When are they going to decide on the new James Bond?
No idea! But...
The film is positioned to be released in 2028, which indicates a shoot start of late 2026.
Key actors speculated to be in the running include Callum Turner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jacob Elordi. If chosen, Elordi would be the youngest and tallest Bond ever, as well as the second Australian to play him.
Despite his recent Oscar-nominated role in Frankenstein, as well as his high-profile performance in Wuthering Heights, Elordi’s forthcoming schedule appears surprisingly clear.
Way too short. When Barbara Broccoli had final casting say, one thing was simple: Bond had to be at least six foot. That's why Aaron Taylor-Johnson was in the frame, although if the gossip columnists are to believed his wife nixed the part. I don't know who is the real favourite now Amazon are in charge, but given they had to steam-clean the cinema seats after Jacob Elordi picked Cathy up in Wuthering Heights, he has to be in with a shout.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
That is not how our democracy works
Yes, it is.
If the elected House passes it again, the Parliament Act can apply.
The Lords normally act more reasonable, but they have chosen not to this time. So the Commons should assert their primacy.
There's quite a good chance that the bill would be reintroduced in the form it left the Commons. It is being reported that there are already about 100 MPs willing to sign up for the ballot in order to put forward an unamended bill, possibly more, and any one of them only needs to end up in the top 5 or so in the ballot for the reintroduced bill to have a good chance of progressing.
I also wonder whether more not less MPs might now be prepared to back the reintroduced bill too, given that it's become a matter of constitutional importance to ensure that the will of the Commons cannot be frustrated by procedural antics in the Lords.
Was there a realistic way for the Lords to amend the bill to make it more acceptable, rather than wreck it on the basis that they simply wouldn't allow assisted dying to go through ?
When are they going to decide on the new James Bond?
No idea! But...
The film is positioned to be released in 2028, which indicates a shoot start of late 2026.
Key actors speculated to be in the running include Callum Turner, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jacob Elordi. If chosen, Elordi would be the youngest and tallest Bond ever, as well as the second Australian to play him.
Despite his recent Oscar-nominated role in Frankenstein, as well as his high-profile performance in Wuthering Heights, Elordi’s forthcoming schedule appears surprisingly clear.
Way too short. When Barbara Broccoli had final casting say, one thing was simple: Bond had to be at least six foot. That's why Aaron Taylor-Johnson was in the frame, although if the gossip columnists are to believed his wife nixed the part. I don't know who is the real favourite now Amazon are in charge, but given they had to steam-clean the cinema seats after Jacob Elordi picked Cathy up in Wuthering Heights, he has to be in with a shout.
I only discovered a couple of weeks ago that Ives in "Tenet" is the one and same as Kick Ass in, er, "Kick Ass".
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
It just needs sufficient controls to make it completely safe. Eg a diagnosis from 3 different doctors that you are 100% certain to die in the next 6 months, your own wish for an assisted passage recorded on film with the date verified by you holding up that day's newspaper, the video of this (together with the diagnoses) reviewed by a panel of experts comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, a senior police officer, and a moral philosopher, then assuming the green light one final step - a hearing at the Old Bailey in front of a judge and jury.
what a load of absolute bollox, if someone wants to die and have a real illness that will be terminal then it should be their choice not a shedload of arsehole public officials who are fecking useless in most things they do, fecking supposed experts who are less than useless, one or two max doctors should be all it needs.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
It could be the world's most singularly disappointing war, with both sides trying to cobble together something from whatever old shite they have left.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
But we had no choice but to have this nasty bastard here (though thankfully he's bow behind bars). Whereas the rapists in Brighton shouldn't be here in the first place.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
It could be the world's most singularly disappointing war, with both sides trying to cobble together something from whatever old shite they have left.
The in flight refuelling aircraft dedicated to the Falklands has been withdrawn. The RAF would currently be stretched to replace any of the handful of Typhoons there, should the break down. And we have somewhere between one and no SSNs at sea (which would otherwise be the greatest impediment to any invasion).
But there's probably enough useful kit there to prevent an Argentine attack.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
But we had no choice but to have this nasty bastard here (though thankfully he's bow behind bars). Whereas the rapists in Brighton shouldn't be here in the first place.
this morning: crisis talks at Chequers earlier: It’s Andy Burnham. Being setup for a coronation later: it’s Ed Milifandom. Being setup for a coronation
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
this morning: crisis talks at Chequers earlier: It’s Andy Burnham. Being setup for a coronation later: it’s Ed Milifandom. Being setup for a coronation
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
You have it the wrong way round. They aren’t blaming the rapists for being immigrants, they are blaming all immigrants because some of them were rapists
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
It could be the world's most singularly disappointing war, with both sides trying to cobble together something from whatever old shite they have left.
The in flight refuelling aircraft dedicated to the Falklands has been withdrawn. The RAF would currently be stretched to replace any of the handful of Typhoons there, should the break down. And we have somewhere between one and no SSNs at sea (which would otherwise be the greatest impediment to any invasion).
But there's probably enough useful kit there to prevent an Argentine attack.
It’s not just the kit, they have been gaming potential invasions and defensive tactics for decades.
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
It just needs sufficient controls to make it completely safe. Eg a diagnosis from 3 different doctors that you are 100% certain to die in the next 6 months, your own wish for an assisted passage recorded on film with the date verified by you holding up that day's newspaper, the video of this (together with the diagnoses) reviewed by a panel of experts comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, a senior police officer, and a moral philosopher, then assuming the green light one final step - a hearing at the Old Bailey in front of a judge and jury.
what a load of absolute bollox, if someone wants to die and have a real illness that will be terminal then it should be their choice not a shedload of arsehole public officials who are fecking useless in most things they do, fecking supposed experts who are less than useless, one or two max doctors should be all it needs.
Although there would be some irony, malcy, if refusing terminally ill the right to die was what killed the House of Lords...whose life support should have been turned off decdes ago.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
You have it the wrong way round. They aren’t blaming the rapists for being immigrants, they are blaming all immigrants because some of them were rapists
Thanks for putting me right. Now it all.makes sense.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
They are threadbare, though.
If that weren't also true of the Argentine military, it might be a serious problem.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
It could be the world's most singularly disappointing war, with both sides trying to cobble together something from whatever old shite they have left.
The in flight refuelling aircraft dedicated to the Falklands has been withdrawn. The RAF would currently be stretched to replace any of the handful of Typhoons there, should the break down. And we have somewhere between one and no SSNs at sea (which would otherwise be the greatest impediment to any invasion).
But there's probably enough useful kit there to prevent an Argentine attack.
It’s not just the kit, they have been gaming potential invasions and defensive tactics for decades.
After so much training, those attack penguins are the finest attack penguins anywhere in the world.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
It could be the world's most singularly disappointing war, with both sides trying to cobble together something from whatever old shite they have left.
The in flight refuelling aircraft dedicated to the Falklands has been withdrawn. The RAF would currently be stretched to replace any of the handful of Typhoons there, should the break down. And we have somewhere between one and no SSNs at sea (which would otherwise be the greatest impediment to any invasion).
But there's probably enough useful kit there to prevent an Argentine attack.
It’s not just the kit, they have been gaming potential invasions and defensive tactics for decades.
After so much training, those attack penguins are the finest attack penguins anywhere in the world.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
They are threadbare, though.
If that weren't also true of the Argentine military, it might be a serious problem.
There's never any shortage of resources when it comes to prancing around in fancy dress for royals and tourists though.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
Not sure the Argentine military is up to much. From Wiki:
The small-scale capability modernization that Argentina has attempted has been actively opposed by the United Kingdom. In 2019 the Argentine Air Force and government selected the Korean KAI FA-50 as its interim fighter to replace its aging Falklands-vintage aircraft. However, the deal was cancelled in early 2020 leaving the Air Force without a fighter replacement. British intervention was apparently a key factor in the cancellation with Britain stopping the export of the aircraft incorporating various British components.[15] In October 2020, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) confirmed that since major components of the aircraft were supplied by the U.K., the aircraft could not be exported to Argentina. Britain similarly blocked the potential sale of Brazilian license-built Saab Gripen aircraft to Argentina given avionics that were of British origin.[16]
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
You have it the wrong way round. They aren’t blaming the rapists for being immigrants, they are blaming all immigrants because some of them were rapists
Thanks for putting me right. Now it all.makes sense.
You’re just trying to rationalise the irrational. Easy mistake to make
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
They are threadbare, though.
If that weren't also true of the Argentine military, it might be a serious problem.
I was down there in January/February. No doubt we would be fine until reinforcements could be rapidly flown in. Always happy for more investment in defence, but it's more than enough there to deter what Argentina can muster.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
You have completely missed the point
The rape in Brighton would not have happened if the small boats hadn't arrived. The rape of the Sikh woman would have. That is the reason people mention the former and not the latter. Thousands of crimes a year happen that we don't feel the need to mention on here, because there isn't a government policy angle. When men who arrive on small boats assault women, it is pointed out because we don't want men arriving here on small boats and being put up at the taxpayers expense in places where the locals don't want them, not because they are doing things that we otherwise think ok but decide are bad when they do them
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
They are threadbare, though.
If that weren't also true of the Argentine military, it might be a serious problem.
There's never any shortage of resources when it comes to prancing around in fancy dress for royals and tourists though.
It’s a drop in the ocean of the defence budget, it’s not a bad recruitment tool, it keeps the military in a lot of people’s minds which is important. The fact that most developed and other countries also have ceremonial troops suggests it’s not just a British quirk.
Those troops prancing around are also infantry and mounted infantry and reconnaissance troops on rotation so it’s not as if we hire thousands of people to look pretty for the tourists.
My acquaintance I mentioned in an earlier post who was considered such a military brain to develop Falklands defence was one of those guys in fancy dress - also a very highly regarded soldier.
Forest must be putting the shits up Spurs and West Ham tonight...
I think Forest are safe after tonight. The final relegation spot is between West Ham and Spurs now. There is no way both of them are going to get more than 39 points.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
The rapists in Brighton that were widely posted about on here this week are disgusting individuals for their crimes. I don't believe them being immigrants or Muslims has anything to do their criminality. Likewise the guy who raped the Sikh girl because he thought she was Muslim did not do it because he was white but because he's a nasty bastard.
You have it the wrong way round. They aren’t blaming the rapists for being immigrants, they are blaming all immigrants because some of them were rapists
Not really, we are blaming the government for letting hundreds of thousands of undocumented men from the third world loose on the streets and beaches of England.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
It would of course be very funny if they invaded and we invoked NATO to come to our aid, the US would likely say no but it would put a few European countries in a bind.
Trump will be gone by the time of the next general election in 2029 and anyway Farage knows he has no chance of ever winning even most seats yet alone a majority without fully committing to keep the Falklands British
I have been to the Falklands and it is an isolated archipelago of virtually uninhabited islands with penguins, albatross, and whales
We cannot even send a serviceable Royal Navy ship to Cyprus so how on earth do you think we could fight that battle
Farage can be as jingoistic as he likes, but if it came to keeping the Falklands by naval intervention and 'boots on the ground' it is not going to happen
Pathetic wimpery, thank goodness we had Thatcher leading the victorious 1982 Falklands War not you.
We have more aircraft carriers than Argentina, more destroyers, more soldiers and more submarines m, some with nuclear weapons unlike Argentina.
Though Milei is not Galtieri and only interested in a diplomatic solution
You are utterly deluded
Thatcher's time is a distant memory and utterly impossible today
Rubbish, the Argentine military is even weaker than 1982, the Falklands has a bigger British garrison. No British PM would ever survive losing the Falklands it would be a humiliation that made Suez look like a minor misunderstanding and Starmer, Farage and Badenoch know it.
Weirdly a live threat to the Falklands might be what the gov need to stop stalling about defence and face up to the poor state of the military.
It's 8,000 miles away and 40 days plus to sail there
Anyway, it is not going to happen
Any sign of an Argentine military build up for an invasion and the UK could fly troops in within a couple of days. It wouldn't be a repeat of 1982. The point of building RAF Mount Pleasant was to provide an air bridge so a large taskforce would not be required again.
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
They are threadbare, though.
If that weren't also true of the Argentine military, it might be a serious problem.
There's never any shortage of resources when it comes to prancing around in fancy dress for royals and tourists though.
It’s a drop in the ocean of the defence budget, it’s not a bad recruitment tool, it keeps the military in a lot of people’s minds which is important. The fact that most developed and other countries also have ceremonial troops suggests it’s not just a British quirk.
Those troops prancing around are also infantry and mounted infantry and reconnaissance troops on rotation so it’s not as if we hire thousands of people to look pretty for the tourists.
My acquaintance I mentioned in an earlier post who was considered such a military brain to develop Falklands defence was one of those guys in fancy dress - also a very highly regarded soldier.
It gives the impression that all is well with the British military when all is far from well.
Which makes such ruritanian fripperies not just malign but potentially catastrophically dangerous.
What the army should do is announce that that there will be no more prancing around in fancy dress until sufficient resources are provided for the actual defence of Britain and British interests.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
It would of course be very funny if they invaded and we invoked NATO to come to our aid, the US would likely say no but it would put a few European countries in a bind.
Falklands aren't covered by NATO. Only applies to the Northern Hemisphere.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
It just needs sufficient controls to make it completely safe. Eg a diagnosis from 3 different doctors that you are 100% certain to die in the next 6 months, your own wish for an assisted passage recorded on film with the date verified by you holding up that day's newspaper, the video of this (together with the diagnoses) reviewed by a panel of experts comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, a senior police officer, and a moral philosopher, then assuming the green light one final step - a hearing at the Old Bailey in front of a judge and jury.
what a load of absolute bollox, if someone wants to die and have a real illness that will be terminal then it should be their choice not a shedload of arsehole public officials who are fecking useless in most things they do, fecking supposed experts who are less than useless, one or two max doctors should be all it needs.
Yes, sorry, I was making that same point but sarcastically.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
Ask them what the plural of Octopus is. They will think you are a weirdo or you might find they are both experts on the subject and the conversation will improve.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
You think we can get both our carriers seaworthy and manned at the same time? I admire your optimism. God, we are getting so little bang for our bucks.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
You think we can get both our carriers seaworthy and manned at the same time? I admire your optimism. God, we are getting so little bang for our bucks.
I don't know if this is still true (I'm on a train surrounded by energy vampires) but at one point we didn't have enough F35Bs to man both carriers simultaneously.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
It would of course be very funny if they invaded and we invoked NATO to come to our aid, the US would likely say no but it would put a few European countries in a bind.
Falklands aren't covered by NATO. Only applies to the Northern Hemisphere.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
It would of course be very funny if they invaded and we invoked NATO to come to our aid, the US would likely say no but it would put a few European countries in a bind.
Falklands aren't covered by NATO. Only applies to the Northern Hemisphere.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
Forest must be putting the shits up Spurs and West Ham tonight...
I think Forest are safe after tonight. The final relegation spot is between West Ham and Spurs now. There is no way both of them are going to get more than 39 points.
West Ham's goal difference might be what sees them down. -17 vs -11 for Spurs. Forest now on -5.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
You think we can get both our carriers seaworthy and manned at the same time? I admire your optimism. God, we are getting so little bang for our bucks.
Lizzy is floating 100%. Damned distracting when you’re crossing the bridge next to Rosyth.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
Ask them what the plural of Octopus is. They will think you are a weirdo or you might find they are both experts on the subject and the conversation will improve.
(Adopts Gert Frobe accent)
I don't want to TALK to them, Mr Boulay. I want them to DIE.
Forest must be putting the shits up Spurs and West Ham tonight...
I think Forest are safe after tonight. The final relegation spot is between West Ham and Spurs now. There is no way both of them are going to get more than 39 points.
West Ham's goal difference might be what sees them down. -17 vs -11 for Spurs. Forest now on -5.
But they've got the 2 extra points and the way Spurs are playing that is massive.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
Ask them what the plural of Octopus is. They will think you are a weirdo or you might find they are both experts on the subject and the conversation will improve.
(Adopts Gert Frobe accent)
I don't want to TALK to them, Mr Boulay. I want them to DIE.
They might fall out so badly over the correct answer that they kill each other. Worth trying.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Forest must be putting the shits up Spurs and West Ham tonight...
I think Forest are safe after tonight. The final relegation spot is between West Ham and Spurs now. There is no way both of them are going to get more than 39 points.
West Ham's goal difference might be what sees them down. -17 vs -11 for Spurs. Forest now on -5.
But they've got the 2 extra points and the way Spurs are playing that is massive.
I don't know much about football, but massively wealthy clubs don't get relegated. That doesn't suit anyone's interests. Spurs will stay up.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
Ask them what the plural of Octopus is. They will think you are a weirdo or you might find they are both experts on the subject and the conversation will improve.
(Adopts Gert Frobe accent)
I don't want to TALK to them, Mr Boulay. I want them to DIE.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Who are the runners and riders in the best chancellor debate?
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
It just needs sufficient controls to make it completely safe. Eg a diagnosis from 3 different doctors that you are 100% certain to die in the next 6 months, your own wish for an assisted passage recorded on film with the date verified by you holding up that day's newspaper, the video of this (together with the diagnoses) reviewed by a panel of experts comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, a senior police officer, and a moral philosopher, then assuming the green light one final step - a hearing at the Old Bailey in front of a judge and jury.
what a load of absolute bollox, if someone wants to die and have a real illness that will be terminal then it should be their choice not a shedload of arsehole public officials who are fecking useless in most things they do, fecking supposed experts who are less than useless, one or two max doctors should be all it needs.
Yes, sorry, I was making that same point but sarcastically.
I for one am shocked to find that Malc has not paused to consider whether subtle humour was at work.
Forest must be putting the shits up Spurs and West Ham tonight...
I think Forest are safe after tonight. The final relegation spot is between West Ham and Spurs now. There is no way both of them are going to get more than 39 points.
West Ham's goal difference might be what sees them down. -17 vs -11 for Spurs. Forest now on -5.
But they've got the 2 extra points and the way Spurs are playing that is massive.
I don't know much about football, but massively wealthy clubs don't get relegated. That doesn't suit anyone's interests. Spurs will stay up.
Spurs have got 2 points in their last 6 games combined. They only have 5 left. Unless there is a major change in performance they are toast.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Who are the runners and riders in the best chancellor debate?
Thoroughly disgusted that the unelected house has been able to filibuster the assisted dying bill that the elected house had passed.
I hope next month a supporter of the bill gets drawn high up the private members ballot and reproposes the bill and the elected house passes it again.
Then the Parliament Act should be used and the unelected house removed from the equation.
It's not passing the House in its current form.
That is up to MPs.
They voted for it last year. They should again.
You seem to forget quite a few MPs only supported the bill/didn't vote against it because they wanted to see what the final bill would look like.
Sadly the supporters of the bill have made the safeguards look laughable.
MPs voted how they voted, you may wish they had done otherwise but they did what they did at third reading. They could and should vote the same way yet again.
The safeguards are laughably onerous, agreed. Far too many that should not be there and should be stripped out.
But better to accept it as it is than liberalise it further, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
I would just say it had a 23 vote majority in the house so no guarantee it would pass if reintroduced
There is never any guarantees in life, agreed.
But MPs should do the right thing and pass it, unamended, then override the unelected Lords.
The Lords could have chosen to pass reasonable amendments to send to the elected chamber to continue. Instead they have chosen to dick about, so the Commons should pass it unamended and have the Lords forfeit the right to suggest amendments.
We all know that the people who are opposed are actually opposed on moral / religious grounds.
Nobody who was opposed said: "I will switch to supporting it with certain specified safeguards".
Instead they played a clever game - raising endless issues when really they were just flat out opposed whatever the safeguards.
I actually think the proposers missed a trick:
It became stand practice for TV presenters to say "this is a very difficult, complex issue ......"
They should have been confronted with the answer: "No, it's not difficult. It's very simple. People should have the right to decide their own lives." Saying it was difficult / complex was pandering to the objectors and gave credibility to their objections.
Next time the response should be: "What safeguards do you want?"
As we saw with a famous poster on this site, when confronted they went round in circles for a while but ultimately admitted they wouldn't agree to it under any circumstances, even if they themselves could draw up the safeguards.
It just needs sufficient controls to make it completely safe. Eg a diagnosis from 3 different doctors that you are 100% certain to die in the next 6 months, your own wish for an assisted passage recorded on film with the date verified by you holding up that day's newspaper, the video of this (together with the diagnoses) reviewed by a panel of experts comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, a senior police officer, and a moral philosopher, then assuming the green light one final step - a hearing at the Old Bailey in front of a judge and jury.
what a load of absolute bollox, if someone wants to die and have a real illness that will be terminal then it should be their choice not a shedload of arsehole public officials who are fecking useless in most things they do, fecking supposed experts who are less than useless, one or two max doctors should be all it needs.
Yes, sorry, I was making that same point but sarcastically.
I for one am shocked to find that Malc has not paused to consider whether subtle humour was at work.
As I can attest, PBers are rubbish at spotting subtle puns/humour.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Who are the runners and riders in the best chancellor debate?
Surely Adenauer is way out in front in the best postwar, Bismark of all time.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Just get rid of a surface fleet and have hundreds of subs.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Do we know any folks with an affinity for being out on the water in boats we could press gang to row them?
(I may just have made up Reform policy on the hoof there...)
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Who are the runners and riders in the best chancellor debate?
Brandt? One mentioned Scholz and it all got a bit heated. And then a discussion on Adenauer.
Amazing that people can debate like this. I need to read more.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Who are the runners and riders in the best chancellor debate?
Surely Adenauer is way out in front in the best postwar, Bismark of all time.
I’m guessing someone is rooting for Hitler, “yeah he went a bit far on a few things but he really got the economy going and people really respected Germany.”
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Just get rid of a surface fleet and have hundreds of subs.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
We should go back to Privateering and Prize money. That way the Navy would be self financing.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
Who are the runners and riders in the best chancellor debate?
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Zero chance of staffing that. And the number of rowers that would be required to meet modern health and safety and working time requirements would probably sink the ship.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I’m in a pub and there are 5 wasted men in their 70s violently arguing about the best German Chancellor. On the other side there are two people in their 50s on a date and… the flame doesn’t die.
The answer is Adenauer. It's not close. He was an annoying person, about 105 when he finally left office and senile, but the post-War settlement in Europe and between Europe and the United States was substantially his work. He also laid the groundwork for the eventual unification of Germany on western terms.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Just get rid of a surface fleet and have hundreds of subs.
Not a terrible idea
They seek em here They seek em there They seek em almost everywhere Are they in ships or in triremes? The Brits laugh from their submarines.
I am on a train. The bloke opposite me is talking to the bloke next to him that he has tiny eustachian tubes. The bloke next to him said he thinks he has the mindset to cope. TBOM says he woke up and still thought he was asleep. TBNTH says his wife has ear candles
I want them both dead.
I'm gibbering at this point. It's like two AIs talking to each other. It's all stream of consciousness. There's no mediation between thought and speech, no summaries, it's just event, event, event, event, he said this I said that he said that. If either of them use the phrase "I was loving" instead of "I love" I will not be responsible for my actions. I have my eyes closed and a clenched fist rammed into my lips. Now I know why telepaths go mad.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
Yes...
If you do go to extreme violence, you can call us as character witnesses.
"Your honour, it was worse than any man could be expected to endure..."
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Just get rid of a surface fleet and have hundreds of subs.
Not a terrible idea
Submarine drones are going to be the next big thing. Or so says my pal developing them for unnamed gigantic defence company massively over spec (just buy them from Ukraine ffs)
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
The companies selling it, sell it on the world market, at the world market price.
They have no generating capacity themselves.
The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.
The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)
So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
I'm with you on all of that.
What about investment in future generation though?
I can accept that the practical.answer may be that they just invest elsewhere in the world. But I am interested in whether we have figures to say that this is actually happening, rather than that the generating companies are switching investments towards renewable capacity in the UK.
I take the point also about solar being so cheap, but then prima facie does that not making switching investments rather than removing them from UK more attractive?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.
Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.
Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
One of the most ghastly things about it (against stiff competition) is that the Norwegians are just sticking their own straw down there, sucking up what we're leaving, and selling it back to us. It's being perpetrated by people who hate this country, and supported by people who are mentally ill.
Angela Rayner’s allies have told Keir Starmer that he must sack Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for her to return to Cabinet
Rayner recently branded Mahmood's immigration reforms "un-British" and a "breach of trust"
So someone who had to resign because they couldn’t get their personal finances straight, having failed running theor department wants the PM to sack possibly the one Labour cabinet minister who seems to be trying or succeeding in delivering something. Ok.
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
Fortunately for us, Argentina has seen an even more serious decline in military capability. Their navy and air force are so run down there's basically zero chance of being able to stage a successful invasion against anything more than token opposition.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Apart from USA and China it seems very few navies can turn out a proper taskforce. Presumably because of the ridiculous upkeep costs.
Triremes.
It's time for the triremes again.
Oh God, not the Greek episode of Morse with Martin Jarvis. Triremes are a plot point. As are bad greek accents.
At the time of the rape he was homeless, having been discharged from psychiatric care three days earlier without a support package after it was decided he was no longer psychotic.
If he weren't white, I am certain the mental health card would have been played.
I find your final sentence incredibly disconcerting. A rapist bastard is a rapist bastard whatever their colour. No excuses and no pulling the "he got it tougher because he was white" please.
No, I couldn't give a toss about the fate of the junkie. But you only have to look at Nottingham to see how we treat perpetrators who are not white.
I don't believe I have defended AR or the **** in Nottingham because they are not white.
I am fascinated that over the last few days some posters have been keen to post stories about disgusting immigrant criminality and getting substantial likes for doing so, but this one? Not so much.
Unless you are a complete moron, I find it hard to see the fascination. Rape is a disgusting crime that should be severely punished no matter the perpetrator. But if the perpetrator(s) are people who have entered the country illegally on a small boat, that makes it more the establishment's fault than when the rapist is someone who was born here. When people, including me obviously, post these stories of illegal immigrants raping women, it isn't because we think it is bad when they do it but ok when others do, it is to illustrate that letting these people in and putting them up in little villages is madness, and the government should be doing more to stop it. It is the establishment that is being criticised, that rape is an horrific crime goes without saying
People, including myself, also post when a man pretending to be a woman sexually assaults a real woman in prison. We don't post when men sexually assault other men in men's prisons, nor when women sexually assault women in women's prisons. That is not to say those assaults aren't bad, although the man pretending to be a woman's assault on woman is worse as well as being the establishment's fault
I just cannot fathom why anyone takes Anthony Seldon seriously. Every time I've seen him offer commentary, it is vapid, shallow, intellect-free statism. The last time he did the rounds saying how bad a PM Starmer was, his primary reason was that Starmer had been jolly beastly to Sue Grey. I mean that's your problem with him?
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
The companies selling it, sell it on the world market, at the world market price.
They have no generating capacity themselves.
The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.
The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)
So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
I'm with you on all of that.
What about investment in future generation though?
I can accept that the practical.answer may be that they just invest elsewhere in the world. But I am interested in whether we have figures to say that this is actually happening, rather than that the generating companies are switching investments towards renewable capacity in the UK.
I take the point also about solar being so cheap, but then prima facie does that not making switching investments rather than removing them from UK more attractive?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.
Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.
Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
One of the most ghastly things about it (against stiff competition) is that the Norwegians are just sticking their own straw down there, sucking up what we're leaving, and selling it back to us. It's being perpetrated by people who hate this country, and supported by people who are mentally ill.
Norway hates the UK? I mean they sent a bit of a crappy Christmas tree that time..
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
Why are we still discussing Brexit? Brexit was sub optimal for the country. That much was obvious then and it is of course obvious now.
It’s done. Let’s move on (all the poorer). Until a party or leader brings up rejoining the EU, what is the point discussing this?
I don't think we discuss it enough (!) Given we are not going back in any time soon, and most people think it was a mistake, we should be discussing how to make the best of a bad job and what compromises we can accept to make it sort of work.
Having said that, right now we really really should be discussing the oil -, gas -, plastics -, fertiliser - and in some cases food - free cliff we will be falling over in a few weeks time.
There's a strange silence
Partly people don't believe it will happen (wrongly I believe) and partly they really still don't get the impact. They have had years of being told that oil and gas are the ultimate evil and are having serious problems coming round to the idea that so much of modern life relies upon them. When your own Government persists in trying to limit or end the home grown supply of oil and gas, it is no susprise that peple find it difficult to understand just how important it is.
Ed Miliband is Crap is Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
If the UK wasn't putting in increasing renewable generation then we'd be more reliant on oil and gas and even more in the shit.
Jackdaw and Rosebank were halted by a Scottish Judge not Miliband, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo As EM said when interviewed, they have to get their EIA right to satisfy the court, otherwise they'll be stopped in court again.
Even the most accurate on what a disaster Trump2 would be, didn't have his Iran fiasco on their dance card. UK having more renewables, EVs and less requirement for fossil fuel means we can use oil and gas for other purposes.
You can criticise some specifics, CCS, floating wind, but the direction is correct.
(Snip)
Banning UK drilling and trying to drive out the oil companies has not meant increased UK investment in renewables. One is not dependent on the other.
I don't know how you'd test the counterfactual, nor refute it as you are doing. But happy to stand corrected as I'm sure you know more.
Solar power is completely independent of oil - we have never generated significant electricity from oil.
Solar has soared in installation, because it is cheaper than gas and getting cheaper each year. North Sea production doesn’t really affect the world market for gas, so the price is pretty much independent of that.
So solar would be smashing it in either case.
Thanks both.
Agreed on the oil; I was lazily assuming this was a discussion mainly about gas given we are currently quite reliant on it for electricity but looking back at the comment Richard replied to I see oil and gas were conflated. I entirely agree that oil and renewables are not really related.
On the gas point, I agree with you both in a perfect market. But I wonder about the practical implications in the market as it is. If gas becomes relatively costlier/harder to extract in the UK, to what extent are companies who would like to extract it choosing to reduce their presence in the UK electricity market overall, and to what extent are they transferring investment decisions into renewables? And what would this trend look like in the longer term?
I genuinely don't know, but interested if others have figures on this.
The companies selling it, sell it on the world market, at the world market price.
They have no generating capacity themselves.
The generating companies buy gas at the world market price.
The U.K. production, in any event, is not big enough to shift world prices (the U.K. benefit is taxes and jobs)
So U.K. production of gas would have next to no effect on the decision of the generating companies to buy more solar.
I'm with you on all of that.
What about investment in future generation though?
I can accept that the practical.answer may be that they just invest elsewhere in the world. But I am interested in whether we have figures to say that this is actually happening, rather than that the generating companies are switching investments towards renewable capacity in the UK.
I take the point also about solar being so cheap, but then prima facie does that not making switching investments rather than removing them from UK more attractive?
Apologies if I'm being dense!
The oil and gas producing companies are investing in oil and gas elsewhere. Norway for example. Or in shutting down the North Sea - lots of work in that. For a while.
Solar, in the U.K., is limited by planning. There is more money chasing projects that can happen.
Perhaps the bit you are missing is that oil (in particular) is required to make a lot of things. This is the long tail of net zero.
One of the most ghastly things about it (against stiff competition) is that the Norwegians are just sticking their own straw down there, sucking up what we're leaving, and selling it back to us. It's being perpetrated by people who hate this country, and supported by people who are mentally ill.
Norway hates the UK? I mean they sent a bit of a crappy Christmas tree that time..
Comments
Imminent popcorn shortage if it is Edstone vs the lettuce.
Spoiler: I have never tried to eat a bacon sandwich #DevoutMuslim
#mindblown
Anyway, it is not going to happen
The RAF would currently be stretched to replace any of the handful of Typhoons there, should the break down.
And we have somewhere between one and no SSNs at sea (which would otherwise be the greatest impediment to any invasion).
But there's probably enough useful kit there to prevent an Argentine attack.
this morning: crisis talks at Chequers
earlier: It’s Andy Burnham. Being setup for a coronation
later: it’s Ed Milifandom. Being setup for a coronation
Keith is already last week’s used newspapers
As you say, unlikely to happen. But the defences are not token.
https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2047615792376578339
Effective use of quotes from Reformers. No doubt doing the social media rounds.
If that weren't also true of the Argentine military, it might be a serious problem.
Finding anything other than lager in some countries can be a real challenge.
The small-scale capability modernization that Argentina has attempted has been actively opposed by the United Kingdom. In 2019 the Argentine Air Force and government selected the Korean KAI FA-50 as its interim fighter to replace its aging Falklands-vintage aircraft. However, the deal was cancelled in early 2020 leaving the Air Force without a fighter replacement. British intervention was apparently a key factor in the cancellation with Britain stopping the export of the aircraft incorporating various British components.[15] In October 2020, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) confirmed that since major components of the aircraft were supplied by the U.K., the aircraft could not be exported to Argentina. Britain similarly blocked the potential sale of Brazilian license-built Saab Gripen aircraft to Argentina given avionics that were of British origin.[16]
https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/mount-pleasant-complex/
Once, again, as with the navy, describing our forces as a shoe string is seriously overstating it.
West Ham or Spurs going down
The rape in Brighton would not have happened if the small boats hadn't arrived. The rape of the Sikh woman would have. That is the reason people mention the former and not the latter. Thousands of crimes a year happen that we don't feel the need to mention on here, because there isn't a government policy angle. When men who arrive on small boats assault women, it is pointed out because we don't want men arriving here on small boats and being put up at the taxpayers expense in places where the locals don't want them, not because they are doing things that we otherwise think ok but decide are bad when they do them
Those troops prancing around are also infantry and mounted infantry and reconnaissance troops on rotation so it’s not as if we hire thousands of people to look pretty for the tourists.
My acquaintance I mentioned in an earlier post who was considered such a military brain to develop Falklands defence was one of those guys in fancy dress - also a very highly regarded soldier.
And they certainly have no way of stopping a pair of QE class carriers loaded with F-35s when they inevitably turn up and politely ask for the islands back.
Which makes such ruritanian fripperies not just malign but potentially catastrophically dangerous.
What the army should do is announce that that there will be no more prancing around in fancy dress until sufficient resources are provided for the actual defence of Britain and British interests.
I want them both dead.
We need to go back to the 1940s, when men smoked pipes, read newspapers, and only talked on trains when it advanced the plot.
I don't want to TALK to them, Mr Boulay. I want them to DIE.
It's time for the triremes again.
(I may just have made up Reform policy on the hoof there...)
Amazing that people can debate like this. I need to read more.
Angela Rayner’s allies have told Keir Starmer that he must sack Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood for her to return to Cabinet
Rayner recently branded Mahmood's immigration reforms "un-British" and a "breach of trust"
They seek em there
They seek em almost everywhere
Are they in ships or in triremes?
The Brits laugh from their submarines.
If you do go to extreme violence, you can call us as character witnesses.
"Your honour, it was worse than any man could be expected to endure..."
Plus ca change.
Shabana Mahmood is doing a good job.