They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
CNN may well be in the mix on this one and we know how much Trump world just loves CNN.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
It's gonna need a James Garfield to clean up this mess in 2028.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Imperialism made some sense, prior to, and in the early stages of, the Industrial Revolution.
Conquering new lands, and throwing out the former occupants, at least gave a step up for your own lower classes, and provided estates and job opportunities for the younger sons of the upper classes.
But, now, trying to seize lands, occupied by people running a modern economy, and trying to replace them with soldier-farmers, simply results in a lower standard of living for everybody.
And even back in the day, trading was more profitable than trying to govern vast territories. John Company began to lose money, once it became a territorial power, having to maintain a vast military establishment.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
It didn't work that well given the Ming and Qing dynasties ultimately lost power
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
I would be happy to be paid a quarter of the amount for that contract to also design a vehicle which does not work, which strikes me as an excellent bargain for the taxpayer.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
Governments were extractive. Almost everything over subsistence went to benefit the 0.1% and their military establishment. Whenever governments came into windfalls, like Potosi, or monastic lands, the proceeds went mostly on waging war, and to a lesser extent, some impressive buildings and art.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
It didn't work that well given the Ming and Qing dynasties ultimately lost power
From the Chinese perspective, that matters not now they have reclaimed the Mandate of Heaven...
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
I would be happy to be paid a quarter of the amount for that contract to also design a vehicle which does not work, which strikes me as an excellent bargain for the taxpayer.
I hope they put one in the Tank Museum for future generations of engineers to inspect.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
Governments were extractive. Almost everything over subsistence went to benefit the 0.1% and their military establishment. Whenever governments came into windfalls, like Potosi, or monastic lands, the proceeds went mostly on waging war, and to a lesser extent, some impressive buildings and art.
Not a million miles from contemporary Russia, then.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
I would be happy to be paid a quarter of the amount for that contract to also design a vehicle which does not work, which strikes me as an excellent bargain for the taxpayer.
I hope they put one in the Tank Museum for future generations of engineers to inspect.
It'll never get that far. Bovington is a bit of a drive. Would a photo do, or even perhaps a video assuming you capture the best 20m or so of actual travel?
PART 1: THE ARTICLE Yes, @viewcode is and it's in the toilets. It's currently on its fifth draft and is 1,9XX words long not including the appendices, so I'll have to kill my darlings, including the Shaun Of The Dead reference.
I invited four discussants on to discuss the article. "Discussants" is an old technique you don't see much around these days, where you give a lecture/report and then two groups discuss, pro- and con. Two of my discussants (@NigelB and @kyf_100 ) from the pro-trans direction, and another two (@Cyclefree and @DavidL) from the gender-critical direction. Problem is, due to her personal circs @Cyclefree cannot contribute much, and @DavidL has not yet responded. Also @NigelB and @kyf100 are not lawyers and have pointed out that this makes it imbalanced.
To cure this I propose the following
i) Nudge @DavidL: sir you don't have to be a discussant if you don't want to, but I would be grateful if you could tell me yea or nay
ii) Is there somebody from the the pro-trans direction (or at least not explicitly gender-critical) with legal experience who would like to be a discussant?
PART 2: THE PEGGIE CASE I have not yet studied the case in depth but I do note that the judges in both Peggie and Kelly gave weight to the number of objectors, which means I may be able to incorporate it in the Kelly section
Popped in this afternoon just to see if you were already on the case, pun intended. Glad to see you are!
The trouble with all this stuff is the speed at which it moves. That, and following it in depth is a full time job in itself (a mere 312 page judgement to read tonight!).
When you started your article, it was fairly rational (albeit disputed) to reach a conclusion, legally speaking that trans women are a) legally 'men' for the purpose of the EA and b) legally excluded from single sex spaces.
In the space of a week, we have not one but two judgements (Kelly v Leonardo, Peggie v NHS Fife) that seem to suggest, at least, that (b) is incorrect.
To complicate matters further, the Good Law Project expect their judicial review into the EHRC's draft guidance to be handed down over the next few weeks.
This is why I'm rather more interested in the political debate than the letter of the law. The law is just a set of rules that can change. Politics is what those rules mean, in practice, and how we as a society choose to balance conflicting, even oppositional views (enter proportionality, stage left...).
Noted. Considering changing rooms and toilets
Changing rooms IIUC the SC Judgment FWS was clear on changing rooms: the answer is "no access for TW". Peggie seems to have modified that, and now the answer seems to be "access is permitted unless somebody objects, and then withdrawn until the objection is resolved". Which brings me to...
Toilets My article tries to address whether toilet access comes under FWS (there is disagreement) and the more I read the more I think there is no consensus and it will have to wait until Govt resolves the EHRC guidance. Kelly added a quirk which Peggie echoed, namely the weight of numbers - the number of objectors is relevant and a single objector is insufficient. This surprised me.
Apparently Peggie also rejects the interpretation that FWS directly addressed toilets, saying that if it had meant toilets it would have said so. I agree with that, but I can't deny that many lawyers says it does.
This topic aside, do you not think a single objector not being enough is a bit of a strange idea. "I know we lynched this black guy, but there were 20 of us and only he objected"
Equating a transgender woman using the female toilets to the lynching of a black man by the KKK is a strong contender for the strangeness stakes I'd have thought?
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
Governments were extractive. Almost everything over subsistence went to benefit the 0.1% and their military establishment. Whenever governments came into windfalls, like Potosi, or monastic lands, the proceeds went mostly on waging war, and to a lesser extent, some impressive buildings and art.
Not a million miles from contemporary Russia, then.
Russia has never ceased to be a patrimonial state, in which the man at the top considers everything is his, to distribute among his vassals.
I've noticed a bit of a trend in the last few weeks on some of the right wing accounts I follow online, getting rather salty and annoyed with the lazier, more radical elements of the online right - basically accusing them of being the mirror to the steretypical ignorant 'woke' snowflakes on the left. I wonder if it is a genuine thing that is occurring or just a bit of a coincidence, or perhaps highly specific (much of the disagreement is on the recent-ish racial element rearing it's head on the online right again).
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
Governments were extractive. Almost everything over subsistence went to benefit the 0.1% and their military establishment. Whenever governments came into windfalls, like Potosi, or monastic lands, the proceeds went mostly on waging war, and to a lesser extent, some impressive buildings and art.
Not a million miles from contemporary Russia, then.
Did Russia ever really move beyong that phase? Feels like a 19th century state, with much of the rest of the world heading more towards early 20th again.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
The people egregiously breaking the law on Trump's behalf depend entirely on that transient, transactional president to protect them. Maybe nothing will happen to them, but I wouldn't be sleeping soundly in their shoes
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Ask the shades of the last Ming and first Qing emperors whether or not imperialism works.
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
Governments were extractive. Almost everything over subsistence went to benefit the 0.1% and their military establishment. Whenever governments came into windfalls, like Potosi, or monastic lands, the proceeds went mostly on waging war, and to a lesser extent, some impressive buildings and art.
Not a million miles from contemporary Russia, then.
Did Russia ever really move beyong that phase? Feels like a 19th century state, with much of the rest of the world heading more towards early 20th again.
Russia is basically a Mongol khanate, with some trappings of modernity.
"A former Royal Marine has been banned from working with children after he protested against illegal migrants, The Telegraph can disclose.
Free speech campaigners said spurious safeguarding concerns were increasingly being deployed to “silence” people with “patriotic views” in a “scandalous abuse of the system”."
Having seen some some snippets of the video, I'd say the Jury possibly got this one wrong. Or at least the Council were probably correct in their decision to remove him from his role running a children's football team for which they were in some way responsible. Treating all people the same is a basic, and to be going public with vies that you think that some potential members of your team and their parents are "scumbags" and "psychopaths". are invading the country, and so on, are well beyond the acceptable.
The jury decision is less clear cut than the Council decision.
He publicly called reports of Axel Rudakubana being born in Cardiff untrue, and declared "we are under attack". He's a chemtrail enthusiast, and a Tommy Robinson disciple.
These are not "patriotic views"; they are the rantings of a conspiraloon. And it shows us how detached from reality the Free Speech Union has become, in trying to pretend that this is oppression 'because of his opinions.'
He may be Ok to run a football team, but he needs rescuing from his rabbit hole.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
How did such a crap vehicle get signed off, surely there was a prototype?
It looks like a lot of the faults are intrinsic to the design rather than teething problems.
There had to have been better grifts he could have given some of these 'lawyers' of his. She hadn't even done a good job on the cases of his she worked, and with no real experience in that area she was only going to make a fool of herself even without all this malarky about validity of appointment, so I'd have asked for some other reward for service.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
How did such a crap vehicle get signed off, surely there was a prototype?
It looks like a lot of the faults are intrinsic to the design rather than teething problems.
Incompetence or corruption, the age old question.
Usually it's the former, though how so much incompetence persists and repeats is a larger question.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
I fear what he and his cohorts will do if things look like a mid term massacre. And how many in Congress and the SC will happily go along with it.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
The people egregiously breaking the law on Trump's behalf depend entirely on that transient, transactional president to protect them. Maybe nothing will happen to them, but I wouldn't be sleeping soundly in their shoes
The hard bit won't be the politicians. Trump's circle can take the last plane to Moscow, and there is a vaguely functional party ready(ish) to take over.
The hard bit will be all the other bits of civil society, media and business that have knelt before the Don. America can't get rid of all of them. And whilst there is a lot to be said for Truth and Reconciliation (optimal) or Pacts of Forgetting (less good, but still effective), I fear that's not where America will be.
As I understand it, she can't step down as she was not legally appointed to the job, at least after the first 120 days.
What she has done has been to continue to squat in the office preventing a proper office holder from being appointed, and blocking the continuation legal business.
I'm not sure how many fake indictments etc she has been signing and issuing, none of which mean anything unless they are signed by a legal holder of the position.
What I'm not sure on is how the Supreme Court is going to declare that Democratic presidents cannot do what Trump can do, but I'm sure they'll manage it.
(Yes, I know not every decision is literally that partisan, but the extent of unchecked authority they presume for Trump, well, it's hard to imagine the majority would be so relaxed about if it did not fit their own political agendas).
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
Will the elections be fixed? We are in Banana Republic territory in Trumpistan.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
A lot of it will be addressable under State Law - eg commercial matters under New York law, as happened to Trump himself.
At present he is fighting a battle to try and get one of his election-stealing gang, Tina Peters, from Colorado State Prison. My call is that if the Dems win the House in 2026, it will be a maximum slow down and reassert checks and balances operation. There would be lots of enquiry committees, and attempted attention-generating impeachments.
But if the Dems get 60 seats in the Senate that would be far more interesting - they would need to win 2/3 of the Republican seats up for reelection as well as all of their own. I'm not sure if they could get Republicans onside for serious anti-regime operations if they made fewer than that.
I'm not sure if I see Trump pardoning everyone who could be held to account. Hegseth and Bondi, imo, will be under a bus quite soon.
What I'm not sure on is how the Supreme Court is going to declare that Democratic presidents cannot do what Trump can do, but I'm sure they'll manage it.
(Yes, I know not every decision is literally that partisan, but the extent of unchecked authority they presume for Trump, well, it's hard to imagine the majority would be so relaxed about if it did not fit their own political agendas).
They imagine everything they do is consequence free. I would not be surprised if a future Democrat president with a super majority creates term limits or stuffs the court or both. Most of them should be impeached for lies at their confirmation hearings anyway
My constituency looks interesting at the next election
It’s been Tory forever; it was Ancram’s seat for a long time. But now we’ve had the biggest Reform defection
Can Kruger keep his seat? I doubt it, I don’t think that we’ll be a Reform redoubt
It's an interesting one, because Wiltshire as a whole did not really have a large Reform surge at the most recent locals, as compared to places like Cornwall, Reform were 4th place in East Wiltshire, and it is a very weird seat, running from right by Salisbury and into Swindon itself. I've been told Swindon is expected to go Reform next year, but I don't know if that part of it is expected to do so.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
Steve Bannon was correct, if the Republicans lose the mid-terms a lot of the MAGA cult are going to jail. So many people have done so many blatantly illegal acts, from the White House to ICE goons on the street, I cannot see the the SC being able to save more than a handful - and if Trump is gone and the cult collapsing, they may decline to do even that.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
I would be happy to be paid a quarter of the amount for that contract to also design a vehicle which does not work, which strikes me as an excellent bargain for the taxpayer.
I hope they put one in the Tank Museum for future generations of engineers to inspect.
My constituency looks interesting at the next election
It’s been Tory forever; it was Ancram’s seat for a long time. But now we’ve had the biggest Reform defection
Can Kruger keep his seat? I doubt it, I don’t think that we’ll be a Reform redoubt
I think almost every constituency in the country will be 'interesting' at the next GE. There really are five parties that could achieve an overall majority. And who knows how many more might leap into the fray.
There could be seven or eight competitive parties in the mix.
I don't really believe that will happen though, and I think I'll finish up laying NOM on BF at some point, but not yet.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
Steve Bannon was correct, if the Republicans lose the mid-terms a lot of the MAGA cult are going to jail. So many people have done so many blatantly illegal acts, from the White House to ICE goons on the street, I cannot see the the SC being able to save more than a handful - and if Trump is gone and the cult collapsing, they may decline to do even that.
And given that the current Administration presumably don't want to go to jail, they have two options. One is to win the mid-terms, the other is to ensure that the results of the mid-terms don't matter.
In broad terms, it's the same question that has faced every other corrupt despot about this stage.
My constituency looks interesting at the next election
It’s been Tory forever; it was Ancram’s seat for a long time. But now we’ve had the biggest Reform defection
Can Kruger keep his seat? I doubt it, I don’t think that we’ll be a Reform redoubt
It's an interesting one, because Wiltshire as a whole did not really have a large Reform surge at the most recent locals, as compared to places like Cornwall, Reform were 4th place in East Wiltshire, and it is a very weird seat, running from right by Salisbury and into Swindon itself. I've been told Swindon is expected to go Reform next year, but I don't know if that part of it is expected to do so.
We’ve lost bits of Devizes to gain some of Wroughton and Old Town Swindon, I think, in the boundary redraw
I’d guess that that might be quite neutral in possible Reform support
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
Will the elections be fixed? We are in Banana Republic territory in Trumpistan.
He can fiddle but not fix, I think. A 'wave' should be enough.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
How did such a crap vehicle get signed off, surely there was a prototype?
It looks like a lot of the faults are intrinsic to the design rather than teething problems.
It sounds like the project was too big to fail and so the vehicle had to be passed, even though it's a dud.
Institutional and multiple personal failures to admit to having made a mistake.
The sooner someone is willing to put the project out of its misery the better.
What I'm not sure on is how the Supreme Court is going to declare that Democratic presidents cannot do what Trump can do, but I'm sure they'll manage it.
(Yes, I know not every decision is literally that partisan, but the extent of unchecked authority they presume for Trump, well, it's hard to imagine the majority would be so relaxed about if it did not fit their own political agendas).
They imagine everything they do is consequence free. I would not be surprised if a future Democrat president with a super majority creates term limits or stuffs the court or both. Most of them should be impeached for lies at their confirmation hearings anyway
One thing starting to come into commentary is that if the Democrats do get back in with a big enough mandate to do serious reform, they are not starting from the same place. The civil state with its vision of objective, selfless service, and loyalty to the Constitution, has been destroyed. It is like rebuilding Dresden in 1945.
Just consider the DOJ; all the people who made it "The DOJ" have gone, and it stuffed with Trumpist dick-suckers.
I'm back to what I was arguing a year ago - that there will need to be some serious reforms to the constitution, as there were after the Civil War, when segregation was removed etc. The Presidential Pardon is one area that has to be chopped off at the knees.
The Dems would need to come in with a "restore after Project 25" programme, ready to roll, and will need support from sane Republicans. I hope the groundwork is being done.
For the DOJ I would appoint Jack Smith as Attorney General, to implement a pre-prepared programme. He has the experience and the values.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
Steve Bannon was correct, if the Republicans lose the mid-terms a lot of the MAGA cult are going to jail. So many people have done so many blatantly illegal acts, from the White House to ICE goons on the street, I cannot see the the SC being able to save more than a handful - and if Trump is gone and the cult collapsing, they may decline to do even that.
It's become a meme to say that the walls are closing in on Trump because his opponents have been saying it for nearly a decade now.
The first decision on Ajax was in March 2010, so it qualifies as a joint failure by both Labour and Tories, rather than simply a failure inherited by Labour from the Tories.
The CV90 that it won out over in the tender was already in service in 2010, so wouldn't have had the same development risks.
They are all going to jail after Trump is impeached in 2027.
None of them are ever going to jail. If anything ever happens (which I doubt) it will take years, and the Supreme Court will have their backs if needs be.
I think the Republicans will be absolutely crushed at the midterms, and actually may split even before then. Trump is at new lows of unpopularity and there is no sign of any upturn. The SC may go along with subverting the constitution, but with Trump now regarded, even by many Republicans, as the worst president in American history why would they go along with such a crime? Even if you think the entire US system has just collapsed in the face of blatant corruption there is, I submit, a decent chance that it in fact it goes the other way. Although I think there is a pretty decent chance that Trump does not complete his term, I would still note that if Trump is not able to face trial himself through death or incapacity, then there are still a lot of US lawyers who are gathering evidence for a trial of the survivors. It is not certain, of course not, but the idea that there will be no consequences for the Trump accomplices is also not so likely. I think Trumps numbers will be so far down the hole by the spring that the mid term massacre might even be a relief.
Steve Bannon was correct, if the Republicans lose the mid-terms a lot of the MAGA cult are going to jail. So many people have done so many blatantly illegal acts, from the White House to ICE goons on the street, I cannot see the the SC being able to save more than a handful - and if Trump is gone and the cult collapsing, they may decline to do even that.
It's become a meme to say that the walls are closing in on Trump because his opponents have been saying it for nearly a decade now.
I'm still in the hope not expectation space. Safer that way.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
How did such a crap vehicle get signed off, surely there was a prototype?
It looks like a lot of the faults are intrinsic to the design rather than teething problems.
Incompetence or corruption, the age old question.
Usually it's the former, though how so much incompetence persists and repeats is a larger question.
Also Ajax assumed to be a Good Thing, because jobs in Wales & ... Industrial Base.
Stir in a dose of US defence prime, which knows how to play this game in their sleep, vs MoD procurement, which might as well be asleep.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
I would be happy to be paid a quarter of the amount for that contract to also design a vehicle which does not work, which strikes me as an excellent bargain for the taxpayer.
I hope they put one in the Tank Museum for future generations of engineers to inspect.
Get David Fletcher to do a review.
We're not dealing with the A38 Vickers Valiant, I'll have you know.
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle.. - - Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake. - The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing... - - Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain. - - Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds. - - The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position. - GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
I would be happy to be paid a quarter of the amount for that contract to also design a vehicle which does not work, which strikes me as an excellent bargain for the taxpayer.
I hope they put one in the Tank Museum for future generations of engineers to inspect.
It'll never get that far. Bovington is a bit of a drive. Would a photo do, or even perhaps a video assuming you capture the best 20m or so of actual travel?
They have tank transporters, or haven't they been privatised? So long as they don't try to go over the humpbacked bridge at Woolbridge Manor.
The first decision on Ajax was in March 2010, so it qualifies as a joint failure by both Labour and Tories, rather than simply a failure inherited by Labour from the Tories.
The CV90 that it won out over in the tender was already in service in 2010, so wouldn't have had the same development risks.
Any shittiness wouldn't be so obvious to begin with tbf. But Labour have now put in a year and a half, so ...
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
Mrs P. and I do. Mainly Mrs P. at present because the house we are renting has an infuriating split kitchen, half of which is up two steps. But generally we split it fairly evenly. And generally we cook from recipes using basic ingredients.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I have about two or three takeaways a year. Eat out maybe a dozen times. The rest is assembling (breakfast, lunch, some dinners) or cooking (the other dinners).
Decent chicken jardiniere tonight. Cheap and cheerful.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
I love cooking but have to forego the joy of it quite often and buy the yellow sticker in Waitrose
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
I love cooking but have to forego the joy of it quite often and buy the yellow sticker in Waitrose
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
Tesco finest pizza for tomorrow: £1.25. Discounts are steeper (but rarer) at Tesco Express.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Imperialism made some sense, prior to, and in the early stages of, the Industrial Revolution.
Conquering new lands, and throwing out the former occupants, at least gave a step up for your own lower classes, and provided estates and job opportunities for the younger sons of the upper classes.
But, now, trying to seize lands, occupied by people running a modern economy, and trying to replace them with soldier-farmers, simply results in a lower standard of living for everybody.
And even back in the day, trading was more profitable than trying to govern vast territories. John Company began to lose money, once it became a territorial power, having to maintain a vast military establishment.
Also, before the WTO and an "international rules based order", such methods were really the only way you could enforce free trade outside of Europe.
My constituency looks interesting at the next election
It’s been Tory forever; it was Ancram’s seat for a long time. But now we’ve had the biggest Reform defection
Can Kruger keep his seat? I doubt it, I don’t think that we’ll be a Reform redoubt
Kruger's notional majority before the 2024 GE was 24,500 or 50% so to topple that would have been a considerable feat and unlike other seats, Labour and the LDs were close for second place. Kruger still reduced the Conservative vote share from 65.9% to 35.7% and in absolute vote numbers went from a notional 32,301 to 16,849 so that's a huge drop in numbers.
With a split opposition and a huge amount of headroom, it's little surprise he survived - as to what would happen now if he stood as a Reform candidate, I've no idea.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
I love cooking but have to forego the joy of it quite often and buy the yellow sticker in Waitrose
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
Tesco finest pizza for tomorrow: £1.25. Discounts are steeper (but rarer) at Tesco Express.
I live four hundred wards from Waitrose and a mile and a half from Tesco
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I made home made chips last night.
It was remarkably easy.
I think many recipes are massively over complicated.
Same principle as the movie conversation yesterday- all the good recipes were worked out long ago, so how else are you going to make a recipe book, except by overcomplication? (Sorry Nigel Slater, that even goes for you, and you are clearly a sweetie and a love.)
But yeah- having spent a couple of decades doing the cooking, reasonably properly, it's nice having a child who has started doing some of it. Just in time for her to get good before going to university.
(One of the odd, strange, memories of late lockdown is her doing a live online cookalong organised by her Guides group.)
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
I love cooking but have to forego the joy of it quite often and buy the yellow sticker in Waitrose
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
Tesco finest pizza for tomorrow: £1.25. Discounts are steeper (but rarer) at Tesco Express.
I live four hundred wards from Waitrose and a mile and a half from Tesco
Where would you walk?
I am somewhat between jobs. I'd walk almost anywhere...
(My comparison was between Tesco yellow stickers and Tesco Express yellow stickers, not Waitrose...)
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
I love cooking but have to forego the joy of it quite often and buy the yellow sticker in Waitrose
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
Tesco finest pizza for tomorrow: £1.25. Discounts are steeper (but rarer) at Tesco Express.
I live four hundred wards from Waitrose and a mile and a half from Tesco
Where would you walk?
I am somewhat between jobs. I'd walk almost anywhere...
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
We do in this house. Main exceptions are when one or both of us comes home late with a ready meal (pizza or quiche or fishcakes and chips) from M&S but even then we add a veg portion. Also when we go to the specialist butcher and come home with their pies (maybe a Scottish thing: 'butcher' meat pies with puff pastry, as well as the round Scotch pies with eg macaroni cheese - but they would count in another sense as home made. Likewise cooked ham and so on.
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
I love cooking but have to forego the joy of it quite often and buy the yellow sticker in Waitrose
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
Tesco finest pizza for tomorrow: £1.25. Discounts are steeper (but rarer) at Tesco Express.
I live four hundred wards from Waitrose and a mile and a half from Tesco
Where would you walk?
I am somewhat between jobs. I'd walk almost anywhere...
You should come on holiday with me!
I'm thinking if things get desparate, I give up the flat and do Albania / North Macedonia / Greece in the spring. Airbnbs from £300pm...
PART 1: THE ARTICLE Yes, @viewcode is and it's in the toilets. It's currently on its fifth draft and is 1,9XX words long not including the appendices, so I'll have to kill my darlings, including the Shaun Of The Dead reference.
I invited four discussants on to discuss the article. "Discussants" is an old technique you don't see much around these days, where you give a lecture/report and then two groups discuss, pro- and con. Two of my discussants (@NigelB and @kyf_100 ) from the pro-trans direction, and another two (@Cyclefree and @DavidL) from the gender-critical direction. Problem is, due to her personal circs @Cyclefree cannot contribute much, and @DavidL has not yet responded. Also @NigelB and @kyf100 are not lawyers and have pointed out that this makes it imbalanced.
To cure this I propose the following
i) Nudge @DavidL: sir you don't have to be a discussant if you don't want to, but I would be grateful if you could tell me yea or nay
ii) Is there somebody from the the pro-trans direction (or at least not explicitly gender-critical) with legal experience who would like to be a discussant?
PART 2: THE PEGGIE CASE I have not yet studied the case in depth but I do note that the judges in both Peggie and Kelly gave weight to the number of objectors, which means I may be able to incorporate it in the Kelly section
Popped in this afternoon just to see if you were already on the case, pun intended. Glad to see you are!
The trouble with all this stuff is the speed at which it moves. That, and following it in depth is a full time job in itself (a mere 312 page judgement to read tonight!).
When you started your article, it was fairly rational (albeit disputed) to reach a conclusion, legally speaking that trans women are a) legally 'men' for the purpose of the EA and b) legally excluded from single sex spaces.
In the space of a week, we have not one but two judgements (Kelly v Leonardo, Peggie v NHS Fife) that seem to suggest, at least, that (b) is incorrect.
To complicate matters further, the Good Law Project expect their judicial review into the EHRC's draft guidance to be handed down over the next few weeks.
This is why I'm rather more interested in the political debate than the letter of the law. The law is just a set of rules that can change. Politics is what those rules mean, in practice, and how we as a society choose to balance conflicting, even oppositional views (enter proportionality, stage left...).
Noted. Considering changing rooms and toilets
Changing rooms IIUC the SC Judgment FWS was clear on changing rooms: the answer is "no access for TW". Peggie seems to have modified that, and now the answer seems to be "access is permitted unless somebody objects, and then withdrawn until the objection is resolved". Which brings me to...
Toilets My article tries to address whether toilet access comes under FWS (there is disagreement) and the more I read the more I think there is no consensus and it will have to wait until Govt resolves the EHRC guidance. Kelly added a quirk which Peggie echoed, namely the weight of numbers - the number of objectors is relevant and a single objector is insufficient. This surprised me.
Apparently Peggie also rejects the interpretation that FWS directly addressed toilets, saying that if it had meant toilets it would have said so. I agree with that, but I can't deny that many lawyers says it does.
One small but important correction - an employment tribunal decision cannot change the law as set out in the SC court. The SC is the apex court. Employment tribunal decisions do not even have to be followed. It is only when you get to the Employment Appeal Tribunal that their decisions become binding on lower courts but they themselves are bound by the decisions of the higher courts.
Whether the ETs have correctly interpreted the SC decision or swerved past it is another matter. The Kelly v Leonardo case is being appealed. I expect the Peggie case will be too.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I cook from scratch most of the time. If you allow for buying spice blends or pastes. I am going through a SE Asian food kick just now and I can't get the ingredients locally - so pastes it is. But the rest of the chopping, peeling, marinading, cooking is down to me.
I don't think I've had anything approaching a take-away for 10+ years. Last time was fish'n'chips from the nearest chippy - and that is just because it's a tradition I have when I move into a new place. Maybe 2012?
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I made home made chips last night.
It was remarkably easy.
I think many recipes are massively over complicated.
Same principle as the movie conversation yesterday- all the good recipes were worked out long ago, so how else are you going to make a recipe book, except by overcomplication? (Sorry Nigel Slater, that even goes for you, and you are clearly a sweetie and a love.)
But yeah- having spent a couple of decades doing the cooking, reasonably properly, it's nice having a child who has started doing some of it. Just in time for her to get good before going to university.
(One of the odd, strange, memories of late lockdown is her doing a live online cookalong organised by her Guides group.)
I like the look of Nigel's cooking, but I tried one of the recipes and it was rubbish. I am willing to concede I may have made it badly, but there were only 4 ingredients so I am not sure how to make it better
To answer the original question, I cook sometimes. I often assemble sandwiches, but that might involve a lot of chopping, or a salad, but that might include a poached egg. I hope to roast a pheasant this weekend with all the trimmings but only if schedule allows.
The French want Russian assets frozen in France to be exempt from the reparations loan. Fuxsake, this is never going to happen.
Didn’t a bright spark say during the American Revolution that “we must hang together or surely we will hang apart”.
Unfortunately, as ever, national concerns in Europe take precedence over the good for the continent. France with their protectionism, Spain and Ireland with their obsession with Gaza over the real threat, Hungary and Slovakia with its leaders beholden to Putin. At least Germany has made the post Merkel switch to reality and the Baltic, Poland and Scandinavia/Nordic nations are being pragmatic.
We will likely fudge spending and end up with an approach that isn’t optimised for the real threat.
Putin knows all this and even though he would be on a hiding to nothing if he tried to roll into Poland and the Baltic when his army is incapable of winning in Ukraine as it is but he will play a long game and benefit from disunity and selfishness.
Britain probably not best placed to advise others on European unity, unfortunately.
That sounds like the whole history of European 'unity' with each country looking for its own advantage over the other members of the Union
Oh sure, and the French are the absolute worst but I think it takes a certain lack of self awareness to think that a country that has done more than any other in recent years to weaken European unity and advance Putin's divide and rule strategy has any credibility in this space.
In terms of defence Britain has done far more to strengthen Europe than any of the traditional EU major players. You only have to look at the JEF or the Mutual Defence Pact that the UK signed with Sweden and FInland prior to their accession to NATO. This is proper practical stuff rather than just talking about it. And it cannot be hindered by the pro-Russian elements within the EU.
Germany has provided more military support to Ukaine than we have and the EU overall has provided over EUR80bn, more than the US and five times what we have.
Firstly I wasn't talking just about financial aid to Ukraine as should have been obvious from my mentioning the JEF so stop moving the goalposts.
And secondly, given the EU economy is about 5 times larger than the UKs that looks like we are pretty much on a par in terms of support for Ukraine.
Why are you so desperate to do down the UK just for the sake of your precious EU?
I could ask why are you so desperate to deny that Brexit was a project supported by Putin and designed to weaken the EU? Or why are you so keen to talk up our contribution to defending Europe while denying the role of other countries? You initially said we had done "far more" to strengthen European defence than any EU member and you now say we are "on par" in terms of our support for Ukraine, the current front line in our defence of Europe. And you say I am the one moving the goalposts... The people "doing down" the UK are Putin's useful idiots who supported a disastrous exit from the EU that has left us poorer and weaker on the world stage.
I didn't deny the contribution of other countries. You are the only one here trying to claim that we have weakened defence and security.
And don't misquote me (what am I saying, you can only make and argument by misquoting people)
I did not say, "any EU member", I said "any of the traditional EU major players". I phrased it specifically that way because I am aware that the Eastern EU countries have done far more than the UK or anyone else.
So stop lying, stop misquoting and stop being such a fucking tool for the EU.
We are doing less than Germany, in terms of defence funding for Ukraine. Are they not a "traditional EU member player"? I have had a lot of respect for you as a poster but in the last couple of days you have indulged in a number of unpleasant ad hominem attacks when I have posted on the subject of Brexit, which is a shame. I will nevertheless continue to argue that the UK has been weakened by Brexit, that Europe has been weakened, divided and distracted by it, and Russia has been the main beneficiary. This is not because I am some starry eyed EU fanatic, as you seem to imagine, but because I can see the reality of what has happened in the last nine years. It is driven by what I see as our national self interest. One of the many delusions of Brexiteers is to imagine they have some kind of monopoly on patriotic sentiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am sure that Russia was delighted by Brexit, but it is very far from being a first-rank cause of European weakness.
Is it worth remembering that the Russian seizure of Crimea started in February 2014? This was before the Carswell and Reckless defections to UKIP, before UKIP won the 2014 European elections. Before Brexit had weakened Britain and Europe, but Britain and Europe were still too weak to take any effective action against Russia seizing the territory of Ukraine.
Russia seized bits of Georgia six years earlier, in 2008 - South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Immediately followed by newly-elected President Obama offering a friendly 'reset' in relations.
Part at least of the overall problem is that these territories were part of the old Russian Soviet Republic and/or the Tsarist Empire, and therefore have been ‘part’ of Russia for many, many years. And, yes I know the Ukraine was, and was indeed arguably the dominant part of historical Russia.
It’s something people with short memories find hard to grasp, sometimes. Or appreciate the effects on people’s thinking.
It is however, as anachronistic as thinking that Ireland, and the Former Dominions are all "part of" Britain.
That is, of course, true, but even on here one occasionally gets suggestions that Ireland should ‘reunite’ with the rest of the UK!i
I would vote for reunification of Ireland with Britain - but the emphasis there is on "vote".
Ukrainians voted to be independent of Russia. What more is there to say?
Yes, I don't think I have ever seen it suggested anywhere that Ireland should be reunited with the UK against the will of its inhabitants.
But I wonder if the last hundred years or so when national self-determination was seen as the natural way of things is a historical anomaly. It only works in an open world where everyone believes in it. It feels like we are slipping out of the idealist phase of history and back in to the realist. Empires weren't built purely because everyone wanted an empire - they were built because if you didn't conquer and occupy weak but important location x, your rival would and make you weaker by default. We moved past that when world trade became a thing and you could just buy stuff from everywhere. But it feels like we are slipping back into it. Globalisation only works if most people believe in it.
Here's the thing: most invasions end in failure, particularly wars of imperial conquest.
And when you do succeed, that's when it gets really difficult. You now have a significant minority of people who don't want to be a part of your country. Which means you're dealing with civil disobedience at best, with the possibility of terrorism and outright revolt and rebellion.
For what?
Countries get rich by not invading their neighbours. See Switzerland.
Imperialism is a negative sum process, but there's certainly one side that comes out of the equation worse.
If you already think a positive sum exchange is impossible - because you think it is conquer or be conquered - then you definitely want to be the conqueror rather than the conquered, even if life isn't rosy for conquerors.
And that's why imperialism still happens. And it's why those who reject Imperialism need to stand together to defeat aggression. Switzerland might want to help too.
Imperialism made some sense, prior to, and in the early stages of, the Industrial Revolution.
Conquering new lands, and throwing out the former occupants, at least gave a step up for your own lower classes, and provided estates and job opportunities for the younger sons of the upper classes.
But, now, trying to seize lands, occupied by people running a modern economy, and trying to replace them with soldier-farmers, simply results in a lower standard of living for everybody.
And even back in the day, trading was more profitable than trying to govern vast territories. John Company began to lose money, once it became a territorial power, having to maintain a vast military establishment.
Also, before the WTO and an "international rules based order", such methods were really the only way you could enforce free trade outside of Europe.
Indeed. My fear is that we might be moving past a WTO world. In such a world, empires return.
Tucked into Congress’ massive defense policy bill is a provision that would limit Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget unless he provides the House and Senate Armed Services committees with unedited video of US military strikes in the Caribbean.
PART 1: THE ARTICLE Yes, @viewcode is and it's in the toilets. It's currently on its fifth draft and is 1,9XX words long not including the appendices, so I'll have to kill my darlings, including the Shaun Of The Dead reference.
I invited four discussants on to discuss the article. "Discussants" is an old technique you don't see much around these days, where you give a lecture/report and then two groups discuss, pro- and con. Two of my discussants (@NigelB and @kyf_100 ) from the pro-trans direction, and another two (@Cyclefree and @DavidL) from the gender-critical direction. Problem is, due to her personal circs @Cyclefree cannot contribute much, and @DavidL has not yet responded. Also @NigelB and @kyf100 are not lawyers and have pointed out that this makes it imbalanced.
To cure this I propose the following
i) Nudge @DavidL: sir you don't have to be a discussant if you don't want to, but I would be grateful if you could tell me yea or nay
ii) Is there somebody from the the pro-trans direction (or at least not explicitly gender-critical) with legal experience who would like to be a discussant?
PART 2: THE PEGGIE CASE I have not yet studied the case in depth but I do note that the judges in both Peggie and Kelly gave weight to the number of objectors, which means I may be able to incorporate it in the Kelly section
Popped in this afternoon just to see if you were already on the case, pun intended. Glad to see you are!
The trouble with all this stuff is the speed at which it moves. That, and following it in depth is a full time job in itself (a mere 312 page judgement to read tonight!).
When you started your article, it was fairly rational (albeit disputed) to reach a conclusion, legally speaking that trans women are a) legally 'men' for the purpose of the EA and b) legally excluded from single sex spaces.
In the space of a week, we have not one but two judgements (Kelly v Leonardo, Peggie v NHS Fife) that seem to suggest, at least, that (b) is incorrect.
To complicate matters further, the Good Law Project expect their judicial review into the EHRC's draft guidance to be handed down over the next few weeks.
This is why I'm rather more interested in the political debate than the letter of the law. The law is just a set of rules that can change. Politics is what those rules mean, in practice, and how we as a society choose to balance conflicting, even oppositional views (enter proportionality, stage left...).
Noted. Considering changing rooms and toilets
Changing rooms IIUC the SC Judgment FWS was clear on changing rooms: the answer is "no access for TW". Peggie seems to have modified that, and now the answer seems to be "access is permitted unless somebody objects, and then withdrawn until the objection is resolved". Which brings me to...
Toilets My article tries to address whether toilet access comes under FWS (there is disagreement) and the more I read the more I think there is no consensus and it will have to wait until Govt resolves the EHRC guidance. Kelly added a quirk which Peggie echoed, namely the weight of numbers - the number of objectors is relevant and a single objector is insufficient. This surprised me.
Apparently Peggie also rejects the interpretation that FWS directly addressed toilets, saying that if it had meant toilets it would have said so. I agree with that, but I can't deny that many lawyers says it does.
I really think that's rather appalling. A woman must put herself out there as some sort of complaining prude to avoid having men in her changing room or loo. And even when she does, that might not be enough. Will the woman's feelings of disquiet and discomfort at the presence of biological males be enough, or must there be an 'act' or 'event' that the complainant will need to provide evidence of?
I don't really see how it can be satisfactory for the self-identified women (or men) either. You're allowed to be somewhere until someone else dislikes it and makes a complaint? It's a recipe for workplace conflict and resentment, that makes these people into front line cannon fodder in a culture war.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
Every day. I rarely spend more than twenty minutes on it. Because it's easy and quick, and the food is at least as good as in most restaurants, I rarely eat out and almost never have takeaway or ready meals.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I made home made chips last night.
It was remarkably easy.
I think many recipes are massively over complicated.
Same principle as the movie conversation yesterday- all the good recipes were worked out long ago, so how else are you going to make a recipe book, except by overcomplication? (Sorry Nigel Slater, that even goes for you, and you are clearly a sweetie and a love.)
But yeah- having spent a couple of decades doing the cooking, reasonably properly, it's nice having a child who has started doing some of it. Just in time for her to get good before going to university.
(One of the odd, strange, memories of late lockdown is her doing a live online cookalong organised by her Guides group.)
I like the look of Nigel's cooking, but I tried one of the recipes and it was rubbish. I am willing to concede I may have made it badly, but there were only 4 ingredients so I am not sure how to make it better
To answer the original question, I cook sometimes. I often assemble sandwiches, but that might involve a lot of chopping, or a salad, but that might include a poached egg. I hope to roast a pheasant this weekend with all the trimmings but only if schedule allows.
I do 85% of the cooking in this house. Mostly from scratch. Slow-cooked beef casserole and dumplings tonight.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I made home made chips last night.
It was remarkably easy.
I think many recipes are massively over complicated.
Same principle as the movie conversation yesterday- all the good recipes were worked out long ago, so how else are you going to make a recipe book, except by overcomplication? (Sorry Nigel Slater, that even goes for you, and you are clearly a sweetie and a love.)
But yeah- having spent a couple of decades doing the cooking, reasonably properly, it's nice having a child who has started doing some of it. Just in time for her to get good before going to university.
(One of the odd, strange, memories of late lockdown is her doing a live online cookalong organised by her Guides group.)
I like the look of Nigel's cooking, but I tried one of the recipes and it was rubbish. I am willing to concede I may have made it badly, but there were only 4 ingredients so I am not sure how to make it better
To answer the original question, I cook sometimes. I often assemble sandwiches, but that might involve a lot of chopping, or a salad, but that might include a poached egg. I hope to roast a pheasant this weekend with all the trimmings but only if schedule allows.
I always cook everything from scratch, unless it's my daughter's turn, and she does the same, having taught herself to cook at Uni. I batch cook so when we're both in the office most of the work is done. I even do my own soups, which I take to work for lunch.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
Every day. I rarely spend more than twenty minutes on it. Because it's easy and quick, and the food is at least as good as in most restaurants, I rarely eat out and almost never have takeaway or ready meals.
I only cook properly like once a week, but there can be a condescending approach taken sometimes wherein it is treated as something people find hard to understand and if only they were educated more on it, which doesn't feel right to me - plenty of things are very simple, and inexpensive to boot, and time - or more accurately the fear of how much time it would take - is a bigger put off.
The first decision on Ajax was in March 2010, so it qualifies as a joint failure by both Labour and Tories, rather than simply a failure inherited by Labour from the Tories.
The CV90 that it won out over in the tender was already in service in 2010, so wouldn't have had the same development risks.
Any shittiness wouldn't be so obvious to begin with tbf. But Labour have now put in a year and a half, so ...
It was a really bad idea from the start - taking an existing (Spanish) design that hadn't gone into production, and massively modifying it for our unique requirements/specifications.
That's inherently risky, and more likely than not to go wrong.
That we went for it over the successful CV90 was just nuts.
The army top brass, and manufacturer seem both determined not to admit the problems, so while Labour had been slow to get a grasp (and Healey a bit naive), I don't think they will bear anywhere near the blame due to previous governments - if, and only if then now make the right decision.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I made home made chips last night.
It was remarkably easy.
I think many recipes are massively over complicated.
Same principle as the movie conversation yesterday- all the good recipes were worked out long ago, so how else are you going to make a recipe book, except by overcomplication? (Sorry Nigel Slater, that even goes for you, and you are clearly a sweetie and a love.)
But yeah- having spent a couple of decades doing the cooking, reasonably properly, it's nice having a child who has started doing some of it. Just in time for her to get good before going to university.
(One of the odd, strange, memories of late lockdown is her doing a live online cookalong organised by her Guides group.)
I like the look of Nigel's cooking, but I tried one of the recipes and it was rubbish. I am willing to concede I may have made it badly, but there were only 4 ingredients so I am not sure how to make it better
To answer the original question, I cook sometimes. I often assemble sandwiches, but that might involve a lot of chopping, or a salad, but that might include a poached egg. I hope to roast a pheasant this weekend with all the trimmings but only if schedule allows.
I do 85% of the cooking in this house. Mostly from scratch. Slow-cooked beef casserole and dumplings tonight.
Basa fillets fried in a light dusting of olive oil with ginger for me.
Quick, simple and tasty.
I may have added a bit too much spice but it was decent.
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
I cook two meals a day. Sometimes it's just sizzling bacon on homemade toasted bread.
On Sundays I have chicken roast, stuffing, roast potatoes, parsnips, peas and carrots and thick gravy plus a rioja and cheeses. Sometimes I have guests to join me.
But often I eat alone so the red or green Thai curries or paellas make 4 or 5 portions which go in the freezer. The roast chicken makes four plates for the fridge, and the chicken carcass and other remains plus fried onions, tomatoes, spaghetti, chillies make six portions of chicken stew also for the freezer. A large bowl of salad (lettuce, tomatoes, onion, feta cheese, cucumber, roasted almonds, soft figs, chick peas, chopped grapes and tangerines plus salad dressing) lasts a week in the fridge.
I eat well and I love the preparation and cooking.
Comments
If you're the guy in charge (and on some circumstances, his followers), then conquest absolutely pays.
And the miserable subjects can usually be persuaded it's better to have been on the winning, rather than losing side.
Empires aren't utilitarian projects.
Guardian
I’ve only had a couple so far, but both are double what they gave me last year; the General and his wife gave me forty quid!
And then a lovely lady who lives at the top of my street, on my old route, saw me on my way home from work and gave me a tenner
This possibly portends well for my rather feeble bank balance
Conquering new lands, and throwing out the former occupants, at least gave a step up for your own lower classes, and provided estates and job opportunities for the younger sons of the upper classes.
But, now, trying to seize lands, occupied by people running a modern economy, and trying to replace them with soldier-farmers, simply results in a lower standard of living for everybody.
And even back in the day, trading was more profitable than trying to govern vast territories. John Company began to lose money, once it became a territorial power, having to maintain a vast military establishment.
https://x.com/MilitaryBanter/status/1998076907959513446
I’m only listening a few issues...
- The vehicle batteries cannot sustain the vehicle for general use and the APU that is fitted to the AJAX variant is so prone to failing that units are stopping troops from using them...
- There are no cam nets or thermal sheets designed for AJAX, we use AS90 cam nets that we cut to fit in the bin because it's too big. We cant hide the thermal signature on the vehicle..
-
- Fuel tanks are failing, which means crews need to use the fuel pump in the CES to move fuel around and between vehicles. Whilst we talk about fuel tanks, it's fair to mention that we mock the Russians for having fuel tanks on the rear doors, and yet we have made the same mistake.
- The technical document is over 20k pages which is essentially needs a course to navigate. The CES schedule is multiple pages of army jargon and GD numbers that troops are struggling to decipher...
- When a stoppage occurs in the 40mm cannon, a 30 minute wait period is enforced on the vehicle by the system, this also stops the chain gun from being used because it lacks any mechanical means of firing...
-
- Fuel… the vehicle is unsuitable by even a challenger 2 G4 chain. A squadron used 15000L of fuel in 35 hours if movement across 27 vehicles. The vehicles use approx 16L of fuel an hour, and with a tank of 795L, we will get 50hours of movement before empty. This is a vehicle designed to be used as a DEEP recce vehicle, and it cant even be sustained with POL by its G4 chain.
-
- Recently ATDU was given the task of proving an AJAX can go from factory to the ranges and fire. To start with they couldn’t grease the tracks because the grease gun wouldn’t work, .. next came the comms check, and the crews found that the internal wiring was incorrect and kit was missing or broken which had to be salvaged from other vehicles. The next hurdle was boresighting the vehicle which required someone from GD to come and do for the crews. In the end out of 4 vehicles, only 1 fired 10 rounds.
-
- The vibration issues are worse than people realise. I challenge anyone to get in the back of a ARES and survive 30 minutes cross country. The same for AJAX when crews are hatch down. Crews have reported watching cables unscrewing while the vehicle is running. GD and the MOD’s solution is rubber tracks… AJAX is designed to be crewed by 3 people, and they expect them to be capable of replacing a rubber track without bringing other troops in to help, so that they don’t highlight their position.
- GD has realised they are in the red with AJAX and will recoup their losses via spares on the vehicle...
It seems a huge division is happening between the Club and player, dividing supporters
I doubt anyone would have seen this coming this time last year
The jury decision is less clear cut than the Council decision.
He publicly called reports of Axel Rudakubana being born in Cardiff untrue, and declared "we are under attack". He's a chemtrail enthusiast, and a Tommy Robinson disciple.
These are not "patriotic views"; they are the rantings of a conspiraloon. And it shows us how detached from reality the Free Speech Union has become, in trying to pretend that this is oppression 'because of his opinions.'
He may be Ok to run a football team, but he needs rescuing from his rabbit hole.
Full Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4fb405443758c992
BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedne12w411o
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/08/alina-habba-steps-down-as-new-jerseys-top-federal-prosecutor-00680823
It looks like a lot of the faults are intrinsic to the design rather than teething problems.
Southampton have appointed a thirty-two year old with zero managerial experience as permanent manager
I believe that Tonda Eckert currently has the highest win ratio of any manager anywhere; 83.33%
Usually it's the former, though how so much incompetence persists and repeats is a larger question.
I think he wants out, and this is part of it.
"But you were childrens minister..."
She's not only hopeless but an opportunist to boot.
The hard bit will be all the other bits of civil society, media and business that have knelt before the Don. America can't get rid of all of them. And whilst there is a lot to be said for Truth and Reconciliation (optimal) or Pacts of Forgetting (less good, but still effective), I fear that's not where America will be.
As I understand it, she can't step down as she was not legally appointed to the job, at least after the first 120 days.
What she has done has been to continue to squat in the office preventing a proper office holder from being appointed, and blocking the continuation legal business.
I'm not sure how many fake indictments etc she has been signing and issuing, none of which mean anything unless they are signed by a legal holder of the position.
Liverpool are pisspoor compared to last season and most of Slots changes arent working.
Difficult for the owners to publically agree, but I expect Salah will still be a Liverpool player after Slot is gone.
Every legal story now is either
Ancient Circuit Judge Delivers Crystal Clear 100 Page Rebuke To Trumpist Overreach
or
In Unsigned Shadow Docket Decision, 6-3 Majority Declares Trump Can Hunt People For Sport
https://bsky.app/profile/atherton.bsky.social/post/3m2d4fkaaqk27
(Yes, I know not every decision is literally that partisan, but the extent of unchecked authority they presume for Trump, well, it's hard to imagine the majority would be so relaxed about if it did not fit their own political agendas).
It’s been Tory forever; it was Ancram’s seat for a long time. But now we’ve had the biggest Reform defection
Can Kruger keep his seat? I doubt it, I don’t think that we’ll be a Reform redoubt
At present he is fighting a battle to try and get one of his election-stealing gang, Tina Peters, from Colorado State Prison. My call is that if the Dems win the House in 2026, it will be a maximum slow down and reassert checks and balances operation. There would be lots of enquiry committees, and attempted attention-generating impeachments.
But if the Dems get 60 seats in the Senate that would be far more interesting - they would need to win 2/3 of the Republican seats up for reelection as well as all of their own. I'm not sure if they could get Republicans onside for serious anti-regime operations if they made fewer than that.
I'm not sure if I see Trump pardoning everyone who could be held to account. Hegseth and Bondi, imo, will be under a bus quite soon.
And Bondi owns the illegal prosecutions fuckup.
Wisconsin Cinnabon fires staffer after ‘disturbing’ viral video, company says
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5637687-wisconsin-cinnabon-somali/
There could be seven or eight competitive parties in the mix.
I don't really believe that will happen though, and I think I'll finish up laying NOM on BF at some point, but not yet.
In broad terms, it's the same question that has faced every other corrupt despot about this stage.
I’d guess that that might be quite neutral in possible Reform support
Institutional and multiple personal failures to admit to having made a mistake.
The sooner someone is willing to put the project out of its misery the better.
Just consider the DOJ; all the people who made it "The DOJ" have gone, and it stuffed with Trumpist dick-suckers.
I'm back to what I was arguing a year ago - that there will need to be some serious reforms to the constitution, as there were after the Civil War, when segregation was removed etc. The Presidential Pardon is one area that has to be chopped off at the knees.
The Dems would need to come in with a "restore after Project 25" programme, ready to roll, and will need support from sane Republicans. I hope the groundwork is being done.
For the DOJ I would appoint Jack Smith as Attorney General, to implement a pre-prepared programme. He has the experience and the values.
But they can only be sure of two years.
The CV90 that it won out over in the tender was already in service in 2010, so wouldn't have had the same development risks.
Stir in a dose of US defence prime, which knows how to play this game in their sleep, vs MoD procurement, which might as well be asleep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUABpR19SV4
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c652640f0b62aff6c1609/1025.pdf
Lessons learned, eh ?
Obviously many will have wives who do the cooking, but do they really cook?
I mean cooking from ingredients that you need to peel and chop up, and then fry, broil, braise, grill, bake, roast, soak, marinade or whatever
Do we cook?
Soup home made too usually with sometimes tinned stuff esp if I am on my own.
But then we have the time, being retired.
Decent chicken jardiniere tonight. Cheap and cheerful.
Tonight I've got Charlie's chicken and ham en croute for two for six quid
It was remarkably easy.
I think many recipes are massively over complicated.
With a split opposition and a huge amount of headroom, it's little surprise he survived - as to what would happen now if he stood as a Reform candidate, I've no idea.
Where would you walk?
But yeah- having spent a couple of decades doing the cooking, reasonably properly, it's nice having a child who has started doing some of it. Just in time for her to get good before going to university.
(One of the odd, strange, memories of late lockdown is her doing a live online cookalong organised by her Guides group.)
(My comparison was between Tesco yellow stickers and Tesco Express yellow stickers, not Waitrose...)
Whether the ETs have correctly interpreted the SC decision or swerved past it is another matter. The Kelly v Leonardo case is being appealed. I expect the Peggie case will be too.
I don't think I've had anything approaching a take-away for 10+ years. Last time was fish'n'chips from the nearest chippy - and that is just because it's a tradition I have when I move into a new place. Maybe 2012?
To answer the original question, I cook sometimes. I often assemble sandwiches, but that might involve a lot of chopping, or a salad, but that might include a poached egg. I hope to roast a pheasant this weekend with all the trimmings but only if schedule allows.
@cnn.com
Tucked into Congress’ massive defense policy bill is a provision that would limit Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget unless he provides the House and Senate Armed Services committees with unedited video of US military strikes in the Caribbean.
https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3m7iwcgnjeb23
I don't really see how it can be satisfactory for the self-identified women (or men) either. You're allowed to be somewhere until someone else dislikes it and makes a complaint? It's a recipe for workplace conflict and resentment, that makes these people into front line cannon fodder in a culture war.
What foolish, ideologically-driven judgements.
I know we're unusual.
That's inherently risky, and more likely than not to go wrong.
That we went for it over the successful CV90 was just nuts.
The army top brass, and manufacturer seem both determined not to admit the problems, so while Labour had been slow to get a grasp (and Healey a bit naive), I don't think they will bear anywhere near the blame due to previous governments - if, and only if then now make the right decision.
Quick, simple and tasty.
I may have added a bit too much spice but it was decent.
On Sundays I have chicken roast, stuffing, roast potatoes, parsnips, peas and carrots and thick gravy plus a rioja and cheeses. Sometimes I have guests to join me.
But often I eat alone so the red or green Thai curries or paellas make 4 or 5 portions which go in the freezer.
The roast chicken makes four plates for the fridge, and the chicken carcass and other remains plus fried onions, tomatoes, spaghetti, chillies make six portions of chicken stew also for the freezer.
A large bowl of salad (lettuce, tomatoes, onion, feta cheese, cucumber, roasted almonds, soft figs, chick peas, chopped grapes and tangerines plus salad dressing) lasts a week in the fridge.
I eat well and I love the preparation and cooking.