt. Not to borrow money for himself, but for the sake of his son. Now the bank have come down on him. They have foreclosed. They want to get him out of Yew Tree Farm and to sell it. They have brought this action against him for possession. Going out means ruin for him. He was granted legal aid. His lawyers put in a defence. They said that, when he executed the charge to the bank he did not know what he was doing: or at any rate not the circumstances were such that he ought not to be bound by it. At the trial his plight was plain. The Judge was sorry for him. He said he was a "poor old gentleman". He was so obviously incapacitated that the Judge admitted his proof in evidence. He had a heart attack in the witness-box. Yet the Judge felt he could do nothing for him. There is nothing, he said, "which takes this out of the vast range of commercial transactions". He ordered Herbert Bundy to give up possession of Yew Tree Farm to the bank."
At the risk of a spoiler a story starting like this is not going to end well for the bank.
Yes. These days we have Phipps v Barclays Bank when you sue the bank for doing what you insisted it did and against their advice.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Some of the screening programmes have issues - you take screening that has an apparently good characteristis (for technical, high AUROC - or high true positive rate, low false positive rate) but if you apply it to rare conditions (as most are, really) then you get a lot of false positives for the true positives. The false positives lead to investigations which can themselves have negative outcomes and the cost can mount up too. Even breast cancer screening is not slam dunk:
Adjacently, my job is now in developing infrastructure that is partly to support use of genetic screening as a first step, so you target screening to those who are higher risk to start with, which greatly increases the effectiveness of screening. That's the idea, anyway - there are clearly issues with then not screening some groups and the harm/benefit balance there. But mostly it will be about supporting currently not done screening to happen for higher risk people.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
There many hundreds of thousands of people living there who don't want to be in Russia. They voted against that, repeatedly. They voted, repeatedly, to be part of Ukraine.
Just because they are "Russian speakers" doesn't make them Russian. Zelensky, for example.
It also contains a large chunk of the Ukrainian economy.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
There are other problems with the idea. For a start, there's the unwillingness of Putin to even talk to Ukraine; the fact that he's refused every offer of a ceasefire; that he refuses to recognise Ukraine government. etc.
The only way Putin comes to the table is if the war turns against him. That should now be clear to even the dimmest, reasonably fair minded, observer.
If we eventually reach a state of ceasefire by halting Putin in his tracks, are we really saying that Ukraine should still transfer cities and their citizens to a "buffer" state, which will very likely be subject to annexation by Russia at the first opportunity ? It's an absurd idea.
At best, a depopulated, demilitarised zone might work. For a while.
Out this morning - the Guardian on the latest YP chaos:
‘We had six MPs and four factions’: inside Your Party’s toxic power struggles
At an early meeting to set the path for what would become Your Party, participants quickly agreed on one thing: given the cliches about leftwingers forever falling out, at all costs they must avoid a descent into factionalism.
Six months on and the Liverpool venue hosting this weekend’s inaugural Your Party conference has been warned to expect potential disruption, including stage invasions by disgruntled members representing particular wings. Extra security guards have been hired.
Even by the standards of fringe parties (see also, all those Re- parties on the right), Your Party is shaping up to be a corker of a fiasco. Any theories as to why it's so bad?
(Mine, apart from hating SKS not being a solid foundation for any party, is that tech makes it too easy to arrange the surface features of a movement when there's nothing underneath.)
I suspect it is some combination of divisions over small policy differences that often fixate the far left, the fundamental contradiction between a socially progressive party and a muslim party (note the reference in the article to trans issues already being a flashpoint), and the characters of Corbyn and Sultana being diametrically opposite personalities in almost every respect?
As a brand new outfit, there is 'everything to fight for' in terms of both its platform and who gets what job and hence where the organisational power lies. And it isn't being formed because of a strong, single imperative (for example the SDP originated from counter-reaction to Labour's opposition to Europe), so they don't have much to unite around other than Gaza.
The headline contradicts the more nuanced article. The sober reality is that there's a gap on the left which Your Party may or may not fill. Labour has quite deliberately moved to the centre (arguably centre-right), the LibDems still can't decide on a firm direction, and the Greens have opted to go left but are mainly known as an environmental movement. There is considerable support for a left-wing party, ideally with a working relationship with the Greens, and Your Party can potentially harvest that if they manage to avoid further splits, have a reasonable conference and build a lasting leadership. Corbyn's speech on Wednesday included the useful insight that British politics traditionally mloves in a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" policies, disguised by cod drama of five-yearly showdowns, and anything seriously left-wing runs into credibility issues magnified by the very limited press. One difficulty that they have is the way media works in Britain - the concept of a party with anonymous collective leadership is completely alien to British media tradition, so they fall back on occasionally giving Zarah an airing as the youngest recognisable semi-leader - contrast with the success of Reform, who seem willing to have Farage make up policy and reverse it at will.
People like me who think Labour has moved too far to the right but aren't very interested in ecology have a choice - do we try to help move Labour leftwards again, give Your Party a try, have a go with the Greens, or do nothing and hope that a way forward becomes obvious. The weekend may cast some light. I wouldn't rely on the media to give the answer, but Your Party badly needs an identifiable leadership.
For me the idea of the left and a shift leftwards (leaving aside environmentalism and climate for a moment) raises interesting alternatives about what it is, how it goes about things, and what it is for.
My start point is this: from 1945 to today the dominant and only forms of government have been versions of incrementally improving (and sometimes standing still and sometimes going a little backwards) social democracy. This is both a narrow window, but also built into 80 years (arguably much longer) of the political order in the UK.
If the Corbyn style left exists as a nice club or a secular non conformist society to be in and argue about, plus some single issue campaigning, that's fine. But if it plans to govern it has to be clear where it stands in relation to who owns what, and the UK and global capitalist order, and our sets of historic alliances.
The left, from a starting point of 8 year olds hauling trucks down mines in 1840, makes perfect sense. The left, after 80 years of quite successful social democracy, less so unless it can explain itself in relation to theory, policy and actual implementation comprehensible to a reader of the Daily Mirror or Mail. Is it able to do so?
Yes, very fair comment. But I'd argue that Sweden, with its high-tax high-welfare model, offers a successful alternative to our current cringe in the face of tiny increases in tax.
In general, parties campaigning on the basis that they might shortly be expected to share power are thin on the ground. Labour and the Tories and Nationalists, sure. LibDems not sure. Greens and Reform no. A new party has a slim potential to become a contender for power-sharing - one of the more substantial criticisms of Farage's "this week's policy is..." approach is that he's not taken that on board at all.
Sweden, I suggest, is a good example of a social democracy, not of a left alternative. We should be more like it. My contention is that all UK governments since 1945 have been social democrat ones, varying only in emphasis, degree of competence, rhetoric, and the situation with which they happened to be faced. The challenge is how any left (not only left but any other) world view is going to set out a programme for government, and actually govern.
As a practical example it is obvious that if Reform get to govern, they will govern as social democrats (high spend, high tax, welfare state, NHS, regulated capitalism) + populist nationalists. I think it will be a disaster, but it will be social democrat disaster.
So I would still like to know what a left, non centrist non social democratic, programme for government could plausibly look like set out in a way comprehensible to a trade union member, or reader of the Mirror or Mail.
Basically, mass prostate screening doesn't work. We're tried it. The evidence is that you don't save lives. Well, that was the situation 5 years ago. Let's see what the new one actually says.
The one screening programme I'm on is a UCH run one for lung cancer. I'm high risk being 60+ with a long smoking history. It's basically a scan every 2 years looking for abnormalities. The idea is to spot LC before it gets too advanced to treat (which is often the case if you already have symptoms). This programme is quite new and I'm grateful for it.
I volunteer for some medical research projects, both through the NHS and Surrey University. I guess I have done about half a dozen. They are usually interesting, you feel like you are giving something back, you get a free thorough health check, several have involved losing weight, which was useful and I even got paid for one. A whole £100.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
There many hundreds of thousands of people living there who don't want to be in Russia. They voted against that, repeatedly. They voted, repeatedly, to be part of Ukraine.
Just because they are "Russian speakers" doesn't make them Russian. Zelensky, for example.
It also contains a large chunk of the Ukrainian economy.
The economic viability (of both the rest of Ukraine, and the successor state) is more challenging than the political aspects. But war is a lot more challenging for economic viability.
There was never an election on whether the citizens of Donetsk and Lugansk would like to be part of an independent but Russia-aligned state. I agree that their Russian heritage doesn't automatically equate to Russian loyalties, but I think for the most part they did form the backbone of the pro-Russian parties.
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Yes, juries have the power to totally ignore the advice they've been given by judges, barristers, etc, if they morally disagree with whatever's happening in terms of the charge, the process, the technical facts, etc. That's the best thing about them. People of a bureaucratic and technocratic nature must strongly dislike that aspect of it.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
HS2?
Saudi Arabia's wall project is supposed to come in at around $500bn, but I would guess it will never be completed.
TSMC's planned 1.4nm chip fab is likely to cost as much as $50bn.
If you consider the web and its attached data centres as a single thing, then you will get up to several trillions.
This was announced in an address by the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky:
“I am grateful to Andriy for always representing Ukraine’s position in the negotiation track exactly as he should. It was always a patriotic position.”
Today, the head of the President’s Office was searched by investigators.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
HS2?
Saudi Arabia's wall project is supposed to come in at around $500bn, but I would guess it will never be completed.
TSMC's planned 1.4nm chip fab is likely to cost as much as $50bn.
If you consider the web and its attached data centres as a single thing, then you will get up to several trillions.
Maybe in real terms PPP the Great Wall of China? Not that it would be easy to calculate.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
There many hundreds of thousands of people living there who don't want to be in Russia. They voted against that, repeatedly. They voted, repeatedly, to be part of Ukraine.
Just because they are "Russian speakers" doesn't make them Russian. Zelensky, for example.
It also contains a large chunk of the Ukrainian economy.
The economic viability (of both the rest of Ukraine, and the successor state) is more challenging than the political aspects. But war is a lot more challenging for economic viability.
There was never an election on whether the citizens of Donetsk and Lugansk would like to be part of an independent but Russia-aligned state. I agree that their Russian heritage doesn't automatically equate to Russian loyalties, but I think for the most part they did form the backbone of the pro-Russian parties.
You think wrong.
There were multiple elections in those areas, before Russia started invading (2014 etc). The Join-Russia parties never managed to get a majority in any of border regions. Even the Pro-Russia parties struggled.
The CNN poll carried out just before the invasion found a majority, in the even the parts of the border regions closest to Russia, still wanted to be Ukrainian.
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
There are other problems with the idea. For a start, there's the unwillingness of Putin to even talk to Ukraine; the fact that he's refused every offer of a ceasefire; that he refuses to recognise Ukraine government. etc.
The only way Putin comes to the table is if the war turns against him. That should now be clear to even the dimmest, reasonably fair minded, observer.
If we eventually reach a state of ceasefire by halting Putin in his tracks, are we really saying that Ukraine should still transfer cities and their citizens to a "buffer" state, which will very likely be subject to annexation by Russia at the first opportunity ? It's an absurd idea.
At best, a depopulated, demilitarised zone might work. For a while.
Yes, that is what I am saying. And Putin would also (and I am aware that there is no moral equivalence) surrender his gains to the new state.
Yes, Putin could invade it, but so could Ukraine or the West - that is what a buffer state is.
As far as I'm aware, Putin is at the table - he's just not saying anything that is remotely acceptable or workable for Ukraine at present.
This I think would be acceptable and workable, because Ukraine could join NATO and the EU, and re-arm to its desired extent.
Doesn’t Russia deserve Sweden as a buffer zone against NATO?
Or does that only apply to “far off countries of which you know nothing”?
Your phrasing sounds vaguely derisive, but I don't quite know what you're getting at, especially as you were replying to a thread about other issues. Sweden as an active neutral does seem to perform a useful role, but of course it's nothing to do with Russia whether they're neutral or not. That said, Lucky's suggestion of the eastern Ukraine provinces providing a buffer in exchange for Ukraine being free to join NATO does sound a possibility, designed to frustrate everyone but reduce the probability of future conflicts. As with India and Pakistan, I suspect that the issue of whether consent comes from current residents or needs to include people who've fled elsewhere arises - it's quite likely that a majority of original residents would be opposed, but remaining residents in favour.
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
Can't find the quote but I think Denning liked juries precisely because of their occasionally perverse decisions. I suspect he would have approved of the Clive Ponting decision, which was technically wrong but morally right.
Yes, juries have the power to totally ignore the advice they've been given by judges, barristers, etc, if they morally disagree with whatever's happening in terms of the charge, the process, the technical facts, etc. That's the best thing about them. People of a bureaucratic and technocratic nature must strongly dislike that aspect of it.
R v Wang 2005 HL
"there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty."
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
Some of the screening programmes have issues - you take screening that has an apparently good characteristis (for technical, high AUROC - or high true positive rate, low false positive rate) but if you apply it to rare conditions (as most are, really) then you get a lot of false positives for the true positives. The false positives lead to investigations which can themselves have negative outcomes and the cost can mount up too. Even breast cancer screening is not slam dunk:
Adjacently, my job is now in developing infrastructure that is partly to support use of genetic screening as a first step, so you target screening to those who are higher risk to start with, which greatly increases the effectiveness of screening. That's the idea, anyway - there are clearly issues with then not screening some groups and the harm/benefit balance there. But mostly it will be about supporting currently not done screening to happen for higher risk people.
The NHS is running multiple large scale trials. There's the one to genetically sample 100k newborns, and follow them long term; the 1million plus "Our Future Health" volunteers who gave blood samples for a similar purpose; the 100k plus Galleri trial for cancer screening... and specifically for prostate cancer, this one:
First men invited to take part in TRANSFORM screening trial - the most ambitious prostate cancer trial in decades https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/about-us/news/transform-trial-launches-nov-25 20 Nov 2025 Today, the first men will begin receiving letters from their GPs to join the ambitious £42 million TRANSFORM screening trial - the biggest prostate cancer screening study in a generation.
Led by researchers at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London alongside co-investigators at UCL, Queen Mary University of London and the Institute of Cancer Research, the landmark trial aims to find a way to make diagnosis earlier, safer, and more effective.
Up to 300,000 men will be recruited to the trial, which will work out the best way to diagnose prostate cancer. It will test the most promising screening techniques available, including PSA blood tests, genetic spit tests and fast MRI scans, combined in ways that have never been tested before in a large-scale screening trial.
Our Trust is the first site to open, with patients from north west London being the first to be invited to participate. We are one of only a few centres who offer the full breadth of treatment options for men, ranging from active surveillance through to focal therapy using the latest state of the art technologies, as well as robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy. This ensures that the right treatment is given for the right patient at the right time - something that is critical for screening to be successful.
More sites will open soon across the UK.
The trial will be delivered in partnership with the NHS through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), which has committed £16 million. The charity Prostate Cancer UK has committed £26 million to the trial..
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
There are other problems with the idea. For a start, there's the unwillingness of Putin to even talk to Ukraine; the fact that he's refused every offer of a ceasefire; that he refuses to recognise Ukraine government. etc.
The only way Putin comes to the table is if the war turns against him. That should now be clear to even the dimmest, reasonably fair minded, observer.
If we eventually reach a state of ceasefire by halting Putin in his tracks, are we really saying that Ukraine should still transfer cities and their citizens to a "buffer" state, which will very likely be subject to annexation by Russia at the first opportunity ? It's an absurd idea.
At best, a depopulated, demilitarised zone might work. For a while.
Yes, that is what I am saying. And Putin would also (and I am aware that there is no moral equivalence) surrender his gains to the new state.
Yes, Putin could invade it, but so could Ukraine or the West - that is what a buffer state is.
As far as I'm aware, Putin is at the table - he's just not saying anything that is remotely acceptable or workable for Ukraine at present.
This I think would be acceptable and workable, because Ukraine could join NATO and the EU, and re-arm to its desired extent.
There is a ready-made state that already plays this role in the form of Belarus. Maybe the answer is to transfer the territory to them and give Minsk access to the Black Sea.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Doesn’t work in the long term and not acceptable to Ukraine anyway.
Alternative solution is to continue to support Ukraine until the Russian economy collapses
Doesn’t Russia deserve Sweden as a buffer zone against NATO?
Or does that only apply to “far off countries of which you know nothing”?
Your phrasing sounds vaguely derisive, but I don't quite know what you're getting at, especially as you were replying to a thread about other issues. Sweden as an active neutral does seem to perform a useful role, but of course it's nothing to do with Russia whether they're neutral or not. That said, Lucky's suggestion of the eastern Ukraine provinces providing a buffer in exchange for Ukraine being free to join NATO does sound a possibility, designed to frustrate everyone but reduce the probability of future conflicts. As with India and Pakistan, I suspect that the issue of whether consent comes from current residents or needs to include people who've fled elsewhere arises - it's quite likely that a majority of original residents would be opposed, but remaining residents in favour.
Well, you like the idea of carving up Ukraine into border states for Russia.
Why not carve up Sweden to make Russia happy, as well?
And give a big chunk of Palestine land to Netenyahu and chums as well - they must deserve some more "border state". Sure, the Palestinians won't like it. But it could the basis for a lasting peace. If only they'd shut up and accept it.
That is fundamentally unjust to men and frankly unacceptable
Prevention is better than cure
I should say I have been fortunate not to have had a problem but know many who have
The problem with it, iiuc, is that it would lead to a lot of unnecessary worry and further testing and treatment (much of it invasive) for men who either don't have the cancer or have a slow growing asymptomatic version that they'd be better off not knowing about. So when you balance all that, and the £££ cost, against the expected number of lives saved it's not such a great idea. Certainly not a no-brainer anyway.
You can always find excuses for not doing something but prostate screening for men seems the right thing to do
Er, it's not like you to demand that SKS wastes money.
I do not see prostate cancer screening as a waste of money
I was tested in 2020 and found to be clear
Which was pointless.
The point of screening is to identify people who need treatment and avoid sending people for treatment who don’t need it. The problem with PSA is that it fails the latter criterion.
If people test positive but it is not worth them getting treatment currently, then wouldn't further regular testing and scans be appropriate instead?
Yes. This is called "watchful waiting" and is often the course taken with prostate cancer.
Then presumably the reason this is not being proposed is money? A positive test doesn't have to lead to invasive treatment as suggested.
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
False positives and false negatives both lead to negative outcomes. A false positive doesn't have to lead to intensive treatment, it might lead just to more tests, but that's still a cost to the NHS and a cost to the individual, and those extra tests might still lead to unnecessary intensive treatment down the line.
There are other reasons why mass screening might not be a good idea too. We don't have good treatments for early prostate cancer, so what you gain from an early diagnosis is limited.
The new recommendations have not been published yet. I believe the last review, in 2021, concluded that mass prostate screening was not of benefit. So, that wasn't a cost decision. They were saying it was not effective, not that it was not cost effective.
You asked, "Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?" I'm not certain what you mean here... I think, no. Mass screening would mean you're picking these people up a few years early. There are plenty of people presenting with prostate cancer already. I don't see why you'd speed up the research in this area.
I would have assumed more data and bigger samples could lead to better and faster analysis?
Mass screening isn't going to change how many people have prostate cancer: you just pick them up a bit sooner. That's not going to massively change the amount of data available.
The limiting factor on the size of trials here is the amount of money available for research, not the number of people with the condition.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Doesn’t work in the long term and not acceptable to Ukraine anyway.
Alternative solution is to continue to support Ukraine until the Russian economy collapses
I was wondering what happened to Mystic Meg when she stopped doing the National Lottery.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
Trump's ballroom
LOL!
To be replaced in due course by the Trump Mausoleum...made of the entirety of the Fort Knox gold reserves.
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
HS2?
Saudi Arabia's wall project is supposed to come in at around $500bn, but I would guess it will never be completed.
TSMC's planned 1.4nm chip fab is likely to cost as much as $50bn.
If you consider the web and its attached data centres as a single thing, then you will get up to several trillions.
Maybe in real terms PPP the Great Wall of China? Not that it would be easy to calculate.
Surely it depends on how you categorise something? Is 'London' a single thing?
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
Well that's an absolutely bat-shit crazy argument that she's going to soon regret.
In early Christian times there was slavery, does that make abolishing slavery 'unchristian'?
St Paul returns a slave to his slave owner in an epistle laced with sarcasm and special pleading (Philemon). Time the Tory party demanded proper reparations for descendants of deprived slavers. And the Good Samaritan wants the two silver pence he gave to the innkeeper back with interest.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine extend much further west than that, and the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine largely want to stay in Ukraine.
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
Doesn’t Russia deserve Sweden as a buffer zone against NATO?
Or does that only apply to “far off countries of which you know nothing”?
Your phrasing sounds vaguely derisive, but I don't quite know what you're getting at, especially as you were replying to a thread about other issues. Sweden as an active neutral does seem to perform a useful role, but of course it's nothing to do with Russia whether they're neutral or not. That said, Lucky's suggestion of the eastern Ukraine provinces providing a buffer in exchange for Ukraine being free to join NATO does sound a possibility, designed to frustrate everyone but reduce the probability of future conflicts. As with India and Pakistan, I suspect that the issue of whether consent comes from current residents or needs to include people who've fled elsewhere arises - it's quite likely that a majority of original residents would be opposed, but remaining residents in favour.
Well, you like the idea of carving up Ukraine into border states for Russia.
Why not carve up Sweden to make Russia happy, as well?
And give a big chunk of Palestine land to Netenyahu and chums as well - they must deserve some more "border state". Sure, the Palestinians won't like it. But it could the basis for a lasting peace. If only they'd shut up and accept it.
EDIT: How much of Venezuela does Trump get?
You seem not to have apprehended the fact that Israel absolutely controls all of Palestine - an autonomous state for the Palestinians bordering Israel would be an improvement in their condition.
I have actually suggested that all Palestinians are removed from Gaza and the Israeli settlers removed from the West Bank and swapped.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine extend much further west than that, and the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine largely want to stay in Ukraine.
Well they will be fine with it then. They live in Western Ukraine and nobody will be asking them to move East.
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
HS2?
Saudi Arabia's wall project is supposed to come in at around $500bn, but I would guess it will never be completed.
TSMC's planned 1.4nm chip fab is likely to cost as much as $50bn.
If you consider the web and its attached data centres as a single thing, then you will get up to several trillions.
Maybe in real terms PPP the Great Wall of China? Not that it would be easy to calculate.
Surely it depends on how you categorise something? Is 'London' a single thing?
Fair point but... the Great Wall is surely allowable as a single thing?
Doesn’t Russia deserve Sweden as a buffer zone against NATO?
Or does that only apply to “far off countries of which you know nothing”?
Your phrasing sounds vaguely derisive, but I don't quite know what you're getting at, especially as you were replying to a thread about other issues. Sweden as an active neutral does seem to perform a useful role, but of course it's nothing to do with Russia whether they're neutral or not. That said, Lucky's suggestion of the eastern Ukraine provinces providing a buffer in exchange for Ukraine being free to join NATO does sound a possibility, designed to frustrate everyone but reduce the probability of future conflicts. As with India and Pakistan, I suspect that the issue of whether consent comes from current residents or needs to include people who've fled elsewhere arises - it's quite likely that a majority of original residents would be opposed, but remaining residents in favour.
Well, you like the idea of carving up Ukraine into border states for Russia.
Why not carve up Sweden to make Russia happy, as well?
And give a big chunk of Palestine land to Netenyahu and chums as well - they must deserve some more "border state". Sure, the Palestinians won't like it. But it could the basis for a lasting peace. If only they'd shut up and accept it.
EDIT: How much of Venezuela does Trump get?
You seem not to have apprehended the fact that Israel absolutely controls all of Palestine - an autonomous state for the Palestinians bordering Israel would be an improvement in their condition.
I have actually suggested that all Palestinians are removed from Gaza and the Israeli settlers removed from the West Bank and swapped.
Out this morning - the Guardian on the latest YP chaos:
‘We had six MPs and four factions’: inside Your Party’s toxic power struggles
At an early meeting to set the path for what would become Your Party, participants quickly agreed on one thing: given the cliches about leftwingers forever falling out, at all costs they must avoid a descent into factionalism.
Six months on and the Liverpool venue hosting this weekend’s inaugural Your Party conference has been warned to expect potential disruption, including stage invasions by disgruntled members representing particular wings. Extra security guards have been hired.
Even by the standards of fringe parties (see also, all those Re- parties on the right), Your Party is shaping up to be a corker of a fiasco. Any theories as to why it's so bad?
(Mine, apart from hating SKS not being a solid foundation for any party, is that tech makes it too easy to arrange the surface features of a movement when there's nothing underneath.)
I suspect it is some combination of divisions over small policy differences that often fixate the far left, the fundamental contradiction between a socially progressive party and a muslim party (note the reference in the article to trans issues already being a flashpoint), and the characters of Corbyn and Sultana being diametrically opposite personalities in almost every respect?
As a brand new outfit, there is 'everything to fight for' in terms of both its platform and who gets what job and hence where the organisational power lies. And it isn't being formed because of a strong, single imperative (for example the SDP originated from counter-reaction to Labour's opposition to Europe), so they don't have much to unite around other than Gaza.
The headline contradicts the more nuanced article. The sober reality is that there's a gap on the left which Your Party may or may not fill. Labour has quite deliberately moved to the centre (arguably centre-right), the LibDems still can't decide on a firm direction, and the Greens have opted to go left but are mainly known as an environmental movement. There is considerable support for a left-wing party, ideally with a working relationship with the Greens, and Your Party can potentially harvest that if they manage to avoid further splits, have a reasonable conference and build a lasting leadership. Corbyn's speech on Wednesday included the useful insight that British politics traditionally mloves in a narrow spectrum of "acceptable" policies, disguised by cod drama of five-yearly showdowns, and anything seriously left-wing runs into credibility issues magnified by the very limited press. One difficulty that they have is the way media works in Britain - the concept of a party with anonymous collective leadership is completely alien to British media tradition, so they fall back on occasionally giving Zarah an airing as the youngest recognisable semi-leader - contrast with the success of Reform, who seem willing to have Farage make up policy and reverse it at will.
People like me who think Labour has moved too far to the right but aren't very interested in ecology have a choice - do we try to help move Labour leftwards again, give Your Party a try, have a go with the Greens, or do nothing and hope that a way forward becomes obvious. The weekend may cast some light. I wouldn't rely on the media to give the answer, but Your Party badly needs an identifiable leadership.
For me the idea of the left and a shift leftwards (leaving aside environmentalism and climate for a moment) raises interesting alternatives about what it is, how it goes about things, and what it is for.
My start point is this: from 1945 to today the dominant and only forms of government have been versions of incrementally improving (and sometimes standing still and sometimes going a little backwards) social democracy. This is both a narrow window, but also built into 80 years (arguably much longer) of the political order in the UK.
If the Corbyn style left exists as a nice club or a secular non conformist society to be in and argue about, plus some single issue campaigning, that's fine. But if it plans to govern it has to be clear where it stands in relation to who owns what, and the UK and global capitalist order, and our sets of historic alliances.
The left, from a starting point of 8 year olds hauling trucks down mines in 1840, makes perfect sense. The left, after 80 years of quite successful social democracy, less so unless it can explain itself in relation to theory, policy and actual implementation comprehensible to a reader of the Daily Mirror or Mail. Is it able to do so?
Yes, very fair comment. But I'd argue that Sweden, with its high-tax high-welfare model, offers a successful alternative to our current cringe in the face of tiny increases in tax.
In general, parties campaigning on the basis that they might shortly be expected to share power are thin on the ground. Labour and the Tories and Nationalists, sure. LibDems not sure. Greens and Reform no. A new party has a slim potential to become a contender for power-sharing - one of the more substantial criticisms of Farage's "this week's policy is..." approach is that he's not taken that on board at all.
Sweden, I suggest, is a good example of a social democracy, not of a left alternative. We should be more like it. My contention is that all UK governments since 1945 have been social democrat ones, varying only in emphasis, degree of competence, rhetoric, and the situation with which they happened to be faced. The challenge is how any left (not only left but any other) world view is going to set out a programme for government, and actually govern.
As a practical example it is obvious that if Reform get to govern, they will govern as social democrats (high spend, high tax, welfare state, NHS, regulated capitalism) + populist nationalists. I think it will be a disaster, but it will be social democrat disaster.
So I would still like to know what a left, non centrist non social democratic, programme for government could plausibly look like set out in a way comprehensible to a trade union member, or reader of the Mirror or Mail.
Things argued for by the left (and by liberals), like state-supported healthcare, have become part of a post-war consensus, but it seems simplistic to then cast every post-war government as being more or less the same. There are very real differences between the polices of Wilson, Thatcher, Blair and Truss.
The Overton window has shifted and your presumption that Reform UK will stay within the Overton window of 1945-2019 is untested and possibly optimistic.
So, according to the Atlantic, Zelenskyy has confirmed that he won't give up land for peace. Putin has confirmed that he cannot do a deal with Ukraine because it does not have a legitimate government. It's all going swimmingly despite the deadline of Thanksgiving having come and gone.
The Europeans need to massively increase their support for Ukraine so it becomes possible to hold their ground and, ideally, even push the Russians back a bit. At the moment Putin thinks he can still grind Ukraine into defeat so he doesn't need a deal. There will not be one until he is disabused of that belief.
I think my idea of Eastern Ukraine as an "independent" buffer state, including all Russia's gains, and some land from Ukraine in the North, to make a long strip along Russia's border, is one of the few solutions that will work.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
Apart from the people living in "East Ukraine" - Putin would start by demanding that a pro-Russian regime is installed. despite the evidence that isn't what the people who live there want.
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
It would no doubt be a Russia-aligned regime. And contain a mostly Russian speaking population. There's no two ways about that. Whether the general population there would be against it, for me seems tricky to gauge.
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine extend much further west than that, and the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine largely want to stay in Ukraine.
Well they will be fine with it then. They live in Western Ukraine and nobody will be asking them to move East.
And the people who do't want to be controlled by Russia in your "buffer zone"? What about them (the majority) ?
The damage to the the Soyuz pad at Baikonur is confirmed.
This is the only pad the Russians currently have to launch to ISS. This means crew rotations blocked, but more importantly (perhaps) Progress cargo craft can't be sent to the station. The ISS can only be refuelled by Progress. Which means that after a while ISS will run out of fuel for attitude control related matters (It's a bit complicated with gyroscopes and de saturation, but that's the size of it)
To fix the pad, they would need to -
1) build a new service structure under the pad 2) Take a service structure from a mothballed pad 3) Convert/reactivate another pad - would ned to include work for Progress and the Suyuz spacecraft.
1) Will take a long, long time. SpaceX they are not. Years 2) Not been done before. It's a huge piece of equipment - might well need to be cut into sections, moved, rebuilt. 3) Again, will take a long, long time. Experience with Russian space tech and other Russian stuff is that the Russian approach to "moth balling" is "leave it to rust".
So no launches to the space station for months. Possibly years.
Which means a growing problem for the ISS - and a humiliation for Putin, incoming.
Is there a way to refuel ISS from a US or European pad (eg launch Progress from there)?
I am not an expert, but a space station lacking the ability to control altitude sounds… concerning…
Only Progress can refuel the station, via the Russian segment(s).
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
Isn't the ISS due to be retired and deorbited (albeit in a controlled manner) before long anyway?
I wonder what will then replace it as the single most expensive thing made by man?
HS2?
Saudi Arabia's wall project is supposed to come in at around $500bn, but I would guess it will never be completed.
TSMC's planned 1.4nm chip fab is likely to cost as much as $50bn.
If you consider the web and its attached data centres as a single thing, then you will get up to several trillions.
Maybe in real terms PPP the Great Wall of China? Not that it would be easy to calculate.
Surely it depends on how you categorise something? Is 'London' a single thing?
Fair point but... the Great Wall is surely allowable as a single thing?
Nope - its not just one wall. People have the very wrong idea about it!
"Kemi Badenoch says welfare spending is unchristian
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
Well that's an absolutely bat-shit crazy argument that she's going to soon regret.
In early Christian times there was slavery, does that make abolishing slavery 'unchristian'?
She didn't actually say that it was "unchristian". She just made what she clearly thought was a clever rhetorical point “(Paul's) first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that: ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household… is worse than an unbeliever’ ”.
Comments
Instead, it was actually that that the OBR had accidentally published their EFO early - a major error but not something that would force a ministerial resignation.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Ukraine
Trump’s peace plan is a scandalous attempt to rescue Russia, which is losing the larger economic war
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/26/snatching-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory-against-russia/
We're not all that far from a couple of simple blood tests simultaneously looking for dozens, or scores of diseases and conditions.
That was the basis for the Theranos fraud, but it's now getting a bit closer to reality.
I said the OBR had released the budget and Beth Rigby and Sky were outlining the budget during PMQs and both the BBC and Sky continued to quote from the released documents
I did not mention the treasury as it was clear the source was the OBR
Perhaps it's time for two things: a more positive appraisal of his general approach to interpretation, the relationship of law and the virtue of justice and the making of judgments; and, even more, a lot more judges whose judgments tell a story, however unpromising the materials, beautifully well with a mixture of poetry and clarity.
Provided such a test can be relied upon to flag more cases of genuine concern than a whole host of false positives, it would be great.
PSA is however a test for a single condition, which throws up tons of false positives and another batch of people who had the condition but had no need to worry.
I’m thinking that had BigG been thrown up as a false positive and was now living his life with the consequences of such, he might not be so keen on the test?
Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?
Age of onset is key. Both cancers increase strongly with age (indeed that is the pattern for most cancers) but deaths from breast cancers are often decades younger. Sure it is possible to have a very aggressive prostate Ca quite young, but that also means a shorter asymptomatic phase to pick it up in.
No current spacecraft from other nations can transfer the fuel in question (hydrazine).
Launching Progress on another rocket would require years of work.
The Soyuz pad in Guiana is at the wrong inclination (location) and is being demolished at the moment.
So if the Russians can't get the pad working, it's either abandon ISS or get SpaceX* to come up with something worryingly fast.
*Some people will get upset by specifying SpaceX. They are the only company that has demonstrated the ability to build space hardware in the timescales required - months.
And prioritisation is a constant juggle for any medical service, especially a publicly funded one.
These judgements are being made on everything, every day.
Simon Jenkins is always wrong.
AEP's instincts are sound. It's his predictive capacity which is wanting.
There are other reasons why mass screening might not be a good idea too. We don't have good treatments for early prostate cancer, so what you gain from an early diagnosis is limited.
The new recommendations have not been published yet. I believe the last review, in 2021, concluded that mass prostate screening was not of benefit. So, that wasn't a cost decision. They were saying it was not effective, not that it was not cost effective.
You asked, "Another question would be if mass screening would significantly accelerate the rate at which we learn who and when to treat?" I'm not certain what you mean here... I think, no. Mass screening would mean you're picking these people up a few years early. There are plenty of people presenting with prostate cancer already. I don't see why you'd speed up the research in this area.
I doubt anyone can recount the broadcast media quoting from the budget before the Chancellor stood up
The key name is Tchenguiz, who is currently in hot water for f*cking around leaseholders in buildings where he owns the freehold wrt fire safety charges.
They seem to think they need AI to track who is inside a building or not.
Truss told The Times: “This is a significant moment for the business community. A sophisticated network of 700 founding members, at the very top of their professions, powered by both AI and human ingenuity, to perform at their highest potential. It is a £500 million project that will cater for the future of business in Mayfair. Even the people that are leaving this country will have a home to return to.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/28/obr-reeves-income-tax-rise-forecasts-budget?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Basically, mass prostate screening doesn't work. We're tried it. The evidence is that you don't save lives. Well, that was the situation 5 years ago. Let's see what the new one actually says.
Just what are they going to do with them.
Take them back to France ?
Not only a brilliant story but an incredible synthesis of various equitable principles into one overarching principle. One of the truly great judgments. I went past Yew Tree farm recently on holiday. I think it was the right one. I was genuinely excited. For extra geek points I used to use the first part of the judgment to teach judicial pleading. Short, clear sentences largely with a single fact in each. A masterclass of judicial writing.
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/lloyds-bank-v-bundy.php
"Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old Herbert Bundy was a farmer there. His home was at Yew Tree Farm, It went back for 300 years. His family had been there for generations. It was his only asset. But he did a very foolish thing. He mortgaged it to the bank. Up to the very hilt. Not to borrow money for himself, but for the sake of his son. Now the bank have come down on him. They have foreclosed. They want to get him out of Yew Tree Farm and to sell it. They have brought this action against him for possession. Going out means ruin for him. He was granted legal aid. His lawyers put in a defence. They said that, when he executed the charge to the bank he did not know what he was doing: or at any rate not the circumstances were such that he ought not to be bound by it. At the trial his plight was plain. The Judge was sorry for him. He said he was a "poor old gentleman". He was so obviously incapacitated that the Judge admitted his proof in evidence. He had a heart attack in the witness-box. Yet the Judge felt he could do nothing for him. There is nothing, he said, "which takes this out of the vast range of commercial transactions". He ordered Herbert Bundy to give up possession of Yew Tree Farm to the bank."
At the risk of a spoiler a story starting like this is not going to end well for the bank.
Russia would have its buffer state. Ukraine would be able to join the EU and NATO. Nobody gets what they want, but everyone gets what they need.
On the same topic:
https://www.uclhospitals.brc.nihr.ac.uk/news/largest-ever-prostate-cancer-screening-trial-launched
Could be that he's opposing Reeves so appears better by comparison, but then Kemi's opposing Starmer.
Now you can't (always get what you want) yeah
Now you can't (always get what you want)
Now you can't (always get what you want) yeah
And if you try sometimes, you just might find
You get what you need
Not the worst idea but nothing will work whilst Putin thinks he can win.
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0075_judgment_834bdd1988.pdf
O tempora, O mores
It's like demanding the Czechs give up their border fortifications to mollify the street artist.
In general, parties campaigning on the basis that they might shortly be expected to share power are thin on the ground. Labour and the Tories and Nationalists, sure. LibDems not sure. Greens and Reform no. A new party has a slim potential to become a contender for power-sharing - one of the more substantial criticisms of Farage's "this week's policy is..." approach is that he's not taken that on board at all.
For even more fun, the deorbit capability has only recently been ordered. So there is no way to do a controlled deorbit, as yet
If abandoned, ISS will break up and reenter randomly.
It isn't tax breaks. Giving business owners, the risk takers, a slight advantage over the wage takers (who have ridiculous levels of protection as employees, now), is literally the only way to promote growth. Big State depends upon it. And yet Big State continues to cock a snook at commerce.
An uncontrolled reentry for ISS would be nasty - lots of heavy stuff to reach the ground.
The issue was Brown’s hubris: remember “no more boom and bust”?
He believed that the tax revenues from the City were a permanent step change and therefore he could bake in structural spending. When the inevitable bust came it was very difficult to adjust that. If he had been more thoughtful - and paid down debt or had more temporary spending measures (eg capex vs current account spending) then the post 2008 profile would have been very different.
Or does that only apply to “far off countries of which you know nothing”?
I would argue it's not Ukraine giving up its defences - it is Ukraine freeing itself, both by no longer bordering Russia, and by removing its Russian-speaking population, to take the defence steps (NATO, EU, re-arming itself) that it feels it needs.
See e.g. infographic image at top of https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2040228
Adjacently, my job is now in developing infrastructure that is partly to support use of genetic screening as a first step, so you target screening to those who are higher risk to start with, which greatly increases the effectiveness of screening. That's the idea, anyway - there are clearly issues with then not screening some groups and the harm/benefit balance there. But mostly it will be about supporting currently not done screening to happen for higher risk people.
Just because they are "Russian speakers" doesn't make them Russian. Zelensky, for example.
It also contains a large chunk of the Ukrainian economy.
For a start, there's the unwillingness of Putin to even talk to Ukraine; the fact that he's refused every offer of a ceasefire; that he refuses to recognise Ukraine government. etc.
The only way Putin comes to the table is if the war turns against him. That should now be clear to even the dimmest, reasonably fair minded, observer.
If we eventually reach a state of ceasefire by halting Putin in his tracks, are we really saying that Ukraine should still transfer cities and their citizens to a "buffer" state, which will very likely be subject to annexation by Russia at the first opportunity ?
It's an absurd idea.
At best, a depopulated, demilitarised zone might work. For a while.
As a practical example it is obvious that if Reform get to govern, they will govern as social democrats (high spend, high tax, welfare state, NHS, regulated capitalism) + populist nationalists. I think it will be a disaster, but it will be social democrat disaster.
So I would still like to know what a left, non centrist non social democratic, programme for government could plausibly look like set out in a way comprehensible to a trade union member, or reader of the Mirror or Mail.
There was never an election on whether the citizens of Donetsk and Lugansk would like to be part of an independent but Russia-aligned state. I agree that their Russian heritage doesn't automatically equate to Russian loyalties, but I think for the most part they did form the backbone of the pro-Russian parties.
TSMC's planned 1.4nm chip fab is likely to cost as much as $50bn.
If you consider the web and its attached data centres as a single thing, then you will get up to several trillions.
⚡️⚡️Andriy Yermak has submitted his resignation
This was announced in an address by the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky:
“I am grateful to Andriy for always representing Ukraine’s position in the negotiation track exactly as he should. It was always a patriotic position.”
Today, the head of the President’s Office was searched by investigators.
https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1994427605810864417?s=20
There were multiple elections in those areas, before Russia started invading (2014 etc). The Join-Russia parties never managed to get a majority in any of border regions. Even the Pro-Russia parties struggled.
The CNN poll carried out just before the invasion found a majority, in the even the parts of the border regions closest to Russia, still wanted to be Ukrainian.
Responding to Rachel Reeves’s budget, the Conservative Party leader told the Political Thinking podcast that ‘in early Christian times there was no state or welfare’" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-welfare-spending-unchristian-b3f5rs7rq
Yes, Putin could invade it, but so could Ukraine or the West - that is what a buffer state is.
As far as I'm aware, Putin is at the table - he's just not saying anything that is remotely acceptable or workable for Ukraine at present.
This I think would be acceptable and workable, because Ukraine could join NATO and the EU, and re-arm to its desired extent.
"there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty."
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/9.html
There's the one to genetically sample 100k newborns, and follow them long term; the 1million plus "Our Future Health" volunteers who gave blood samples for a similar purpose; the 100k plus Galleri trial for cancer screening... and specifically for prostate cancer, this one:
First men invited to take part in TRANSFORM screening trial - the most ambitious prostate cancer trial in decades
https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/about-us/news/transform-trial-launches-nov-25
20 Nov 2025
Today, the first men will begin receiving letters from their GPs to join the ambitious £42 million TRANSFORM screening trial - the biggest prostate cancer screening study in a generation.
Led by researchers at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London alongside co-investigators at UCL, Queen Mary University of London and the Institute of Cancer Research, the landmark trial aims to find a way to make diagnosis earlier, safer, and more effective.
Up to 300,000 men will be recruited to the trial, which will work out the best way to diagnose prostate cancer. It will test the most promising screening techniques available, including PSA blood tests, genetic spit tests and fast MRI scans, combined in ways that have never been tested before in a large-scale screening trial.
Our Trust is the first site to open, with patients from north west London being the first to be invited to participate. We are one of only a few centres who offer the full breadth of treatment options for men, ranging from active surveillance through to focal therapy using the latest state of the art technologies, as well as robotic prostatectomy and radiotherapy. This ensures that the right treatment is given for the right patient at the right time - something that is critical for screening to be successful.
More sites will open soon across the UK.
The trial will be delivered in partnership with the NHS through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), which has committed £16 million. The charity Prostate Cancer UK has committed £26 million to the trial..
In early Christian times there was slavery, does that make abolishing slavery 'unchristian'?
Alternative solution is to continue to support Ukraine until the Russian economy collapses
Why not carve up Sweden to make Russia happy, as well?
And give a big chunk of Palestine land to Netenyahu and chums as well - they must deserve some more "border state". Sure, the Palestinians won't like it. But it could the basis for a lasting peace. If only they'd shut up and accept it.
EDIT: How much of Venezuela does Trump get?
The limiting factor on the size of trials here is the amount of money available for research, not the number of people with the condition.
To be replaced in due course by the Trump Mausoleum...made of the entirety of the Fort Knox gold reserves.
"It's what he would have wanted...."
I have actually suggested that all Palestinians are removed from Gaza and the Israeli settlers removed from the West Bank and swapped.
The Overton window has shifted and your presumption that Reform UK will stay within the Overton window of 1945-2019 is untested and possibly optimistic.
She just made what she clearly thought was a clever rhetorical point “(Paul's) first Epistle to Timothy proclaims that: ‘Anyone who does not provide for his own household… is worse than an unbeliever’ ”.