With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Unfortunately they need to deploy to Greenland first!
Assuming we aren't actually going to shoot at the US, it would only take a token poison pill deployment, surely.
There's only one golf course in Greenland with grass, so maybe deploy there?
I'd guess you'd deploy to the main Danish military airbase and try not to make the fuelled transport aircraft ready for a rapid departure too obvious.
Yes, something like that. Just stand in the way to make it clear this is an invasion, but leave if required.
I imagine we'll see attempts at bribery and corruption rather than any actual force, though.
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
It’s worth noting that Trump will personally control the revenues from this oil. It’s a massive bribe nothing else
It’s a massive fantasy. Trump keeps talking about it, but the Venezuelans deny there’s any such agreement. It is unclear Trump knows what is going on.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
Have we any actual data on this?
Eg - number of breathalyser results after accidents, where people blow between 50 mg/ml and 80 mg/ml, vs number below and above the band.
I'm not convinced that the change will make much difference to accidents, but will making things even harder for the hospitality sector.
A big part of the problem is that blood alcohol levels tell you very little about how impaired a person actually is. I used to do quite a bit with a a mate who was a functional alcoholic - he got through at least a bottle of red every night, sometimes more. I doubt he ever dropped below 80mg/ml, but I'd cheerfully be a passenger in a car with him the morning after he'd downed a bottle - he was a very good, steady driver.
On the other hand, I don't drink much, and I'd therefore probably be fairly impaired after a couple of pints. I can recall a few years back having worked a traction engine to a steam rally - 12 hard hours on the road, with barely anything to eat or drink. When we finally got there, I had a larger shandy (heavens only knows why this was my drink of choice!) which in my tired and empty state made me remarkably tipsy! I don't know what blood acholol level a single larger shandy achives, but in my case, I definitely wasn't fit to drive...
With alcohol in your bloodstream you automatically become guilty of causing a crash, yet you may not have been the cause. If (say) 2 out of 3 accidents do not involve anyone with alcohol in their blood, then why would we assume that an accident in the 1 in 3 where at least one person has consumed alcohol, is due to that?
(I find this hard to explain - but assume Car A is driven by a complete tool, overtakes on a blind bend, and causes a crash with Car B that is driven by either someone with alcohol in the their blood or not, the cause is the tool, but in the former case the 'innocent' party would get done by the law)
But this is, in 1066 terms, a GOOD THING. I have had various conversations with people minded to drink drive because, delusionally, they did not believe that it affected their own driving. They could handle their drink, be more careful etc. The argument that they may lose their licence and face the shame attached to a drink driving conviction as well as the horrendous insurance premium implications for an accident that was not even their fault would often make them pause.
Many, many years ago I went to a party at a friend's, and discovered he had Microsoft Flight Simulator which I had never seen. It had an option for showing graphically, after each landing, how well you had adhered to the glide slope. Initially I did pretty well, right down the slot. But then mu friend's wife came and hauled me offd to be sociable. A couple of glasses of wine later I returned, and found the effect was very noticeable, with major deviations up, down, port and starboard. And after the next cycle my efforts were unspeakable. And yet I wasn't even feeling the effects.
I've never since believed those who think they can drink even a couple without serious impairment. Or claim that others can.
I was always better at Doom/Quake/GTA et al. after a pint or two - precisely because it made me less conservative in my actions.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
There was someone on the wireless the other day saying Western air forces spent months training Ukrainian MiG pilots how to fly F16s and were tearing their hair out because they still use Warsaw Pact tactics and get shot down.
I don't think that is down to any particular deficiency of Ukrainian crew. The F-16, as employed by NATO, is part of a very big, very expensive and very complicated combined air operations system that took 40+ years to build. F-16 on its own, outside that system, is not a silver bullet. The UkrAF have not helped themselves by a) crashing them trying to shoot down drones that cost 0.01% of an F-16 and b) getting them shot down in blue-on-blues but those are high-level doctrinal issues and can't particularly be laid at the feet of the joystick actuators.
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
That would take at least a decade and many billions to develop the doctrine, training pipeline and supporting systems to get to a "first rate" air force. As can be seen from giving UkrAF F-16 and Mir2k. Made absolutely no difference to the situation in the couple of years they've had them.
BOG is cheap, quick, easy and generates favourable headlines (until they start getting killed) so you can see its attraction for Starmer/Macron.
There was someone on the wireless the other day saying Western air forces spent months training Ukrainian MiG pilots how to fly F16s and were tearing their hair out because they still use Warsaw Pact tactics and get shot down.
I read the opposite a few months back, that they were deliberately sending the new pilots straight from flight school to F16 training abroad, precisely because they were so different to the MiGs and Sukhois.
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Very taken with some of it, as noted earlier. There's for instance a bramble sour from a local brewery that resembles Belgian krieks and is fruity without the sugary crap in soft drinks. Rather like the small beer of olden time.
Although I don’t like Peroni, Guinness or Heineken with alcohol in it I do like the zero alcohol versions.
As a rule I don’t drink any alcohol when driving. But I’ll happily have a couple of those.
I'm not a Guinness drinker, but the 0% Guinness is ok. Mentioned earlier was Kaliber. I remember that and NOT with fond memories. They do seem to have cracked the 0% beer now. According to my wife they haven't cracked the 0% wine.
They haven’t, but Sainsbury’s did a nice non-alcoholic mulled “wine” over Xmas.
Non and low alcohol drinks have come on in leaps and bounds since the days of Kaliber.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
Some people don't like those who drink. Some people don't like those who drive. Some people don't like those who live in rural areas.
And some people don't like a combo of those who drink or drive or live in rural areas.
Reducing the alcohol limit is a way to hit people in those groups.
On the one hand having 4 people die on the roads a day, every day, is pretty shocking. However, driving and road use is something that is both potentially very dangerous (driving a vehicle weighing a ton or more at speeds in excess of 50 mph) yet also remarkably safe (what is the accident rate per mile driven?)
What is the acceptable death toll for the freedom that driving allows? Is any death/injury acceptable? Could all deaths/injuries be avoided?
A bit like the 30 to 20 mph move in Wales, the proposed changes to drink drive limits are about cultural change. A landlord representative on Radio 5 from Scotland said that there were no significant changes in pubs after the change was made from 80 to 50 mg per ml. Some people changed what they drank but pubs didn't close. I'd foresee similar in England and Wales. Of greater concern is the longer term viability of pubs that everyone loves at Christmas but not during the rest of the year. There used to be three pubs in my Dad's village when I lived there, the Royal Oak, The George, and Plume and add in the social club. Its down to one pub with restricted opening hours and the club. People's habits have changed. People drink at home with cheap booze from the supermarkets. Pubs in the country need to have more about them than drink alone.
4 a day isn't that many in a country of 65 million. The only way you would ever get that to 0 is by banning cars and making people walk/cycle everywhere (although then you would see more deaths in those modes of transport).
The modern sine qua non of national defence is airpower. We should be helping the Ukrainians build their own first rate air force so Russia wouldn't dare launch another invasion. Frankly you are far too easily persuaded by Putin's sabre rattling.
That would take at least a decade and many billions to develop the doctrine, training pipeline and supporting systems to get to a "first rate" air force. As can be seen from giving UkrAF F-16 and Mir2k. Made absolutely no difference to the situation in the couple of years they've had them.
BOG is cheap, quick, easy and generates favourable headlines (until they start getting killed) so you can see its attraction for Starmer/Macron.
There was someone on the wireless the other day saying Western air forces spent months training Ukrainian MiG pilots how to fly F16s and were tearing their hair out because they still use Warsaw Pact tactics and get shot down.
I read the opposite a few months back, that they were deliberately sending the new pilots straight from flight school to F16 training abroad, precisely because they were so different to the MiGs and Sukhois.
They are retreading Frogfoot drivers now, presumably having run out of parts for the Su-25 fleet making it unsustainable.
E2A: English language ability is the dominant factor in selection for F-16 because it knocks 6-12 months off the training pipeline.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
People who want others to conform with now they live their lives? You mean Reform UK voters?
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
It’s worth noting that Trump will personally control the revenues from this oil. It’s a massive bribe nothing else
It’s a massive fantasy. Trump keeps talking about it, but the Venezuelans deny there’s any such agreement. It is unclear Trump knows what is going on.
My assumption it’s actually the couple of sanctioned tankers that the US has already seized. He’s providing cover.
(I’ve no idea what the carrying capacity of a tanker is though)
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
According to Twitter, the Americans are boarding the Marinera and at least one other newly-flagged Russian merchant ship
The ship is in international waters. By what rights do the Americans have to seize it and why won’t the Russians do more to protect it ?
People can do largely as they please in international waters, if it were in a nation's domestic waters then that nation would have the right to determine what can and can't be done, but international waters are fair game for all.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
People don't want to go to pubs. I went to a local celebrity's gastro pub near me just before Christmas. 2 Michelin rosettes (not stars) and the quality of food was a disappointment. The produce was fine but the cooking was poor. I won't go again.
Someone mentioned Kerridge. The quality he provides is phenomenal, if justifiably expensive, so maybe he has a point, but Landlords providing crap food and beer are the architects of their own downfall.
You are balancing the potential suicide of landlords (which is awful) with the road fatalities of drunk drivers and their victims.
People DO want to go to pubs here, in rural areas like mine there are NO clubs, NO bars, NO cafes and NO restaurants other than that in the pub. Pubs are a vital part of rural life.
As Bart showed a lower drink drive limit makes sod all difference to lives saved, EU nations with lower drink drive limits than ours have more road deaths
The pubs in my village are empty and have been for three or four years. What they provide is poor which is why they are on their arse.
One of our Scottish viewers explained that the fatalities, the casualties and the unacceptable nature of drinking and driving are all recent positives. So you are clearly costing drink-drive fatalities with the survival benefits of non-economic public houses.
Scanned this article about the new drink driving laws without properly paying attention, and thought this was strange advice from Alcoholics Anonymous
He said: “The new rules will send a strong message that it is simply not worth taking the risk. Our message at the AA for everyone is clear: if you are going to drink, don’t drive and if you are going to drive, don’t drink.”
Thank-you for the full article link. It's good to see the aspiration to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 2/3 over a decade.
The measures mentioned - 6 month minimum learning period, 20mg/ml drink drive limit for young driver and 50mg/ml limit for others - are evidence based but timid; we really miss Louise Haigh. Blood alcohol of 50mg/ml causes significant impairment of driving ability; it's a bad idea to institutionalise "you can drink and drive after a probationary period".
The headline claim that we will become one of the strictest countries in Europe for DUI is complete baloney (in the article this is modified to "for young drivers"). There ae four tiers in Europe of DUI limit - 80mg/ml, 50, 20 and 0.
The UK is that last one on 80, and this will move us to 50, which is the typical Western European figure, whilst in Eastern Europe it is 20 mg/ml.
It's a great picture of Heidi Alexander with something of the "Grandma from Giles" about her:
I hope you haven't been driving in Scotland: joke, but with a serious point, as the limit has been 50mg for years.
[deleted - my error]
I don't think I have been to Scotland since it was changed in 2014, tbh.
I think we should be doing it properly and going for 20 mg/ml.
In which case even a pint or a glass of wine would put you over the limit and only 1 half might be allowed.
It would also devastate a pub and bar trade already hit by tax rises and a higher minimum wage, it would also do next to nothing to save lives.
Drink driving deaths and injuries are almost entirely caused by those drinking multiple pints and glasses and well over the limit, better to enforce the law against them than just add more nanny state tokenism
Data to support that please? We know that impairment is significant from even a small volume of alcohol, so I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Tbh a zero-tolerance approach is simpler and fairer on everyone, particularly given the consequences of being caught.
'The number of drink driving deaths has fallen by more than 75% since 1979... 2% - two-thirds of all those who were over the limit - had more than twice the legal amount of blood alcohol in their body 7% of those killed - 40% of those who were over the limit - were at least 2.5 times over the limit' https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-crackdown-on-drink-and-drug-driving'
We need greater enforcement of laws we already have not more nanny state that will destroy an already struggling pub trade, even more reason to vote Tory or Reform therefore and get rid of this useless nanny state government!
There can be no justification for defending deaths by drunk driving
In Scotland the advice is do not drink and drive, and that should be a national rule
The pub trade has wider issues with the government's policies
In rural areas most pubs survive on trade from drinkers and eaters who drive to them. Prosecute drivers for just having one drink and you would kill most of them off and yes it is bad enough with this government's hammering them with tax and an ever higher minimum wage
The practice is largely followed in Scotland and behaviour changes
You cannot be complacent about drink driving, and as medics will tell you one pint to someone may well be different from someone else who may have medication or health conditions that could well take them over the limit without them even knowing
Better safe than sorry
Tell that to the pub landlords taking suicide as you destroy their pubs and livelihoods
This is completely over the top HYUFD. Some drivers having a pint rather than a half pint is not going to save pubs. If we agree that pubs are a good thing, then we'd need the following:
1) Make supermarket alcohol much more expensive (or even remove their licenses in favour of bottle shops) 2) Quadruple bus services back to where they were in 2010 3) Build density and make it easier to walk into town rather than vast sprawling car-dependent estates 4) Reduce costs like business rates - an effective subsidy for this particular type of hospitality
But given overall trends on young people drinking they are doomed anyway.
That's a mixture of Whatabouttery and fantasy.
Not everyone lives in urban or suburban areas where that would be practical.
Have you noticed these cranks always think the solution to pubs woes is increasing the price of alcohol in supermarkets. As if making a bottle of wine more expensive in Tesco will force people to the pub.
Scotland has minimum unit pricing which the SLTA lobbied for. It has a far higher proportion of pubs closing than England. Scotland was even talking about MUP for pubs too. Faces and leopards spring to mind.
So higher pricing won’t work. It’s just another nanny state, anti alcohol measure. All that will happen will be less alcohol is consumed. People need to be honest that this is the preferred outcome,
From grok search ‘ Direct head-to-head percentage comparisons for 2025 are not prominently available in recent reports (unlike 2023–2024, when Scotland’s closure rate was approximately double England’s at ~1.7% vs. ~0.75%)’
I think there's a large constituency of people who are offended by the idea people enjoying themselves; they what them to conform with how they live their lives.
Macro-societal arguments are used as an excuse.
Some people don't like those who drink. Some people don't like those who drive. Some people don't like those who live in rural areas.
And some people don't like a combo of those who drink or drive or live in rural areas.
Reducing the alcohol limit is a way to hit people in those groups.
On the one hand having 4 people die on the roads a day, every day, is pretty shocking. However, driving and road use is something that is both potentially very dangerous (driving a vehicle weighing a ton or more at speeds in excess of 50 mph) yet also remarkably safe (what is the accident rate per mile driven?)
What is the acceptable death toll for the freedom that driving allows? Is any death/injury acceptable? Could all deaths/injuries be avoided?
A bit like the 30 to 20 mph move in Wales, the proposed changes to drink drive limits are about cultural change. A landlord representative on Radio 5 from Scotland said that there were no significant changes in pubs after the change was made from 80 to 50 mg per ml. Some people changed what they drank but pubs didn't close. I'd foresee similar in England and Wales. Of greater concern is the longer term viability of pubs that everyone loves at Christmas but not during the rest of the year. There used to be three pubs in my Dad's village when I lived there, the Royal Oak, The George, and Plume and add in the social club. Its down to one pub with restricted opening hours and the club. People's habits have changed. People drink at home with cheap booze from the supermarkets. Pubs in the country need to have more about them than drink alone.
4 a day isn't that many in a country of 65 million. The only way you would ever get that to 0 is by banning cars and making people walk/cycle everywhere (although then you would see more deaths in those modes of transport).
Don't forget the 82 seriously injured too - and those are typically young and healthy compared with other hospital admissions. Helsinki has managed zero fatalities; I don't think we should ever be complacent when it comes to people getting hurt.
According to Twitter, the Americans are boarding the Marinera and at least one other newly-flagged Russian merchant ship
The ship is not in American waters. By what rights do the Americans have to seize it and why won’t the Russians do more to protect it ?
It's in international waters (or maybe British). Boarding a merchant vessel is not that unusual. The Russian escort flotilla appears not to have got there yet.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
How many people would start boycotting American goods and services if Trump's annexes Greenland?
Would be pretty hard to do entirely but a pan European movement would surely have an impact.
Options for some things are a bit limited. I think Sailfish OS is a European operating system for smartphones, for example, only used on the Jolla smartphone.
Would I create a new email to move away from Gmail? It would probably be more hassle than changing my name was.
I suspect there is lower hanging fruit available.
Well, I'm already trying to avoid Amazon, with mixed results. What about Etsy? The last thing I bought from Etsy was from a maker in Ukraine, so if I boycott Etsy, on the basis of it being American, then I lose all these opportunities to buy from small-scale sellers in Europe.
I could cancel Netflix and avoid youtube - but with the latter I'm mostly watching European creators and English County Cricket, so who is really losing? I guess a lot of the youtubers I follow are also on patreon, so I could support them there - no patreon is based in San Francisco.
In terms of manufactured goods we drive a German car and I can't think of what else is made in the US these days. A lot of pharmaceuticals are from American companies I suppose, but a bit problematic to boycott. The only other thing is that we have a microplane grater where the blade was made in the US.
I don't eat American chocolate on the grounds of taste and self-respect anyway, so I'm struggling to identify things that I buy or pay for that are American and for which there's a European substitute.
I think all I've come up with is Netflix. Any other ideas?
Found this which isn't bad. Some of the 'British' brands are ultimately American owned but you do have choices. Deliveroo rather than Uber Eats, Pret vs Starbucks. Is it really central to people's way of life to buy Nike, Coca Cola and Kellogg's?
Okay. Turns out I'm already eschewing so many American brands I've forgotten they exist.
I'd not heard of Nothing phones before, but the OS is still Android, just as with Samsung phones.
US owns so much of the deep stuff embedded into both stuff and intangibles. The magnificent 7 - Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Nvidia, and Tesla - is just the start. Uber. Paypal. OpenAI. Visa/MC. Cadbury. Exxon. Ford. GM. Endless list.
According to Twitter, the Americans are boarding the Marinera and at least one other newly-flagged Russian merchant ship
The ship is in international waters. By what rights do the Americans have to seize it and why won’t the Russians do more to protect it ?
People can do largely as they please in international waters, if it were in a nation's domestic waters then that nation would have the right to determine what can and can't be done, but international waters are fair game for all.
The entire world economic system depends on this not being the case, actually. If the law of the sea is to be suspended then buckle in everyone - it's going to be a shitshow.
On pubs, there are 8 on the 400m of main drag where I live, ranging from hipstervile to UJ bedecked Rangers flat roofers (no guesses on which I prefer). Probably another 4 within 10 min walking distance. In the 20+ years I’ve lived here one has closed down, building demolished, but replaced by hipsterville taking over a long derelict bar, so neutral on survival terms. Glasgow drinking is in a healthy (sic) state.
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
It’s worth noting that Trump will personally control the revenues from this oil. It’s a massive bribe nothing else
It’s a massive fantasy. Trump keeps talking about it, but the Venezuelans deny there’s any such agreement. It is unclear Trump knows what is going on.
My assumption it’s actually the couple of sanctioned tankers that the US has already seized. He’s providing cover.
(I’ve no idea what the carrying capacity of a tanker is though)
A VLCC carries about 2 million barrels of crude oil, so he'd need to capture 25 of them.
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
It’s worth noting that Trump will personally control the revenues from this oil. It’s a massive bribe nothing else
It’s a massive fantasy. Trump keeps talking about it, but the Venezuelans deny there’s any such agreement. It is unclear Trump knows what is going on.
My assumption it’s actually the couple of sanctioned tankers that the US has already seized. He’s providing cover.
(I’ve no idea what the carrying capacity of a tanker is though)
A VLCC carries about 2 million barrels of crude oil, so he'd need to capture 25 of them.
Which is kind of crazy when you think about it that means a single ship carries the equivalent to the baddest day and a half's oil usage for the UK.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Iran was the smuggling route, and whatever it is needs to get back to Russia given the unrest in both Iran and Venezuela.
According to Twitter, the Americans are boarding the Marinera and at least one other newly-flagged Russian merchant ship
The ship is not in American waters. By what rights do the Americans have to seize it and why won’t the Russians do more to protect it ?
I think that if you have declared a blockade, as the US did on Venezuela, and are able to enforce it, then you have the right to board ships that you suspect of trying to break the blockade.
I believe this is something the British ensured was in the rules, what with us being a fan of naval blockades - though the Yanks didn't use to be so keen.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Russia and Iran don't have a land border. Only very tenuously could they be said to have a watery border.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
With the UK and France agreeing to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, this proposal is supported in the UK but divisive in France
Unfortunate that our defence spending would barely support such a role. The countries best place to provide military power (Germany and Poland) aren't very keen on the idea.
All very interesting and at least a plurality support in France but as there is sod all chance of Putin and Zelensky agreeing a peace deal anytime soon it means little anyway
I did hear an argument that all the Coalition of the Willing stuff was having an effect in that it was dissuading Putin from agreeing to a ceasefire, because the only way to keep British and French troops out of Ukraine was to keep fighting.
The argument was that British and French troops should simply deploy to Ukraine now, while the fighting continues.
Unfortunately they need to deploy to Greenland first!
Assuming we aren't actually going to shoot at the US, it would only take a token poison pill deployment, surely.
There's only one golf course in Greenland with grass, so maybe deploy there?
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Russia and Iran don't have a land border. Only very tenuously could they be said to have a watery border.
Fun fact - the city of Rasht and the entire southern coast of the Caspian Sea were Russian 1723-1732.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Maybe it’s the Ayatollah?
Possible I guess, but much easier to evacuate him on a plane to Dubai or Doha. This ship has been at sea for two months.
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
Like the Russians need an excuse to be pissed off and invade somewhere. 🤦♂️
That Denmark is a free country and an ally of the US is all the reason that is needed for why an invasion of Greenland is completely unacceptable.
Trump is saying Venezuela will give the US up to 50 million barrels of oil. This is despite the US not controlling Venezuela, despite the challenges of extracting that oil, and without any apparent agreement with Venezuela. At what point do we say he’s completely delusional?
Venezuela must have a lot of oil already drilled but not sold, owing to American sanctions. It is possible this is what Trump means.
It’s worth noting that Trump will personally control the revenues from this oil. It’s a massive bribe nothing else
It’s a massive fantasy. Trump keeps talking about it, but the Venezuelans deny there’s any such agreement. It is unclear Trump knows what is going on.
My assumption it’s actually the couple of sanctioned tankers that the US has already seized. He’s providing cover.
(I’ve no idea what the carrying capacity of a tanker is though)
A VLCC carries about 2 million barrels of crude oil, so he'd need to capture 25 of them.
He’s already got 3 with about 5m barrels between them (source mail)
How many people are killed annually by people between 50 and 80 mg every year ?
It's not just that - it's whether having a lower limit prevents some drinkers who would normally end up over 50 from drinking at all. I think that's why it's been so effective in Scotland - drink drive deaths have fallen by 50%, collisions by 40%, while they are at the same level in England and Wales. All else held equal you'd expect drink drive casualties to increase with a lowering of the limit.
YouTube is full of videos of people who "just had one drink" who are well over 50. A zero tolerance approach helps prevent that.
Start prosecuting people who have only had one glass of wine or 1 pint of beer for drink driving and you may as well sign the final death warrant for most pubs left in the UK, especially rural ones.
Enforce better the drink driving laws we already have rather than hammer law abiding motorists and publicans who serve them
That is a spurious argument HY.
As a teenager I still went to the pub and NEVER had a drink and drove. I drank soft drinks, and at the time a vile concoction called Kaliber was available.
Pubs have been on their arse for two decades because young people don't see them as venues they want to go to. I'd drop the drink driving limit to zero like some Scandi nations.
Zero-alcohol booze is now quite high quality. It occupies many feet of shelf space at my local supermarket, both wine and beer.
Depends what you count as high quality , at least drinkable nowadays buit nowhere near a real beer, guiness is probably best one I have tasted.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Russia and Iran don't have a land border. Only very tenuously could they be said to have a watery border.
Fun fact - the city of Rasht and the entire southern coast of the Caspian Sea were Russian 1723-1732.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Russia and Iran don't have a land border. Only very tenuously could they be said to have a watery border.
They have a border in the Caspian.
Checking, afaics trade volume is in the millions of tons per annum. A bit more detail:
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Russia and Iran don't have a land border. Only very tenuously could they be said to have a watery border.
Fun fact - the city of Rasht and the entire southern coast of the Caspian Sea were Russian 1723-1732.
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
According to Twitter, the Americans are boarding the Marinera and at least one other newly-flagged Russian merchant ship
The ship is in international waters. By what rights do the Americans have to seize it and why won’t the Russians do more to protect it ?
People can do largely as they please in international waters, if it were in a nation's domestic waters then that nation would have the right to determine what can and can't be done, but international waters are fair game for all.
The entire world economic system depends on this not being the case, actually. If the law of the sea is to be suspended then buckle in everyone - it's going to be a shitshow.
There's no law of any kind under the 'might is right' doctrine.
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
exactly just the usual bollox and blame every death on someone having had a drink. The killjoys are never ever happy , they want people as miserable as tehy can make them.
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
Like they walked into Kiev four years ago?
They cannot take Ukraine how on earth will they take the Baltic states ? Spread their resources more thinly ?
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
Like they walked into Kiev four years ago?
They cannot take Ukraine how on earth will they take the Baltic states ? Spread their resources more thinly ?
Because the NATO forces will be busy elsewhere trying to re-capture Greenland?
This website is tracking the protests since 2022. Thus far the protests remain within the error bars of normal.
However that does not allow for the deus ex machina of the US/Israeli air forces and security services. I do think there is now a high chance the regime falls before Iran’s footballers line up in LA. vs New Zealand in June.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Just Wtf is on the Mariana that Russia is deploying subs and the US/UK have sent special forces to seize it
That really is the question of the day.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
Putin?
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
Pretty sure it’s not Putin himself. The ship sailed from Iran, heading for Venezuela, ran into the US blockade there, and has done an about-turn to head for what’s presumably St. Petersburg.
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
Russia has a border with Iran; why send them 15k miles around the world?
Russia and Iran don't have a land border. Only very tenuously could they be said to have a watery border.
Fun fact - the city of Rasht and the entire southern coast of the Caspian Sea were Russian 1723-1732.
We have been here before don't forget. What is different now is the decapitation of the IRGC. Everyone likes to go on about Mossad's expertise but could they really have done it without major support from within Iran? I suspect not.
Iranians have also been notably vocal on the antisemitism problem in the UK. Good luck to them.
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
exactly just the usual bollox and blame every death on someone having had a drink. The killjoys are never ever happy , they want people as miserable as tehy can make them.
We’ve even had a suggestion we should increase the price of supermarket alcohol to ‘help pubs’
Never any suggestion that the way to help pubs is to reduce the burdens on them. Doing that is a ‘subsidy’ and that is not on.
Sadly we are a nation with many joy sponges whose career depends on micro managing our lives.
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
exactly just the usual bollox and blame every death on someone having had a drink. The killjoys are never ever happy , they want people as miserable as tehy can make them.
Oh Malcolm, your nationalist government has been in the vanguard of lowering drink driving limits in the UK. And good on 'em.
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
exactly just the usual bollox and blame every death on someone having had a drink. The killjoys are never ever happy , they want people as miserable as tehy can make them.
We’ve even had a suggestion we should increase the price of supermarket alcohol to ‘help pubs’
Never any suggestion that the way to help pubs is to reduce the burdens on them. Doing that is a ‘subsidy’ and that is not on.
Sadly we are a nation with many joy sponges whose career depends on micro managing our lives.
Fuck off and leave us alone.
You'd much rather have a whine about it than actually come up with a solution. Cheap supermarket booze is obviously a reason why people don't head out, the price differential is enormous and there is no way pubs can overcome it given labour and property costs. Whack up tax on it and use it to cut business rates for pubs.
(And a lower business rate for pubs is a subsidy, btw, and something anyone who thinks pubs have a wider social benefit would endorse. )
We have been here before don't forget. What is different now is the decapitation of the IRGC. Everyone likes to go on about Mossad's expertise but could they really have done it without major support from within Iran? I suspect not.
Iranians have also been notably vocal on the antisemitism problem in the UK. Good luck to them.
The Ancient Persians saved the Israelites from slavery in Babylon.
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
exactly just the usual bollox and blame every death on someone having had a drink. The killjoys are never ever happy , they want people as miserable as tehy can make them.
Oh Malcolm, your nationalist government has been in the vanguard of lowering drink driving limits in the UK. And good on. 'em.
Bunch of tossers Pete, fit them better if they actually tried running the country sensibly instead of running it into the ground.
PS: At least as many of eth killjoys there as there are in rest of UK, likely more.
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
Like they walked into Kiev four years ago?
They cannot take Ukraine how on earth will they take the Baltic states ? Spread their resources more thinly ?
Something from the Maduro heist and this ship capture that is stark is actually how small time Russia is compared to the US.
Russia is a huge country and it’s got lots of nukes and oil. That is pretty much it. It has to rely on the dark arts and a carelessness with the lives of its soldiers.
The US by contrast has just managed to get in and out of a foreign, not even neighbouring, country and run off with its President and his wife without losing a single soldier.
They are looking like they will board and take two ships which are nowhere near the US coast.
The reason they can do this is a big navy and carrier groups who can be sited around the world to aid this sort of thing and also plenty of long-standing overseas bases to launch ops from. Russia neither has the navy or the bases.
The US would be wise to remember how useful foreign bases are to its aims before trying to annex land from allies. Russia would do well to reflect on not actually being very strong - the only reason anyone has to truly fear them is their nuclear weapons.
On R4 a former Russian Diplomatic Officer suggests that the complete annexation of Greenland destabilises the North Atlantic and that could seriously piss off Russia to the point they could walk into the Baltic States as a response.
Like they walked into Kiev four years ago?
They cannot take Ukraine how on earth will they take the Baltic states ? Spread their resources more thinly ?
Because the NATO forces will be busy elsewhere trying to re-capture Greenland?
The US is the biggest member of NATO, so even if Trump invaded Greenland without being impeached and convicted by Congress, NATO can't go to war to defend a member state invaded by another member state. It would have to be a European and Canadian defence force not a NATO force
You have to remember there are departments of people in Whitehall whose only function is to try to work out how to ban certain “harms”.
They don’t care about pubs closing, it’s outside their remit.
At least on this thread so far, nobody has explained how many lives or crashes this proposal will save. I expect the answer is statistically insignificant.
exactly just the usual bollox and blame every death on someone having had a drink. The killjoys are never ever happy , they want people as miserable as tehy can make them.
Oh Malcolm, your nationalist government has been in the vanguard of lowering drink driving limits in the UK. And good on. 'em.
Bunch of tossers Pete, fit them better if they actually tried running the country sensibly instead of running it into the ground.
PS: At least as many of eth killjoys there as there are in rest of UK, likely more.
Maybe Nigel will reintroduce drink driving. He likes a pint.
The US are currently using Wick airport to conduct operations against this Russian tanker.
EXCITING.
Not Lossiemouth ?
Lossie is busy too, but the Americans are out of Mildenhall and, weirdly, Wick.
far too much there for going onto a tanker , double digit tankers and cargo etc plus fighters reported
The three Dracos do look a bit like they could end up in Greenland...
Hmmm.
"Oh, we were out intercepting this ship but the runway at Wick got snowed in so we diverted to Pituffik. While we were there we decided to take a few special forces on a jaunt to Nuuk, just to see what it was like."
According to Twitter, the Americans are boarding the Marinera and at least one other newly-flagged Russian merchant ship
The ship is not in American waters. By what rights do the Americans have to seize it and why won’t the Russians do more to protect it ?
I don't think the Russians have the capacity to resist the Americans. China has.
Forget Taiwan as the next flash point. It will be China escorting its tankers out of Venezuela through a US blockade. Another Cuba. Watch for deployment of Chinese naval vessels to the Caribbean to join the Chinese Type 815 spy ship, the Liaowang, already deployed in the Gulf of Paria, and Chinese aircraft to bases in Brazil or Columbia.
Comments
I imagine we'll see attempts at bribery and corruption rather than any actual force, though.
There’s no chance at this point it’s just an empty old oil tanker.
EXCITING.
(Actually Trump ordering Putin captured on his oil tanker hideaway would be hilarious)
E2A: English language ability is the dominant factor in selection for F-16 because it knocks 6-12 months off the training pipeline.
https://x.com/osint613/status/2008872864808874250?s=61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
(I’ve no idea what the carrying capacity of a tanker is though)
Most likely it’s full of weapons, or the ship itself is something special.
The alternative view is that the US observed some sort of ship-to-ship transfer which could be from Venezuela.
One of our Scottish viewers explained that the fatalities, the casualties and the unacceptable nature of drinking and driving are all recent positives. So you are clearly costing drink-drive fatalities with the survival benefits of non-economic public houses.
The ship is between the UK and Iceland and has changed course
A real test of nerve for the regime.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2008886872156848386
Russian sources agreeing.
https://x.com/tendar/status/2008886151307047177
I believe this is something the British ensured was in the rules, what with us being a fan of naval blockades - though the Yanks didn't use to be so keen.
US has successfully secured the Venezuela tanker
https://x.com/niohberg/status/2008868790000554145?s=61
We do know that there’s no person who has done more to undermine NATO in the last 40 years than Donald Trump.
That Denmark is a free country and an ally of the US is all the reason that is needed for why an invasion of Greenland is completely unacceptable.
Russia is neither here nor there.
We are paying the price for happily subcontracting our defence to the US and manufacturing to China.
The only one who stood up,to him was Xi Jinping on the tariff issue and, arguably, got a better deal from it.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2008887757335372069
Checking, afaics trade volume is in the millions of tons per annum. A bit more detail:
https://caspianpolicy.org/research/security/russias-weapons-transport-via-the-caspian-sea
https://x.com/schieritz/status/2008850535391371645
Against the spirit of the game, I think.
This website is tracking the protests since 2022. Thus far the protests remain within the error bars of normal.
However that does not allow for the deus ex machina of the US/Israeli air forces and security services. I do think there is now a high chance the regime falls before Iran’s footballers line up in LA. vs New Zealand in June.
Iranians have also been notably vocal on the antisemitism problem in the UK. Good luck to them.
Never any suggestion that the way to help pubs is to reduce the burdens on them. Doing that is a ‘subsidy’ and that is not on.
Sadly we are a nation with many joy sponges whose career depends on micro managing our lives.
Fuck off and leave us alone.
If you have helicopters that can refuel mid-air, P8s, C17s, and the crazy logistics available to no-one else…
(And a lower business rate for pubs is a subsidy, btw, and something anyone who thinks pubs have a wider social benefit would endorse. )
PS: At least as many of eth killjoys there as there are in rest of UK, likely more.
Russia is a huge country and it’s got lots of nukes and oil. That is pretty much it. It has to rely on the dark arts and a carelessness with the lives of its soldiers.
The US by contrast has just managed to get in and out of a foreign, not even neighbouring, country and run off with its President and his wife without losing a single soldier.
They are looking like they will board and take two ships which are nowhere near the US coast.
The reason they can do this is a big navy and carrier groups who can be sited around the world to aid this sort of thing and also plenty of long-standing overseas bases to launch ops from. Russia neither has the navy or the bases.
The US would be wise to remember how useful foreign bases are to its aims before trying to annex land from allies. Russia would do well to reflect on not actually being very strong - the only reason anyone has to truly fear them is their nuclear weapons.
"Oh, we were out intercepting this ship but the runway at Wick got snowed in so we diverted to Pituffik. While we were there we decided to take a few special forces on a jaunt to Nuuk, just to see what it was like."
??
Forget Taiwan as the next flash point. It will be China escorting its tankers out of Venezuela through a US blockade. Another Cuba. Watch for deployment of Chinese naval vessels to the Caribbean to join the Chinese Type 815 spy ship, the Liaowang, already deployed in the Gulf of Paria, and Chinese aircraft to bases in Brazil or Columbia.