Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
Wrong on every question.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Fortunately the people he ordered killed rather than captured in "drug boats" are dead and cannot contradict him.
At least with the kids they cannot just record as terrorist by virtue of being adult males, as was rumoured to be the case for drone strikrle casualties going back decades.
British man who ‘filmed missiles’ in Dubai faces two years in jail
Tourists risk two years in prison for posting about Iranian strikes on social media
A British man arrested after allegedly filming missiles targeting Dubai is one of 21 people who have been charged under cybercrime laws.
The 60-year-old man, whose arrest on Monday was first reported by The Telegraph, is said to have deleted the video from his phone immediately when asked. He claims he had no intention of doing anything wrong.
However, the Londoner has been charged together with 20 others in connection with videos and social media posts relating to recent Iranian missile strikes on the United Arab Emirates, according to campaign group Detained in Dubai.
Filming air defence locations. More than a subtle difference.
Don’t film military activity in any country, ever. Including the UK.
That particular “campaign group” has about as much credibility as a Guardian article on someone who was deported.
So you've gone native?
When the bombing of the girls school was first reported a poster on here said it was an Iranian bomb that had gone wrong and linked to a site by a well known' Israeli sympathetic' misinformer. Pretty disgraceful really. Maybe he should apologise?
We are not known to agree, but the girls school is just horrible as is Gaza and those guilty men, as they are all men, need to be charged in the international courts and includes Netanyahu, Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, Iran's regime and let's not forget Putin and Trump
Well maybe the person who posted "Reports on social media say the school was bombed by the IRCG and not by the Israelis or the Americans" needs to look in the mirror. There was also some pretty derogatory stuff about the girls by a couple of posters.
Then a link to 'THE IRCG HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SCHOOL WAS HIT BY ONE OF IT'S OWN ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES' A clear and obvious invention.
I won't name the poster who posted this tripe but the person linked to was Jonathon Foreman
I remember last week Iain Dale in his LBC show using this fake truth to belittle someone who rang in. I wonder if he has apologised yet.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
Wrong on every question.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
So sorry you are completely wrong on this.
So the 100 dollars a barrel is an indication of price gouging by the oil companies?
It reflects supply constraints.
But yes, there is dodgy dealing going on as well. At the time of the $150 a barrel price peak there were 4 times as many barrels of oil being traded on the world market than actually existed out of the ground. I don't begin to understand how that all works and I am sure someone can tell me it is legitimate and normal but it seems weird to me.
But it probably isn't the companies themselves who are doing the gouging - or at least not just them. It will be the traders and various other groups downstream.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
Wrong on every question.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
So sorry you are completely wrong on this.
So the 100 dollars a barrel is an indication of price gouging by the oil companies?
I accept your expert opinion.
Nice to have an independent assessment rather than right wing lies.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
Draft 15 of the trans article has been up backstage since 4am 10Mar2026. Of the people currently cleared to see it (rcs1000, DavidL, fitalass, Cyclefree, TSE, Nigelb, kyf_100, turbotubbs) none have suggested further changes and I am in my weekday digs so are limited in what I can do anyway. So Draft 15 is going to be the prepublish version released to the prereaders.
If anybody wants to preread the article before it is released to the mods please let me know by liking this comment before 9pm 12Mar2026 and I'll add you to the backstage.
I'm not looking for an argument and kyf_100 and Cyclefree have added extensive well-argued arguments in both directions as discussants, so change/comment requests in either direction will probably be ignored. Given the very tight word count, additions will additionally be ignored. But if you spot errors, misnumbered sources, typos, bad punctuation, etc, please tell me and I'll change it/collapse screaming/politely note your point in the article.
I have had interest from Nigelb, kyf_100 (who can already see it) and I think @Andy_JS and @Kinabalu want to be pre-readers (can you confirm this please?)
Please add me ?
@Taz has been added to the backstage subgroup. Draft 15 is the one at the bottom. Go to "vf.politicalbetting.com" and click on the envelope on the top right.
@Andy_JS can you confirm if you want to be a pre-reader? If you do I will add you as well.
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Having worked in the sector for many years and seen many a failed overnight run or log in issues, this is a VERY VERY rare occurence and somewhat inexplicable.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
It doesn't sound to me like an issue with the payments, but with the app pulling data from different people's accounts.
That's an error that shouldn't really be possible either, but could be an issue with someone mangling a SQL join for reasons best known to themselves.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
The problem comes when those who do have a vote, can vote to intentionally harm those who don’t have a vote.
Dynamic alignment on anything with the EU is the worst of all options.
There is an off ramp (whether it is realistic or not)
Congress could rediscover their constitutional role in war, tell the World the war is over, impeach the Mad King and all of his cabinet.
That doesn’t stop Iran from having “fun” in on their borders.
That’s the core issue here, it takes 2 to tango and both sides need to de-escalate - why would Iran do that at the moment
They don't like being carpet-bombed? They were mainly behaving beforehand. There's a lot to be said for diplomacy, which is the fine art of discussion in order to delay, divert, defuse conflict. It has to be understood that it's a continuous process though.
Your daily summary and detailed update from "What's Going on with Shipping":
(He deliberately tries to be non-political; currently it is nearly working). He notes that China's former "This is a Chinese Ship" on the AIS ID that worked in the Red Sea is not working here. There's diplomatic work for Beijing to do there.
This is taken in the Port of Salalah in Oman (which faces the Indian Ocean at the Western end of Oman):
Salalah is a *long* way from Iran. It’s 1,000km South of Muscat.
Yes - I thought that when I checked.
I can't see any reason why Iran could not start dropping drones on the ports on the Red Sea, and on the western end of the Saudi East-West pipeline, other than that they are largely leaving Saudi alone at present.
Perhaps some of our UK/Ukrainian anti-Shahed Octopus drones being made in volume in Mildenhall will be headed for the Gulf in trade for high end missiles from Gulf stocks.
Get the Houthi to do it. They should. Trump and Bibi have fucked up. FAFO
Thank Allah I don’t work for the Lloyds Banking Group.
Some customers using Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and Halifax apps have been able to see other users' transactions on their accounts.
Lloyds Banking Group customers reported being able to view charges and payments from other sources on Thursday morning.
A Lloyds Banking Group spokesperson apologised for the issue and said the incident had been quickly resolved.
An investigation is under way.
One woman told BBC Scotland News she was able to see the accounts of six different users on the Bank of Scotland app, including some National Insurance numbers, over a 20-minute period.
Those included transactions from a pub in Newcastle, 154 miles from her home in Kirkcaldy, Fife, fees for using one card abroad and wage payments from a company based in England.
The 55-year-old also reported being able to view benefits payments from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), which use the National Insurance numbers of recipients as a payment reference.
Having worked in the sector for many years and seen many a failed overnight run or log in issues, this is a VERY VERY rare occurence and somewhat inexplicable.
To lose or drop a complete file is one thing, to transpose payments between secure accounts on that file is bizarre!
I must declare it's been 15 years since I was in FinServ but having intimate knowlege of the back end systems like Fiserv, this is deeply concerning and not immediately explainable.
How they back these errors out , correct and investigate fully GOD KNOWS!
My only logical explanation is that if the payments are all Government / Tax / Pension body related - the error may lie with them , not with the Bank that has received the payments in good faith?
It doesn't sound to me like an issue with the payments, but with the app pulling data from different people's accounts.
That's an error that shouldn't really be possible either, but could be an issue with someone mangling a SQL join for reasons best known to themselves.
Agreed
We once had a problem with a Santander account where one of the directors cancelled a debit card on a completely unconnected business account of his own. Despite not having any debit cards on our account, they suspended it, and then wanted to issue a debit card to another director who wasn't even a signatory. Can't remember the exact details. Was a real pain in the arse due to having to go into a branch with ID to get it unsusoended.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
Does anyone know how to preserve an old website? I had one twenty years ago that still exists, although not by typing the address anymore, and I’d like to keep the content for posterity
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
If we haven't ransitioned away from burning fossil fuels in the next 20 years, we're fucked. A bit of tax revenue won't make up for that.
We will need oil and gas for a lot longer so will end up importing more and many billions of lost revenue
Meanwhile Loony Ed won't let us delevop the north sea. He really is bonkers.
There's more than enough currently being pumped to last 30 years
Stop distorting the truth
Are the current wells dry? Have they stopped producing!? Are they producing oil cheaper than global markets?
If any answer is not NO
Come back and enlighten us plesse
Wrong on every question.
Yes current wells are running dry and need replacing. I have explained on here before it is called maintaining the plateau and it is something we are failing to do. Hence the reason I am involved with shutting down otherwise viable fields and platforms.
Yes the wells have stopped producing. Wells have a finite existence and continualy need to be replaced.
Yes we can produce oil far cheaper than the global market. Current costs are about 25 to 30 dollars a barrel including all costs both offshore and onshore.
So sorry you are completely wrong on this.
So the 100 dollars a barrel is an indication of price gouging by the oil companies?
Production Costs and retail price are two different things and the retail price is determined by many factors. Political wonks blame companies as it’s easier than recognising their decisions cause these things
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
Nope. As I have explained before, the vote is almost meaningless. EEA members have full involvement up to the vote itself. They are part of the organistion that proposes, develops and decides regulation on an equal footing with all other countries. They don't have a vote but instead they do have a veto. Something that, in an organisation that runs on QMV, is far more important. EU countries - as we well know - can be legally forced into adopting regulation they don't agree with. EEA members cannot. Moreover only about 35% of EU regulation actually applies to EEA members. So they don't have to worry about the other 65%. It is a far better state of affairs than being inside the EU or compleetly outside.
Trump starting to claim that ending the war he started with Iran will be the ninth he has ended.
The populist right spent so much time celebrating Trump’s electoral successes that they now find themselves tied to his policy failures. I don’t see anyone in Reform UK laying out a vision for right-wing populism that can stand separate to the example of Trump. (Le Pen in France and Meloni in Italy do better at presenting a Trump-critical positioning.)
A couple of my mates are taking part in the Doddie Weir Triple Crown Challenge riding from Melrose to Dublin via Leeds, Gloucester, Pembroke and Rosslare. The teams are carrying the match ball for the Ireland-Scotland 6 Nations game and are doing 800 miles in 4 days. Currently they are slogging through the Welsh Mountains in high winds and suffering a bit. So far in the 3 days they have raised over a million quid for MND research and, having a friend with MND this is close to my heart. If you fancy supporting the page is at:
If only someone could have predicted how this would play out. Oh wait; we all did.
Running down the Iranian stock of weapons by seeing them used again allied nations and allied shipping is just the sort of unconventional strategy that made Trump the unsuccessful businessman he is today.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
The problem comes when those who do have a vote, can vote to intentionally harm those who don’t have a vote.
Dynamic alignment on anything with the EU is the worst of all options.
I suggest dynamic alignment is the best of the remaining options once the best option - EU membership - is excluded. It will necessarily be suboptimal, especially as it may not be reciprocal, but countries dynamically align because it's generally in their interest to do so.
One fascinating aspect of all this is how an Administration dazzled by crypto and techbros and Internet shit posting seems not to have anticipated any new military innovations nor tactics in the past fifty years.
https://x.com/gnoble79/status/2031757996510839191 ...In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course.
Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq.
Here's what they're proposing:
A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days.
No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet.
Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion.
That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks.
And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing.
But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part...
The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier.
Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap.
That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy.
Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold.
Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely.
Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%.
Do the math on SpaceX:
If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading.
Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company.
But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market.
You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float...
The pricing will sort itself out... in time. But the new 15 day rule will create an extremely artificial market for quite some time.
It is a blatant scam and Investors should sue. I sold my NASDAQ baskets a few weeks ago. If this kind of corruption continues I will be cutting my US holdings still further.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
The problem comes when those who do have a vote, can vote to intentionally harm those who don’t have a vote.
Dynamic alignment on anything with the EU is the worst of all options.
I suggest dynamic alignment is the best of the remaining options once the best option - EU membership - is excluded. It will necessarily be suboptimal, especially as it may not be reciprocal, but countries dynamically align because it's generally in their interest to do so.
What is required is a bit of sensible, non-partisan, sector by sector analysis.
Dynamic alignment on financials services rules? Silly. The City is large enough to take advantage of regulatory differences.
Dynamic alignment on high volume manufactured goods or food? Might as well. Any supplier with a plan to export will follow the EU rules anyway.
One fascinating aspect of all this is how an Administration dazzled by crypto and techbros and Internet shit posting seems not to have anticipated any new military innovations nor tactics in the past fifty years.
Well, marine mines aren't exactly this past half century!
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
UNICEF's knowledge of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in the current conflict is based on direct field assessments, reports from local health and education authorities, and verified data from humanitarian partners on the ground.
Such ways of measuring were totally poo poo’d as Bibi levelled Gaza, till the point Israel said their own estimates are virtually identical.
As of March 12, 2026, UNICEF and other international monitors have reported the following regarding military actions in the Middle East involving the U.S. and Israel:
Evidence and Source of Information UNICEF gathers this evidence through its presence in the region and coordination with other UN agencies. Their monitoring includes: * Direct Field Reports: Reports from UNICEF staff and humanitarian partners who assess the impact on children and families. * Government and Local Data: Information from local ministries of health and education regarding deaths, injuries, and infrastructure damage. * UN Verification Mechanism: The UN uses a standardized monitoring and reporting mechanism (MRM) to verify "grave violations" against children in armed conflict, including the targeting of schools and hospitals. * Reported Statistics (as of March 2026) * Civilian Deaths: Reports indicate at least 1,348 civilians have been killed in Iran since attacks began on 28 February 2026. * Child Casualties: UNICEF has reported that over 1,100 children have been killed or injured across the region. This includes approximately 200 children killed in Iran. * Infrastructure Damage: * Schools: At least 20 schools have reportedly been damaged or hit in Iran, including a high-casualty strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab where 168 girls were reportedly killed. * Hospitals: At least 10 hospitals have been reportedly damaged, disrupting critical health services.
Targeting such civilian infrastructure is a violation of International Humanitarian Law, which mandates that schools and hospitals must be protected as places of safety. We have US White House and PBers who don’t believe in International Humanitarian Law.
To be fair, you can still believe it’s all absolutely necessary, if you believe the US government and FBI assessment, Iran were about to drop nuclear bombs on California {after first dropping one on Jerusalem}For anyone who doesn’t believe that, it’s leaning more toward war of choice than necessity.
One fascinating aspect of all this is how an Administration dazzled by crypto and techbros and Internet shit posting seems not to have anticipated any new military innovations nor tactics in the past fifty years.
Well, marine mines aren't exactly this past half century!
Drones and drone boats are. Cyber attacks on US companies are. It's "destroy the missile sites, Air Force, sink all the ships...job done."
A couple of my mates are taking part in the Doddie Weir Triple Crown Challenge riding from Melrose to Dublin via Leeds, Gloucester, Pembroke and Rosslare. The teams are carrying the match ball for the Ireland-Scotland 6 Nations game and are doing 800 miles in 4 days. Currently they are slogging through the Welsh Mountains in high winds and suffering a bit. So far in the 3 days they have raised over a million quid for MND research and, having a friend with MND this is close to my heart. If you fancy supporting the page is at:
Trump starting to claim that ending the war he started with Iran will be the ninth he has ended.
The populist right spent so much time celebrating Trump’s electoral successes that they now find themselves tied to his policy failures. I don’t see anyone in Reform UK laying out a vision for right-wing populism that can stand separate to the example of Trump. (Le Pen in France and Meloni in Italy do better at presenting a Trump-critical positioning.)
It's double edged though. If living standards here end up damaged by the war it could easily boost Reform's prospects.
You'd like voters to think, "Reform's pinup boy caused this. So they can fuck off."
But what they might more likely think is, "the only change I'm seeing under Labour is things are even worse than under the Tories. Really pissed off. Going to give Reform a whirl."
SOURCES: Ukrainian president Volodimir Zelenski and Romanian president Nicusor Dan intend to announce today that Romania and Ukraine will begin the joint mass production of drones. The main funding is to come from Romania's $18 billion share of EU's SAFE initiative.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
The problem comes when those who do have a vote, can vote to intentionally harm those who don’t have a vote.
Dynamic alignment on anything with the EU is the worst of all options.
I suggest dynamic alignment is the best of the remaining options once the best option - EU membership - is excluded. It will necessarily be suboptimal, especially as it may not be reciprocal, but countries dynamically align because it's generally in their interest to do so.
I disagree. That truly is rule taking with no input. The EEA option is far superior in every way.
If only someone could have predicted how this would play out. Oh wait; we all did.
Running down the Iranian stock of weapons by seeing them used again allied nations and allied shipping is just the sort of unconventional strategy that made Trump the unsuccessful businessman he is today.
This war has massively depleted US air defence missile stocks. It creates a limited window of opportunity for any adversary nation with a stock of missiles who might otherwise fear military conflict with the US.
Xi will never have a better opportunity to take Taiwan by force. Unless Trump starts another war after this one, and further damages US military preparedness and alliances.
SOURCES: Ukrainian president Volodimir Zelenski and Romanian president Nicusor Dan intend to announce today that Romania and Ukraine will begin the joint mass production of drones. The main funding is to come from Romania's $18 billion share of EU's SAFE initiative.
The Russians will be scouting the production facilities with a can of petrol and some matches in 5, 4, 3...
Remains of Union St building to come down, kind of inevitable considering there's no internal structure left. Those dozens of vape shops on Union St will be back in business afore ye know it.
Glasgow City Council @GlasgowCC ❗Union Street Incident – Update – Thurs 12 Mar 2026 We're now in control of Union St. site & after a full & final assessment of the remaining structure, we have decided that demolition must happen in interests of public safety. Look out for updates ➡️ https://ow.ly/4Obb50YsNUS
Remains of Union St building to come down, kind of inevitable considering there's no internal structure left. Those dozens of vape shops on Union St will be back in business afore ye know it.
Glasgow City Council @GlasgowCC ❗Union Street Incident – Update – Thurs 12 Mar 2026 We're now in control of Union St. site & after a full & final assessment of the remaining structure, we have decided that demolition must happen in interests of public safety. Look out for updates ➡️ https://ow.ly/4Obb50YsNUS
Remains of Union St building to come down, kind of inevitable considering there's no internal structure left. Those dozens of vape shops on Union St will be back in business afore ye know it.
Glasgow City Council @GlasgowCC ❗Union Street Incident – Update – Thurs 12 Mar 2026 We're now in control of Union St. site & after a full & final assessment of the remaining structure, we have decided that demolition must happen in interests of public safety. Look out for updates ➡️ https://ow.ly/4Obb50YsNUS
Three more ships attacked overnight, Safesea Vishnu, Zefyros and Source Blessing. None sunk, but look at the pictures online - hugely damaged.
Tankers are very difficult to sink, even when completely burnt out they will still float. But the ship is a total loss anyway, and the pictures suggest that's the case here.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
I've seen it suggested that the targets were selected using AI.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
Apologies, what I posted is the best I could find, if it’s hearsay and biased in your honest opinion, you have every right to continue defending and supporting the US conduct in this war.
Off on a slight tangent, BBC claiming today evidence the Israeli’s are targeting the US weapons.
Even more of a tangent is the news visit to the travellers hostel that was destroyed as it was next door to the police station also destroyed. But the hostel was empty because manager realised close to police station it could be destroyed and closed it. How come the police can’t realise the same thing, just sat in there with all their equipment like sitting ducks? We have to wonder just how super effective at dismantling the regime all these hits actually are.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
I've seen it suggested that the targets were selected using AI.
That can't be true.
Surely, if they were, they'd launch a first strike on the recording studio of Radiohead?
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
I've seen it suggested that the targets were selected using AI.
That can't be true.
Surely, if they were, they'd launch a first strike on the recording studio of Radiohead?
It's interest to consider the short and long term oil price implications here of continued war and the Strait ifr Hormuz closure:
Short-term: prices spike and continue rising due to oil shortages
Long-term: global energy demand is met in a way that doesn't require the Strait of Hormuz and energy prices fall back. That would be through some combination of 1) new pipelines and ways to deliver oil/gas from the region, 2) the higher price making more new oil rigs viable, particularly the more flexible US fracking industry, 3) renewables becomes the cheapest to deliver new energy source and growth accelerates.
My point is the chaos Iran is creating is better as a short and medium-term tool than a longer-term one. But their fight is for survival so suspect they won't pay that much attention.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
Apologies, what I posted is the best I could find, if it’s hearsay and biased in your honest opinion, you have every right to continue defending and supporting the US conduct in this war.
Off on a slight tangent, BBC claiming today evidence the Israeli’s are targeting the US weapons.
Probably time for Djokovic to quit when he's getting beat by a Brit who isn't Andy Murray...
Unfair. Jack Draper has been the coming man for a good few years. Son of Roger (no, not that one) and a damn fine leftie. I think he stands a good chance of being the next Brit to win a slam (and more chance than Raducanu getting another). He's already won at Indian Wells (as did Cam Norrie) - a tournament widely regarded as the fifth slam (although not an official status, it is an ATP1000 event).
Djokovic can carry on as long as he wants. I don't think he will win another slam now, but he's had an amazing career. I've never warmed to him, unlike Federer and Nadal, and his anti-vax nonsense and lies pissed me off, but he is undoubtedly one of the legends of the game.
One fascinating aspect of all this is how an Administration dazzled by crypto and techbros and Internet shit posting seems not to have anticipated any new military innovations nor tactics in the past fifty years.
Well, marine mines aren't exactly this past half century!
Drones and drone boats are. Cyber attacks on US companies are. It's "destroy the missile sites, Air Force, sink all the ships...job done."
Were marines mines not a key weapon in the tanker war in the late 1980s?
‘I have never worked with a male politician is as big an ally and who has helped me move the tides of power on violence against women and girls more than Keir Starmer,' says @jessphillips.
In WW2 we ran convoys across the Atlantic in the face of Hitler's wolfpacks. I'm sure the world has the ability to run the Hormuz gauntlet. Sad its come to this. I despise the Iranian regime but are we really helping the people of Iran to be doing what is happening at the moment?
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
Probably time for Djokovic to quit when he's getting beat by a Brit who isn't Andy Murray...
Unfair. Jack Draper has been the coming man for a good few years. Son of Roger (no, not that one) and a damn fine leftie. I think he stands a good chance of being the next Brit to win a slam (and more chance than Raducanu getting another). He's already won at Indian Wells (as did Cam Norrie) - a tournament widely regarded as the fifth slam (although not an official status, it is an ATP1000 event).
Djokovic can carry on as long as he wants. I don't think he will win another slam now, but he's had an amazing career. I've never warmed to him, unlike Federer and Nadal, and his anti-vax nonsense and lies pissed me off, but he is undoubtedly one of the legends of the game.
"a damn fine leftie"
I'm not sure what his politics have got to do with it.
Probably time for Djokovic to quit when he's getting beat by a Brit who isn't Andy Murray...
Unfair. Jack Draper has been the coming man for a good few years. Son of Roger (no, not that one) and a damn fine leftie. I think he stands a good chance of being the next Brit to win a slam (and more chance than Raducanu getting another). He's already won at Indian Wells (as did Cam Norrie) - a tournament widely regarded as the fifth slam (although not an official status, it is an ATP1000 event).
Djokovic can carry on as long as he wants. I don't think he will win another slam now, but he's had an amazing career. I've never warmed to him, unlike Federer and Nadal, and his anti-vax nonsense and lies pissed me off, but he is undoubtedly one of the legends of the game.
"a damn fine leftie"
I'm not sure what his politics have got to do with it.
He swings pretty well both ways, but that might be something else...
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
That's very sad, but there's probably no alternative.
In France, they'd then fully and faithfully restore it.
Here we'll probably do some glass and steel shite and a bad commemorative plaque.
Apparently the US navy won’t be escorting any ships anytime soon but it could happen by the end of the month according to the US energy secretary!
We’re not sure which month though !
If the water is mined, that's not going to a lot of use. The last time they tried that it the late 80s, a tanker ended up escorting the US navy vessels back out (after the tanker was struck and didn't sink), as it was the only vessel likely to survive another mine encounter.
The US navy has, I think, fewer mine clearance assets than they had back then.
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
That's very sad, but there's probably no alternative.
In France, they'd then fully and faithfully restore it.
Here we'll probably do some glass and steel shite and a bad commemorative plaque.
It’s the sort of thing that you’d want to insurance to be able to rebuild something similar.
Don’t know if this was a listed building, but pretty much the whole of central Glasgow is what you’d want to be listed buildings!
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
Apologies, what I posted is the best I could find, if it’s hearsay and biased in your honest opinion, you have every right to continue defending and supporting the US conduct in this war.
Off on a slight tangent, BBC claiming today evidence the Israeli’s are targeting the US weapons.
Eh?
I know what you mean 🤣 but I stand by my use of English Gramma in this instance.
Musical Seats in Herts. There were 5 in the bed, and the little one said ...
Since then, Cllr Tina Bhartwas (Letchworth North) left the Labour Party to represent the Lib Dem, former HCC executive member Cllr Caroline Clapper (Watling) defected from the Conservatives to Reform and Cllr Peter Colley (Stevenage Bedwell) moved from Reform to Restore Britain.
Plus:
Tony Hill won the Flamstead End and Turnford division in Broxbourne borough from veteran Conservative Mark Mills-Bishop, polling 1,197 votes to his Tory rival’s 1,169, in last May’s election.
But now, just 10 months later, he has stepped down, opening the way for a possible by-election.
Apparently the US navy won’t be escorting any ships anytime soon but it could happen by the end of the month according to the US energy secretary!
We’re not sure which month though !
If the water is mined, that's not going to a lot of use. The last time they tried that it the late 80s, a tanker ended up escorting the US navy vessels back out (after the tanker was struck and didn't sink), as it was the only vessel likely to survive another mine encounter.
The US navy has, I think, fewer mine clearance assets than they had back then.
They just shipped their only dedicated mine sweepers back from the gulf last month. Supposedly the capability is replaced by the littoral combat ship.
The complete lack of planning that went into this war is jaw dropping. No thought put into the likely consequences (apart from an assuming US total victory) at all.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
Apologies, what I posted is the best I could find, if it’s hearsay and biased in your honest opinion, you have every right to continue defending and supporting the US conduct in this war.
Off on a slight tangent, BBC claiming today evidence the Israeli’s are targeting the US weapons.
Eh?
There's a Canadian social media site called "Eh!".
The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stoping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World. I won't ever let that happen! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
That's very sad, but there's probably no alternative.
In France, they'd then fully and faithfully restore it.
Here we'll probably do some glass and steel shite and a bad commemorative plaque.
It's not Notre-Dame or the Mackintosh, just a substantial if not hugely remarkable 19th century building. It's not even the Forsyth Building which various numpties including the SoS for Scotland kept calling it.
The main part it plays in the Glasgow psyche and memory is the old view down Renfield St with the neon Irn Bru sign in it which hasn't been there for decades.
According to UNICEF the U.S. has already hit 20 schools, 10 hospitals, and killed over 1,300 civilians including 300 children
Any evidence at all for the US “targeting” civilians?
Are you suggesting the US missiles are untargetted? I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
No, I’m saying exactly the opposite.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
Apologies, what I posted is the best I could find, if it’s hearsay and biased in your honest opinion, you have every right to continue defending and supporting the US conduct in this war.
Off on a slight tangent, BBC claiming today evidence the Israeli’s are targeting the US weapons.
Eh?
There is a duty of care which the US and Israel are failing to meet, let's be honest, ignoring
SOURCES: Ukrainian president Volodimir Zelenski and Romanian president Nicusor Dan intend to announce today that Romania and Ukraine will begin the joint mass production of drones. The main funding is to come from Romania's $18 billion share of EU's SAFE initiative.
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
That's very sad, but there's probably no alternative.
In France, they'd then fully and faithfully restore it.
Here we'll probably do some glass and steel shite and a bad commemorative plaque.
It's not Notre-Dame or the Mackintosh, just a substantial if not hugely remarkable 19th century building. It's not even the Forsyth Building which various numpties including the SoS for Scotland kept calling it.
The main part it plays in the Glasgow psyche and memory is the old view down Renfield St with the neon Irn Bru sign on it which hasn't been there for decades.
The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.
There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...
Over on another forum I read, the talk has stopped being 'Regime change' in Iran to, "What terms will Iran impose on the United States, and how can Trump spin this as 'Victory'."
Maybe premeature, but the fact its being spoken about shows the US is in deep shit.
The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stoping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World. I won't ever let that happen! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Someone should tell him that the United States is also the largest user of oil in the world!!
SOURCES: Ukrainian president Volodimir Zelenski and Romanian president Nicusor Dan intend to announce today that Romania and Ukraine will begin the joint mass production of drones. The main funding is to come from Romania's $18 billion share of EU's SAFE initiative.
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
That's very sad, but there's probably no alternative.
In France, they'd then fully and faithfully restore it.
Here we'll probably do some glass and steel shite and a bad commemorative plaque.
It's not Notre-Dame or the Mackintosh, just a substantial if not hugely remarkable 19th century building. It's not even the Forsyth Building which various numpties including the SoS for Scotland kept calling it.
The main part it plays in the Glasgow psyche and memory is the old view down Renfield St with the neon Irn Bru sign on it which hasn't been there for decades.
So, how do you feel about it?
Sad but not grief stricken. I feel much more strongly about the barbarities inflicted on Glasgow over the last 60 years, and the continuing festering sore of the Mack.
Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.
Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
Get off fossil fuels is not exactly a new idea is it.
But on practially every aspect of the detail EdM has been wrong.
He is wrong to stop North Sea drilling and rely on imports of hydorcarbons He is wrong to ignore Tidal power and geothermal as viable renewable sources. He is wrong to continue with the old 'National Grid' model when we need to be looking at localised power sources for day to day provision and use the grid as a backup He is wrong to pursue CCS - a technology with massive flaws which is having billions thrown at it for absolutely no return. He is wrong to pursue North Sea electrification, a hugely expensive and pointless idea that is driving companies to shut down viable assets years ahead of time
Basically in every detailed decision he has made he has been wrong.
You are the expert on this, and those who are net zero zealots need to listen to reason and accept the transition, which most everyone supports, needs to be viewed over a much longer time frame
Richard is an expert on geology, but he's also an AGW sceptic which I suspect colours his opinions. The problem is that from a climate point of view, we simply don't have a much longer time frame. A transition to renewables over a much longer time frame will ultimately result in world in which we failed to avert most of the effects of climate change.
I just do not agree that we impoverish ourselves when realistically we are only responsible for 1% of emissions
We should be extracting as much oil and gas as we can from the North Sea as are Norway, and I see no condemnation of Norway
Climate change is happening, but preventing our use of the North sea for tax revenues over the next 20 years is lunacy
Climate change isn't just happening; it is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The more we burn, the worse it gets. Everyone can argue that they are only responsible for x% of the emissions, but that just means that nothing is done about it. The way we counter this is by fighting to defend the international rules based order within which international agreements can be made and agreeing with other countries to limit emissions. That may be a difficult ask, but it's better than simply giving up the fight and comdemning our descendents to a world of chaos.
What is good for Norway who are finding and developing new oil and gas fields is somehow wrong for the UK
This just does not make sense
Well, Norway is a different country and it does lots of things differently. I think we could look to Norway on various policy issues, but I didn't think you'd be so keen on following Norway!
Norway is a member of the EEA. Do you think we should be?
Alcohol taxes are high in Norway. Should ours be too?
Asylum seekers can more easily get a work permit in Norway. Should we do that too?
Yes we should be in the EEA. As i have said since before the Brexit vote.
And no, it's not easier for Asylum Seekers to work in Norway. In many ways, although Norway is more liberal than the UK it is much harder to get the right to live and work there.
But the importa ny point is that Norway is not trashing it's economy in pointless virtue signalling. They are far more advanced than the UK in terms of Net Zero but they also recognise the importance of that being consumer driven not supply driven.
We are doing worse than Norway by every measure over this issue.
Whilst being in the EEA allows the UK to still do its own trade deals the issue of FOM would be toxic even though there are more restraints on that . And the rule taker narrative would be hammered by the Tories and Reform.
Recent backgrounder on Norway's relationship with the EU. Interesting issue arising about participation fees. Norway participates in EU programmes on a pay-as-you-go basis. But because the number of EU programmes is proliferating they are ending up paying more than as members. I think this becoming an issue for the UK as well
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The question is how much of that would change if they were actually a member of the EU. Very little I would suggest.
The difference between having a vote and not having a vote. Countries dynamically align because it's in their interest to do so. In practice it comes down to the hypothetical ability to do something you don't want to do anyway, versus being excluded from something you do want because you're not a member.
The problem comes when those who do have a vote, can vote to intentionally harm those who don’t have a vote.
Dynamic alignment on anything with the EU is the worst of all options.
I suggest dynamic alignment is the best of the remaining options once the best option - EU membership - is excluded. It will necessarily be suboptimal, especially as it may not be reciprocal, but countries dynamically align because it's generally in their interest to do so.
I disagree. That truly is rule taking with no input. The EEA option is far superior in every way.
How do you interpret "compromise of participation without representation" as the explanation of what Norway is doing?
Also:
A defining feature of the EEA agreement is that it is a dynamic arrangement. Not only did Norway immediately adopt all relevant EU legislation; it also effectively agreed to adopt all new relevant EU legislation. (Although there is a procedure whereby an EEA state can reserve the right not to adopt a new policy, this is a potential deal-breaker and has consequently never been used.)
Comments
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
But yes, there is dodgy dealing going on as well. At the time of the $150 a barrel price peak there were 4 times as many barrels of oil being traded on the world market than actually existed out of the ground. I don't begin to understand how that all works and I am sure someone can tell me it is legitimate and normal but it seems weird to me.
But it probably isn't the companies themselves who are doing the gouging - or at least not just them. It will be the traders and various other groups downstream.
Nice to have an independent assessment rather than right wing lies.
@Andy_JS can you confirm if you want to be a pre-reader? If you do I will add you as well.
Dynamic alignment on anything with the EU is the worst of all options.
They were mainly behaving beforehand.
There's a lot to be said for diplomacy, which is the fine art of discussion in order to delay, divert, defuse conflict. It has to be understood that it's a continuous process though.
@carlquintanilla.bsky.social
· 10m
“.. Estimates from Bloomberg:
Strait of Hormuz being closed for 3 months would get Brent crude #oil up to $164/barrel.”
https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3mguejpgi6s2q
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g23npxpwgo
I think you'll find they hit the buildings they were aimed at, so your next excuse is "human shields", last resort is "intelligence failures". The pictures of some bombed areas in Lebanon and Tehran, it's clearly housing, there's still washing hanging out on some intact balconies.
Just have the grace to admit that Israel and the US are bombing cities and they don't really care if they kill civilians.
Well done Trump and Bibi. Playing a blinder
https://x.com/bricsinfo/status/2032063714346627283?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
A couple of my mates are taking part in the Doddie Weir Triple Crown Challenge riding from Melrose to Dublin via Leeds, Gloucester, Pembroke and Rosslare. The teams are carrying the match ball for the Ireland-Scotland 6 Nations game and are doing 800 miles in 4 days. Currently they are slogging through the Welsh Mountains in high winds and suffering a bit. So far in the 3 days they have raised over a million quid for MND research and, having a friend with MND this is close to my heart. If you fancy supporting the page is at:
https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/triplecrown26
Running down the Iranian stock of weapons by seeing them used again allied nations and allied shipping is just the sort of unconventional strategy that made Trump the unsuccessful businessman he is today.
We’re not sure which month though !
I sold my NASDAQ baskets a few weeks ago. If this kind of corruption continues I will be cutting my US holdings still further.
Dynamic alignment on financials services rules? Silly. The City is large enough to take advantage of regulatory differences.
Dynamic alignment on high volume manufactured goods or food? Might as well. Any supplier with a plan to export will follow the EU rules anyway.
Etc.
Such ways of measuring were totally poo poo’d as Bibi levelled Gaza, till the point Israel said their own estimates are virtually identical.
As of March 12, 2026, UNICEF and other international monitors have reported the following regarding military actions in the Middle East involving the U.S. and Israel:
Evidence and Source of Information
UNICEF gathers this evidence through its presence in the region and coordination with other UN agencies. Their monitoring includes:
* Direct Field Reports: Reports from UNICEF staff and humanitarian partners who assess the impact on children and families.
* Government and Local Data: Information from local ministries of health and education regarding deaths, injuries, and infrastructure damage.
* UN Verification Mechanism: The UN uses a standardized monitoring and reporting mechanism (MRM) to verify "grave violations" against children in armed conflict, including the targeting of schools and hospitals.
*
Reported Statistics (as of March 2026)
* Civilian Deaths: Reports indicate at least 1,348 civilians have been killed in Iran since attacks began on 28 February 2026.
* Child Casualties: UNICEF has reported that over 1,100 children have been killed or injured across the region. This includes approximately 200 children killed in Iran.
* Infrastructure Damage:
* Schools: At least 20 schools have reportedly been damaged or hit in Iran, including a high-casualty strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' school in Minab where 168 girls were reportedly killed.
* Hospitals: At least 10 hospitals have been reportedly damaged, disrupting critical health services.
Targeting such civilian infrastructure is a violation of International Humanitarian Law, which mandates that schools and hospitals must be protected as places of safety. We have US White House and PBers who don’t believe in International Humanitarian Law.
To be fair, you can still believe it’s all absolutely necessary, if you believe the US government and FBI assessment, Iran were about to drop nuclear bombs on California {after first dropping one on Jerusalem}For anyone who doesn’t believe that, it’s leaning more toward war of choice than necessity.
https://www.unicef.org/mena/press-releases/unicef-statement-impact-military-escalation-children-middle-east#:~:text=Statement-,UNICEF statement on the impact of the military,children in the Middle East&text=NEW YORK/AMMAN, 28 February,families as needed and requested.”
It's "destroy the missile sites, Air Force, sink all the ships...job done."
You'd like voters to think, "Reform's pinup boy caused this. So they can fuck off."
But what they might more likely think is, "the only change I'm seeing under Labour is things are even worse than under the Tories. Really pissed off. Going to give Reform a whirl."
SOURCES: Ukrainian president Volodimir Zelenski and Romanian president Nicusor Dan intend to announce today that Romania and Ukraine will begin the joint mass production of drones. The main funding is to come from Romania's $18 billion share of EU's SAFE initiative.
Xi will never have a better opportunity to take Taiwan by force. Unless Trump starts another war after this one, and further damages US military preparedness and alliances.
Glasgow City Council
@GlasgowCC
❗Union Street Incident – Update – Thurs 12 Mar 2026
We're now in control of Union St. site & after a full & final assessment of the remaining structure, we have decided that demolition must happen in interests of public safety.
Look out for updates ➡️ https://ow.ly/4Obb50YsNUS
https://x.com/GlasgowCC/status/2032071109575655454?s=20
Gregory Brew
@gbrew24
·
1h
This war is now about the status of the Strait of Hormuz. Full stop.
https://x.com/gbrew24/status/2032062494936649887
Round here they would have opened late to sell to the gawpers and fire crews.
If you’re saying that Western armies are *actively targeting civilians*, that accusation needs to come with hard evidence.
In a war there’s going to be missed targets and failed weapons, but if you’re saying that civilians are targets that’s an explicit accusation of a war crime, and the person saying it needs to bring evidence for their case.
Off on a slight tangent, BBC claiming today evidence the Israeli’s are targeting the US weapons.
Even more of a tangent is the news visit to the travellers hostel that was destroyed as it was next door to the police station also destroyed.
But the hostel was empty because manager realised close to police station it could be destroyed and closed it.
How come the police can’t realise the same thing, just sat in there with all their equipment like sitting ducks?
We have to wonder just how super effective at dismantling the regime all these hits actually are.
Surely, if they were, they'd launch a first strike on the recording studio of Radiohead?
Short-term: prices spike and continue rising due to oil shortages
Long-term: global energy demand is met in a way that doesn't require the Strait of Hormuz and energy prices fall back. That would be through some combination of 1) new pipelines and ways to deliver oil/gas from the region, 2) the higher price making more new oil rigs viable, particularly the more flexible US fracking industry, 3) renewables becomes the cheapest to deliver new energy source and growth accelerates.
My point is the chaos Iran is creating is better as a short and medium-term tool than a longer-term one. But their fight is for survival so suspect they won't pay that much attention.
Djokovic can carry on as long as he wants. I don't think he will win another slam now, but he's had an amazing career. I've never warmed to him, unlike Federer and Nadal, and his anti-vax nonsense and lies pissed me off, but he is undoubtedly one of the legends of the game.
Plus they have been used in the Black Sea.
‘I have never worked with a male politician is as big an ally and who has helped me move the tides of power on violence against women and girls more than Keir Starmer,' says @jessphillips.
https://x.com/glasgowcc/status/2032071109575655454
Hard to disagree with them, the structure’s clearly unsafe and the works will take several more days to complete.
In theory it could probably be shored up, but in practice it would take weeks and cost millions, and the station would need to remain closed while they do it.
I'm not sure what his politics have got to do with it.
In France, they'd then fully and faithfully restore it.
Here we'll probably do some glass and steel shite and a bad commemorative plaque.
The last time they tried that it the late 80s, a tanker ended up escorting the US navy vessels back out (after the tanker was struck and didn't sink), as it was the only vessel likely to survive another mine encounter.
The US navy has, I think, fewer mine clearance assets than they had back then.
Don’t know if this was a listed building, but pretty much the whole of central Glasgow is what you’d want to be listed buildings!
Since then, Cllr Tina Bhartwas (Letchworth North) left the Labour Party to represent the Lib Dem, former HCC executive member Cllr Caroline Clapper (Watling) defected from the Conservatives to Reform and Cllr Peter Colley (Stevenage Bedwell) moved from Reform to Restore Britain.
Plus:
Tony Hill won the Flamstead End and Turnford division in Broxbourne borough from veteran Conservative Mark Mills-Bishop, polling 1,197 votes to his Tory rival’s 1,169, in last May’s election.
But now, just 10 months later, he has stepped down, opening the way for a possible by-election.
https://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/politics/reform-politician-elected-after-narrow-win-resigns-from-hertfordshire-county-council-5628570
The complete lack of planning that went into this war is jaw dropping. No thought put into the likely consequences (apart from an assuming US total victory) at all.
(I think they are a touch optimistic.)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EzasO9jN2UY
The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. BUT, of far greater interest and importance to me, as President, is stoping an evil Empire, Iran, from having Nuclear Weapons, and destroying the Middle East and, indeed, the World. I won't ever let that happen!
Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
The main part it plays in the Glasgow psyche and memory is the old view down Renfield St with the neon Irn Bru sign in it which hasn't been there for decades.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/12/children-killed-school-graveyard-wartime-iran
Maybe premeature, but the fact its being spoken about shows the US is in deep shit.
But you are probably right, sending the coordinates.
It looks like the IRGC are running things and will be doing everything possible to keep the Strait of Hormuz shut.
Makes rising up against the Regime somewhat more tricky.
Also:
A defining feature of the EEA agreement is that it is a dynamic arrangement. Not only did Norway immediately adopt all relevant EU legislation; it also effectively agreed to adopt all new relevant EU legislation. (Although there is a procedure whereby an EEA state can reserve the right not to adopt a new policy, this is a potential deal-breaker and has consequently never been used.)