This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
He is correct – not that it usually helps much in politics. He could add that the City has given up on British companies so they have to look abroad for investment.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Same with football. We invented the game but can we win the World Cup? Can we even host the World Cup? 60 years of hurt on both counts yet America has hosted the sports twice within living memory.
Nobody calling themselves 'Nick' should ever have been made a general. No offence to our own Nick/s, but an abbreviated name is too ephemeral and not serious enough for that sort of work.
He was our CO in Basra toward the end of the my time in the debacle. The Americans fucking hated him and we mostly agreed with them. I flew him in the Lynx a few times but never to anywhere "hot".
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
Nobody calling themselves 'Nick' should ever have been made a general. No offence to our own Nick/s, but an abbreviated name is too ephemeral and not serious enough for that sort of work.
. Maybe the answer lies in a 3 letter word
OUT
Our aged out of date hugely expensive nuclear deterrent.
Tell the Yanks to stuff it up their backsides and cease all ongoing payments.
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
This is a silly avenue of discussion and you know it is. We have learned that police are guided to excercise particular sensitivity with protected groups, and whistle-blowing tells us that police are terrified of being accused of racism. Having a religious exemption in place for ceremonial daggers absolutely makes it far more difficult for police to challenge and remove those weapons. This is a photo of it: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/26157307.bodycam-footage-shows-henry-nowak-final-moments/ - would you as a police officer split hairs about it in a potentially racially charged situation? Looks fairly ceremonial to me. Can debate the real life impacts of laws rather than the exactitudes of them?
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Sounds oddly like he's preparing for a Tory defection.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Same with football. We invented the game but can we win the World Cup? Can we even host the World Cup? 60 years of hurt on both counts yet America has hosted the sports twice within living memory.
Not sure that the scale of bribes required for FIFA is within the scope of our imaginations.
Nobody calling themselves 'Nick' should ever have been made a general. No offence to our own Nick/s, but an abbreviated name is too ephemeral and not serious enough for that sort of work.
. Maybe the answer lies in a 3 letter word
OUT
Our aged out of date hugely expensive nuclear deterrent.
Tell the Yanks to stuff it up their backsides and cease all ongoing payments.
It's a burden It offers nothing
Dispensible
Reinvest in drones and modern technology.
It's not the answer, but again I am in strong agrement. Having agreed with Bondygogo earlier I am now off for a lie down.
That's going to mess with the IPO, amongst other things.
The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees.
The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.
Access to all other Claude models is not affected.
We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible.
That's going to mess with the IPO, amongst other things.
The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees.
The net effect of this order is that we must abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all our customers to ensure compliance.
Access to all other Claude models is not affected.
We apologize for this disruption to our customers. We believe this is a misunderstanding and are working to restore access as soon as possible.
Anthropic themselves have been insinuating that the new models are dangerously good, now they appear surprised that the Commerce department appears to be taking a close interest in them.
That's not really the point, though, is it ?
As Carns seems to have noticed, the US shutting off tech access, for whatever reason, is a risk to the UK and/or Europe that we haven't made any substantial provision for.
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
This is a silly avenue of discussion and you know it is. We have learned that police are guided to excercise particular sensitivity with protected groups, and whistle-blowing tells us that police are terrified of being accused of racism. Having a religious exemption in place for ceremonial daggers absolutely makes it far more difficult for police to challenge and remove those weapons. This is a photo of it: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/26157307.bodycam-footage-shows-henry-nowak-final-moments/ - would you as a police officer split hairs about it in a potentially racially charged situation? Looks fairly ceremonial to me. Can debate the real life impacts of laws rather than the exactitudes of them?
How many more stabbings would there have been in the last week or so if police had felt able to challenge religious knives? I'd guess none at all because someone set on the crime of murder is hardly likely to be bothered by the crime of carrying a knife.
"Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases"."
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Same with football. We invented the game but can we win the World Cup? Can we even host the World Cup? 60 years of hurt on both counts yet America has hosted the sports twice within living memory.
One thing that the UK could definitely do, is host the World Cup at short notice. There’s not many countries with 20 stadia over 50k capacity.
Whether we’d want to is a different question. It’s a massive operation and a lot of the money goes out to FIFA.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Sounds oddly like he's preparing for a Tory defection.
Yes because in the golden years 2010 to 2024, our planning system, power stations and industry were the envy of the world. And don't get me started on 40 years of Tory defence cuts.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Sounds oddly like he's preparing for a Tory defection.
Yes because in the golden years 2010 to 2024, our planning system, power stations and industry were the envy of the world. And don't get me started on 40 years of Tory defence cuts.
Yep, oddly enough the biggest failures of the past decades are things on which the main parties were in agreement.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
As someone working in AI, I don’t think it’s about power stations or chip making. What we don’t have are the very big and rich tech companies.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
As someone working in AI, I don’t think it’s about power stations or chip making. What we don’t have are the very big and rich tech companies.
Right now we have several GW spare of energy. Mass curtailment across Scotland, spot price -£20 per MWh.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Sounds oddly like he's preparing for a Tory defection.
Indeed, He's clearly pining for those golden Tory years that ended less than two years ago when Britain was the industrial and technological powerhouse of the world.
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
As someone working in AI, I don’t think it’s about power stations or chip making. What we don’t have are the very big and rich tech companies.
Chip making is part of it if you want sovereign capacity. That hasn't really mattered until trade barriers started going up. It might in the future.
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
It seems to have passed by without notice or significant controversy for decades, until a lying murderer lied about the weapon he was using. So the experience and case law the police, courts and other establishments have been using is not problematic and is functioning well.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
That the Ukranians now have the capability to strike with large drones and missiles anywhere in the occupied territories, has again been a gamechanger for the war.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
Military guy says more should be spent on defence. Let me see if I can find a doctor to say more should be spend on health. Obviously, the real answer is that more should be spend on universities, which I know as a professor.
I am (feels dirty) inclined to agree. Having listened to all the arguments I am loath to hose money at the MOD in its current form. Tell us what forces we need, in what areas, and how we can get there in a very lean, efficient way, potentially with compromises on efficiency where manufacturing or technological capabilities need to be kept in the UK. Then you can have a bit of money. I do not feel inclined to spend more on generals, admirals, shit vanity projects, and bungs to the US military-industrial complex, with no plan and no reform. I would feel exactly the same about any other Government expenditure.
We have just had the Strategic Defence Review and are waiting for the (said to be inadequate) Defence Investment Plan. Aiui the SDR says what we need and the DIP does the shopping based on that.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
Sounds oddly like he's preparing for a Tory defection.
Indeed, He's clearly pining for those golden Tory years that ended less than two years ago when Britain was the industrial and technological powerhouse of the world.
There are multiple kinds of "take britain back to the 1950s" on multiple sides...
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
One of the Ukrainian drone units is showing off footage of them taking out Russian BMP-1 vehicles that Russia had deployed to hunt drones around the southern Ukraine land route into Crimea.
Russian troops on the southern front complain that they don't have enough drones to attack Ukraine with, because they are having to use them to bring in supplies of food.
The mass bombardment of Kherson city with glide bombs last night, and the shelling of Sumy, are not directly militarily consequential, but Ukraine needs to be able to defend their cities somehow.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
As someone working in AI, I don’t think it’s about power stations or chip making. What we don’t have are the very big and rich tech companies.
Ultimately it all hangs on whether folks will pay for it when they can no longer get given it for free.
"Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases"."
Expertise is everywhere. Nothing surer than Billy McMason of Sandy Row is DESPERATE to be Irish.
It is difficult to overstate just how dumb, ignorant, stupid, the people who currently govern the United States are.
Here is the Homeland Security Secretary claiming that the unionists & loyalists in *Northern* Ireland ‘want to be Irish’ & want to be in Ireland. Pure ignorance.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
That the Ukranians now have the capability to strike with large drones and missiles anywhere in the occupied territories, has again been a gamechanger for the war.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
Drones are becoming increasingly important for logistics, particularly for the last 10km or so to the front line. To fully isolate the front line you probably need to have a swarm of drone-hunting drones.
Golden Boot: Mexico's Jimenez (scored in opening game) is approx 50/1 with trads but you can get 149 on bf (I just took 169).
Saka is also way too big with bf at 279.
Either is possible. One problem with the Golden Boot market is you cannot be sure which top strikers might be rested against the minnows where they might have run up a cricket score. As the Racing Post said, it might be worth taking a punt at longer prices. That said, you'll feel silly when Harry Kane wins his second World Cup golden boot.
Ha, I’d missed the derails of the US victory. If the US team go on to further success, what are the chances of this lad being invited to the Oval Office to shake hands with President Poopypants?
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
It seems to have passed by without notice or significant controversy for decades, until a lying murderer lied about the weapon he was using. So the experience and case law the police, courts and other establishments have been using is not problematic and is functioning well.
It’s the classic where a wanker spoils the quiet, sensible arrangement that has worked for 99.999%, for decades.
"Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases"."
Expertise is everywhere. Nothing surer than Billy McMason of Sandy Row is DESPERATE to be Irish.
It is difficult to overstate just how dumb, ignorant, stupid, the people who currently govern the United States are.
Here is the Homeland Security Secretary claiming that the unionists & loyalists in *Northern* Ireland ‘want to be Irish’ & want to be in Ireland. Pure ignorance.
Ha, I’d missed the derails of the US victory. If the US team go on to further success, what are the chances of this lad being invited to the Oval Office to shake hands with President Poopypants?
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
Putin will carry on a broken back war, in the style of Sir Ralph Richardson in The Shape of Things To Come.
If he loses Crimea, that could open a window for him.
Expertise is everywhere. Nothing surer than Billy McMason of Sandy Row is DESPERATE to be Irish.
It is difficult to overstate just how dumb, ignorant, stupid, the people who currently govern the United States are.
Here is the Homeland Security Secretary claiming that the unionists & loyalists in *Northern* Ireland ‘want to be Irish’ & want to be in Ireland. Pure ignorance.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
Putin will carry on a broken back war, in the style of Sir Ralph Richardson in The Shape of Things To Come.
If he loses Crimea, that could open a window for him.
Ha, I’d missed the derails of the US victory. If the US team go on to further success, what are the chances of this lad being invited to the Oval Office to shake hands with President Poopypants?
Another foreign takeover of a British asset. He could be playing for England. As we said last night, Folarin Balogun has been backed at 500/1 for the golden boot. Two goals already with a third disallowed.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
Putin will carry on a broken back war, in the style of Sir Ralph Richardson in The Shape of Things To Come.
If he loses Crimea, that could open a window for him.
On the fourth or fifth floor I would say.
Speaking of which, one more senior officer took something of a fall yesterday.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
Putin will carry on a broken back war, in the style of Sir Ralph Richardson in The Shape of Things To Come.
If he loses Crimea, that could open a window for him.
On the fourth or fifth floor I would say.
Shocking ignorance.
Salvatore Maroni: [Batman holds him out over a ledge] From one professional to another: if you're trying to scare somebody, pick a better spot. From this height, the fall wouldn't kill me. Batman: I'm counting on it. [he drops Maroni off the ledge, who screams as he falls to the ground and breaks his legs]
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
That the Ukranians now have the capability to strike with large drones and missiles anywhere in the occupied territories, has again been a gamechanger for the war.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
I have said since the beginning that logistics win wars and that is Russia's problem. Especially if NATO stands behind Ukraine.
Unfortunately the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire is immense and they keep saying they will on current contact lines, not their actual borders which should be the demand.
If Russia is on the verge of losing Crimea what stops Putin from "magnaminously" offering a ceasefire?
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
It seems to have passed by without notice or significant controversy for decades, until a lying murderer lied about the weapon he was using. So the experience and case law the police, courts and other establishments have been using is not problematic and is functioning well.
It’s the classic where a wanker spoils the quiet, sensible arrangement that has worked for 99.999%, for decades.
What I'd like to know is does the religious extension also cover my light saber? And if so is there a max strength of the kyber crystal that powers it?
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
That's not how it's supposed to work, for example section 139(5) of the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 reads -
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.
So it's a defence to a prosecution to say the knife was carried for religious reasons, but the burden is supposed to be on the defendant to show that. In essence it is a matter of fact, the defendant has to show that he had the article with him for religious reasons. If a Sikh had a kirpan on him for other than religious reasons, while admittedly that might be hard to prove, he doesn't have the defence.
For example, if a Sikh online threatened to harm someone with a kirpan and then was arrested with the blade on the way to commit an offence then, theoretically, he won't have the defence because the prosecution could show that the item was not with him for religious reasons, but to cause harm. If another Sikh had exactly the same form of knife with him but had made no such threats then he'd be more likely to have the defence.
Case law exists to fill in the gaps in legislation that can't cover every single eventuality.
One thing is clear there isn't room for 3 right wing Parties and the tired old one of the 3 is Kemis Tories
Not hard to see more Tory defections.
The Tories have a stark choice become the third choice Fringe right wing Party under Kemi or target the centre ground, sensible One Nation Tory Party under Cleverly or Hunt.
There is a lot of fertile ground there that would not touch the current Tory Leadership with a barge pole
No, this is precisely wrong.
If it looked like Reform could simply replace the Tories, and be a harder right version of the Tories, then the threat to the Tories is very strong. Why view for weak tea, infested with wets Tories, when you can vote for 100% proof Reform?
But if Restore are splitting the Reform vote then it's not so simple. It's easier for the Tories to remain the leading party of the right with a three-way split, and Reform's ascendancy on the right looks less inevitable.
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Which is why I would put limitations around the definition of kirpan. I’m loathe to interfere with freedom of expression but, equally, the general public has a right to their security. Size / design limitations would be a reasonable compromise
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
It seems to have passed by without notice or significant controversy for decades, until a lying murderer lied about the weapon he was using. So the experience and case law the police, courts and other establishments have been using is not problematic and is functioning well.
It’s the classic where a wanker spoils the quiet, sensible arrangement that has worked for 99.999%, for decades.
What I'd like to know is does the religious extension also cover my light saber? And if so is there a max strength of the kyber crystal that powers it?
I don’t get a cultural exemption either.
It wasn’t even a three stage nuclear weapon, and they get all sniffy.
This week the most advanced AI model on the planet got switched off by a foreign government. British researchers were studying it. British companies were testing it. British hospitals were piloting it. Not any more.
This isn't an AI story. It's the story of every industry we used to lead.
Britain has some of the best AI talent in the world. DeepMind was built here. Our AI Safety Institute writes the rules other countries follow. We have the researchers, the universities, the standards.
What we don't have is the power stations to run the data centres, the planning system to build them, or the industrial base to make the chips. So the work happens here and the value lands somewhere else. We invent. Others build. Others decide. Then we read about it on Saturday morning.
Same story as the kit our soldiers don't have. Same story as the factories we used to.
I spent nine months in government making this argument inside the room. I'll make it louder from outside.
He is correct – not that it usually helps much in politics. He could add that the City has given up on British companies so they have to look abroad for investment.
No - the City has focused on their mission which is to increase the value of the investments they hold. That means a diversified portfolio not a UK centric one
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
That's not how it's supposed to work, for example section 139(5) of the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 reads -
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.
So it's a defence to a prosecution to say the knife was carried for religious reasons, but the burden is supposed to be on the defendant to show that. In essence it is a matter of fact, the defendant has to show that he had the article with him for religious reasons. If a Sikh had a kirpan on him for other than religious reasons, while admittedly that might be hard to prove, he doesn't have the defence.
For example, if a Sikh online threatened to harm someone with a kirpan and then was arrested with the blade on the way to commit an offence then, theoretically, he won't have the defence because the prosecution could show that the item was not with him for religious reasons, but to cause harm. If another Sikh had exactly the same form of knife with him but had made no such threats then he'd be more likely to have the defence.
Case law exists to fill in the gaps in legislation that can't cover every single eventuality.
But isn’t this then effectively defined by case law (precedent) ?
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
This is a silly avenue of discussion and you know it is. We have learned that police are guided to excercise particular sensitivity with protected groups, and whistle-blowing tells us that police are terrified of being accused of racism. Having a religious exemption in place for ceremonial daggers absolutely makes it far more difficult for police to challenge and remove those weapons. This is a photo of it: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/26157307.bodycam-footage-shows-henry-nowak-final-moments/ - would you as a police officer split hairs about it in a potentially racially charged situation? Looks fairly ceremonial to me. Can debate the real life impacts of laws rather than the exactitudes of them?
Nah, that’s daggery not ceremonial. *This* is ceremonial:
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
That's not how it's supposed to work, for example section 139(5) of the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 reads -
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.
So it's a defence to a prosecution to say the knife was carried for religious reasons, but the burden is supposed to be on the defendant to show that. In essence it is a matter of fact, the defendant has to show that he had the article with him for religious reasons. If a Sikh had a kirpan on him for other than religious reasons, while admittedly that might be hard to prove, he doesn't have the defence.
For example, if a Sikh online threatened to harm someone with a kirpan and then was arrested with the blade on the way to commit an offence then, theoretically, he won't have the defence because the prosecution could show that the item was not with him for religious reasons, but to cause harm. If another Sikh had exactly the same form of knife with him but had made no such threats then he'd be more likely to have the defence.
Case law exists to fill in the gaps in legislation that can't cover every single eventuality.
I can see a bigger problem with the law as drafted. Professional assassins have a perfectly clear exemption.........
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
That's not how it's supposed to work, for example section 139(5) of the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 reads -
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.
So it's a defence to a prosecution to say the knife was carried for religious reasons, but the burden is supposed to be on the defendant to show that. In essence it is a matter of fact, the defendant has to show that he had the article with him for religious reasons. If a Sikh had a kirpan on him for other than religious reasons, while admittedly that might be hard to prove, he doesn't have the defence.
For example, if a Sikh online threatened to harm someone with a kirpan and then was arrested with the blade on the way to commit an offence then, theoretically, he won't have the defence because the prosecution could show that the item was not with him for religious reasons, but to cause harm. If another Sikh had exactly the same form of knife with him but had made no such threats then he'd be more likely to have the defence.
Case law exists to fill in the gaps in legislation that can't cover every single eventuality.
I can see a bigger problem with the law as drafted. Professional assassins have a perfectly clear exemption.........
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
This is a silly avenue of discussion and you know it is. We have learned that police are guided to excercise particular sensitivity with protected groups, and whistle-blowing tells us that police are terrified of being accused of racism. Having a religious exemption in place for ceremonial daggers absolutely makes it far more difficult for police to challenge and remove those weapons. This is a photo of it: https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/26157307.bodycam-footage-shows-henry-nowak-final-moments/ - would you as a police officer split hairs about it in a potentially racially charged situation? Looks fairly ceremonial to me. Can debate the real life impacts of laws rather than the exactitudes of them?
Nah, that’s daggery not ceremonial. *This* is ceremonial:
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
That the Ukranians now have the capability to strike with large drones and missiles anywhere in the occupied territories, has again been a gamechanger for the war.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
I have said since the beginning that logistics win wars and that is Russia's problem. Especially if NATO stands behind Ukraine.
Unfortunately the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire is immense and they keep saying they will on current contact lines, not their actual borders which should be the demand.
If Russia is on the verge of losing Crimea what stops Putin from "magnaminously" offering a ceasefire?
Yes, there's an imbalance there which has encouraged Putin to prolong the war because he always knows that Ukraine will be under immense pressure to accept a ceasefire if he pushes things too far and Russia starts to go into reverse.
But this is why the Ukrainian focus on Crimea is so interesting.
Suppose you are in the Ukrainian leadership and your war aim is to recover all sovereign Ukrainian territory. Not only do you need to militarily defeat Russia, you need to do so in such a way that prevents Russia from avoiding defeat by offering a ceasefire.
The way you do that is to liberate Crimea first. If Ukraine is able to land and supply troops in Crimea then they've created a situation in which Putin is much less likely to offer a ceasefire - he will be determined to retake all of Crimea before freezing the frontline.
Golden Boot: Mexico's Jimenez (scored in opening game) is approx 50/1 with trads but you can get 149 on bf (I just took 169).
Saka is also way too big with bf at 279.
Either is possible. One problem with the Golden Boot market is you cannot be sure which top strikers might be rested against the minnows where they might have run up a cricket score. As the Racing Post said, it might be worth taking a punt at longer prices. That said, you'll feel silly when Harry Kane wins his second World Cup golden boot.
More often that not, it's a team's main penalty taker who wins the Golden Boot, which makes Saka more unlikely.
The poll of course doesn't show Restore handing Burnham victory. The Restore share of the vote is only slightly higher than Burnham's lead, and Burnham would almost certainly win if those were the shares under a preferential or transferrable voting system too. Not that that will stop it being the narrative if this is the result.
Except this isn't a preferential or transferrable voting system so, yes, the poll does of course show exactly what TSE is saying.
How many Restore would be non-voters if the party wasn't on the ballot?
Indeed, I don't think Restore will do as well as shown because I suspect a lot of their support is people who wont be arsed for various reasons on the day itself.
Oh I agree. Just pointing out the fallacy of JSpring's claims
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
That the Ukranians now have the capability to strike with large drones and missiles anywhere in the occupied territories, has again been a gamechanger for the war.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
I have said since the beginning that logistics win wars and that is Russia's problem. Especially if NATO stands behind Ukraine.
Unfortunately the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire is immense and they keep saying they will on current contact lines, not their actual borders which should be the demand.
If Russia is on the verge of losing Crimea what stops Putin from "magnaminously" offering a ceasefire?
Yes, there's an imbalance there which has encouraged Putin to prolong the war because he always knows that Ukraine will be under immense pressure to accept a ceasefire if he pushes things too far and Russia starts to go into reverse.
But this is why the Ukrainian focus on Crimea is so interesting.
Suppose you are in the Ukrainian leadership and your war aim is to recover all sovereign Ukrainian territory. Not only do you need to militarily defeat Russia, you need to do so in such a way that prevents Russia from avoiding defeat by offering a ceasefire.
The way you do that is to liberate Crimea first. If Ukraine is able to land and supply troops in Crimea then they've created a situation in which Putin is much less likely to offer a ceasefire - he will be determined to retake all of Crimea before freezing the frontline.
The Russian Crimea garrison should just surrender.
This is interesting, from a Change.org email. Why Sikh leaders are demanding a public enquiry:
Dabinderjit Singh, chief executive for political engagement at the Sikh Federation, has started a Change.org petition demanding a statutory public inquiry into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak, and the institutions that failed him.
The petition argues that multi-agency oversights contributed to Henry’s death; that police conduct at the scene was seriously deficient; and that a criminal trial at Southampton Crown Court not only failed to deliver justice for his family but brought the sacred Kirpan — a Sikh religious symbol — needlessly into disrepute.
do you agree? Sign Dabinderjit Singh’s petition today.
There was a lot of reporting that appeared to suggest the Sikh ceremonial knife was the murder weapon, but that wasn’t actually the case.
The Sikh community are worried that there will now be pressure to remove the religious exemption that exists for carrying these ceremonial knives in public.
Most Sikhs wear basically a badge in the shape of a dagger. It's tiny and could not seriously be called a weapon. The killer also had one. He did not need to carry an actual knife for religious purposes.
The murderer was not carrying a kirpan, but he did justify his carrying of a deadly weapon by referencing the law concerning carrying them. That makes the law just as much a contributing factor as it would be if he had stabbed Nowak using a kirpan.
No, it doesn’t. That logic says that the law is to blame for offences committed by “sovereign citizens”.
If someone breaks the law (or falsely claims a safe harbour) the law isn’t a contributing factor
He would still have been breaking the law if he had stabbed someone with a kirpan - there are laws against stabbing people. What's under consideration is whether repeal of the law permitting carrying weapons of this type would make the public safer. This case makes that impossible to deny.
Does it? The number of stabbings (even if down on 1977) suggests laws against using knives are routinely ignored, let alone carrying them.
Given that the killer was carrying a deadly weapon unchallenged because he claimed a religious exemption, yes.
If unchallenged, he did not need to claim anything. But as it happened, the knife covered by the exemption was different from the knife used to kill Nowak. And any exemption would not have covered murder in any case.
The "Kirpan" law has been in place since 1988, and the numbers of murders over those 38 years involving a kirpan is 0. It is hard to deny that there is some increased risk but experience tells us it is completely negligible and would be a complete waste of government time to legislate on, unless it is all about virtue signalling*.
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
It’s my understanding that the various laws on knives have endotoxins for religious and cultural usage.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
It seems to have passed by without notice or significant controversy for decades, until a lying murderer lied about the weapon he was using. So the experience and case law the police, courts and other establishments have been using is not problematic and is functioning well.
It’s the classic where a wanker spoils the quiet, sensible arrangement that has worked for 99.999%, for decades.
What I'd like to know is does the religious extension also cover my light saber? And if so is there a max strength of the kyber crystal that powers it?
Although many fans have attempted to build something like a lightsaber with real cutting power, I think only one - Hacksmith Industries - has bought one to market, and at present only in a mini version. It's basically a cigar lighter with a 7 to 8 inch "blade". They cost $150 Canadian
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
That the Ukranians now have the capability to strike with large drones and missiles anywhere in the occupied territories, has again been a gamechanger for the war.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
I have said since the beginning that logistics win wars and that is Russia's problem. Especially if NATO stands behind Ukraine.
Unfortunately the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire is immense and they keep saying they will on current contact lines, not their actual borders which should be the demand.
If Russia is on the verge of losing Crimea what stops Putin from "magnaminously" offering a ceasefire?
Yes, there's an imbalance there which has encouraged Putin to prolong the war because he always knows that Ukraine will be under immense pressure to accept a ceasefire if he pushes things too far and Russia starts to go into reverse.
But this is why the Ukrainian focus on Crimea is so interesting.
Suppose you are in the Ukrainian leadership and your war aim is to recover all sovereign Ukrainian territory. Not only do you need to militarily defeat Russia, you need to do so in such a way that prevents Russia from avoiding defeat by offering a ceasefire.
The way you do that is to liberate Crimea first. If Ukraine is able to land and supply troops in Crimea then they've created a situation in which Putin is much less likely to offer a ceasefire - he will be determined to retake all of Crimea before freezing the frontline.
The Russian Crimea garrison should just surrender.
That would force Putin's hand.
That would be existential for Putin. Which means anything could happen next.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
Why? The extra defence needs are not going to be a one off investment, they are going to be a permanent element of government spending (however it is now dressed up). So isn't taxes the obvious way to raise the money? If we were in the middle of a war that's different, but I can't see the justification for requiring our grandchildren to pay for it.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
I agree. We need to accept we are effectively moving to a wartime situation and act and spend accordingly. I still think we need to have a radical rethink of Government and what we expect it to provide but that doesn't detract from the basic argument that we need to spend far more on defence right now because once we have moved to the armed conflict stage it will be way too late.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
Why? The extra defence needs are not going to be a one off investment, they are going to be a permanent element of government spending (however it is now dressed up). So isn't taxes the obvious way to raise the money? If we were in the middle of a war that's different, but I can't see the justification for requiring our grandchildren to pay for it.
What obligations do we have to future generations? And why? They will have the technology and extra economic resources to look after themselves.
I can see an emotional feeling towards our children and grandchildren but for me it ends there.
Large fuel queues in Krasnodar yesterday evening. Crimeans have been driving across the bridge to refuel there which has spread the shortages.
The levels of range anxiety must be pretty high over there.
So many ranges to be anxious about.
I've seen a video from someone in Crimea riding their horse about, and I'd guess a certain amount of travel range from a horse might be easier to guarantee than with a car right now. A supply of oats is safer to store than fuel.
I haven't seen any videos from smug Russians in Crimea with an EV and solar panels though.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
I don't believe Starmer is bold enough for such a plan. His inevitable immediate replacement could do exactly that. The stillborn DIP was looking at solutions ten to fifteen years away. If we have a crisis it is not fifteen years away.
One thing is clear there isn't room for 3 right wing Parties and the tired old one of the 3 is Kemis Tories
Not hard to see more Tory defections.
The Tories have a stark choice become the third choice Fringe right wing Party under Kemi or target the centre ground, sensible One Nation Tory Party under Cleverly or Hunt.
There is a lot of fertile ground there that would not touch the current Tory Leadership with a barge pole
No, this is precisely wrong.
If it looked like Reform could simply replace the Tories, and be a harder right version of the Tories, then the threat to the Tories is very strong. Why view for weak tea, infested with wets Tories, when you can vote for 100% proof Reform?
But if Restore are splitting the Reform vote then it's not so simple. It's easier for the Tories to remain the leading party of the right with a three-way split, and Reform's ascendancy on the right looks less inevitable.
You have not mentioned the c word
CENTRE
Thats where the traditional hard core Tory vote sits.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
I just don't understand why people think that using the words, "war bonds," suddenly allows them to borrow more and avoid having to face the reality of doing things they don't want to do in terms of cutting spending elsewhere and raising taxes.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
I predicted about a week ago that Russian control of Crimea was going to collapse within months. I think Ukraine are ahead of schedule.
Putin will carry on a broken back war, in the style of Sir Ralph Richardson in The Shape of Things To Come.
If he loses Crimea, that could open a window for him.
On the fourth or fifth floor I would say.
Shocking ignorance.
Salvatore Maroni: [Batman holds him out over a ledge] From one professional to another: if you're trying to scare somebody, pick a better spot. From this height, the fall wouldn't kill me. Batman: I'm counting on it. [he drops Maroni off the ledge, who screams as he falls to the ground and breaks his legs]
I watched a YouTube video once of a trauma surgeon discussing the events of the Home Alone films, and at what point the injuries to the Wet Bandits would have been fatal. Apparently falling from the 4th floor is the 50-50 point between surviving or not.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
War Bonds something I've advocated since 2021.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
I just don't understand why people think that using the words, "war bonds," suddenly allows them to borrow more and avoid having to face the reality of doing things they don't want to do in terms of cutting spending elsewhere and raising taxes.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
The point of bonds is that they are paid back in a relatively short period of time. They are not a permanent increase in spending, but a means of bringing future spending forward.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
What’s the current cost to the UK of the Ukraine war, both in terms of military support (in actual money, not made-up military accounting), and in benefits to Ukranian refugees and host families in the UK?
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
The total figure given by the government is £21.8bn since February 2022.
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
Well if you give them £5m in crypto....
Sorry, thought you said "fundable".
Anyone know why the Farage donation wasn't paid in crypto so it would have been impossible/difficult to trace. Know sod all about crypto but it seems a fundamental schoolboy error to me.
he would have had to declare the source when buying one of his numerous houses with it
"Police have launched a criminal investigation into an officer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems to "create evidential material in a number of cases"."
Do we know if Restore and Reform voters are fully fungible?
Well if you give them £5m in crypto....
Sorry, thought you said "fundable".
Anyone know why the Farage donation wasn't paid in crypto so it would have been impossible/difficult to trace. Know sod all about crypto but it seems a fundamental schoolboy error to me.
he would have had to declare the source when buying one of his numerous houses with it
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense - i.e. that the country is good for the money. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due. So it's relevant without it being a scenario where the total amount of debt is reduced.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation." And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
The bond markets will accept higher borrowing during war, because the survival of the state is at risk, and if the state does not survive then none of the existing government debt gets repaid.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
That's not how it works. There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves. The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It is what all the various fiscal rules have been about, and why British budget plans continue to include fictional increases in fuel duty in future years, so that the budget deficit can be shown to be reduced at the end of the budget plan.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
You said "But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid."
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments. Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
I was using "repaid" in an informal sense. But if the government lose the confidence of the bond market then they won't be able to roll over debt, and so existing debt won't be able to be repaid when it falls due.
Big "IF" there. They mustn't do a Truss. But that was very extreme.
The challenge to the Treasury and the Chancellor is to do it in a way that doesn't lose the confidence of the bond market. And no excuses.
I'm sure I pointed out on day 1 - that the likely result was Burnham winning because Restore split the Reform vote.
I disagree with the "Restore will cost Reform the election" narrative. The pool of non-voters that Reform could try to get to vote for them is much bigger than the pool of Restore voters.
Will 1000 Restore canvassers knocking on doors change people's' view? Would have thought they are much more likely to be pissed off by this.
Comments
* Surely not, as if there is one thing the patriotic right hates it is virtue signalling........(done by others)......
OUT
Our aged out of date hugely expensive nuclear deterrent.
Tell the Yanks to stuff it up their backsides and cease all ongoing payments.
It's a burden
It offers nothing
Dispensible
Reinvest in drones and modern technology.
As I keep saying the biggest threat to national security, and by orders of magnitude, is AI. At the moment we can't see the wood for the trees.
As Carns seems to have noticed, the US shutting off tech access, for whatever reason, is a risk to the UK and/or Europe that we haven't made any substantial provision for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy8wppwdxl6o
Whether we’d want to is a different question. It’s a massive operation and a lot of the money goes out to FIFA.
https://x.com/tendar/status/2065749958452518939
Now only the Kerch Bridge left, and the Russians really don’t want to use it for anything heavy or flammable. The starving out of the Russian Army is going according to plan.
There is no actual definition of what that is in the laws.
So no literal definition of what is a Kirpan or Sgian dubh etc.
The problem is then who defines such things. The police and courts seem to have been using customary usage to create case law.
It might in the future.
The Russian logistics chain is quickly breaking down behind the front lines, main roads are littered with burned-out trucks, and trains are also getting bombed on a daily basis. Logistics wins and loses wars, if you can’t get food, fuel, and ammunition to the troops at the front…
Russian troops on the southern front complain that they don't have enough drones to attack Ukraine with, because they are having to use them to bring in supplies of food.
The mass bombardment of Kherson city with glide bombs last night, and the shelling of Sumy, are not directly militarily consequential, but Ukraine needs to be able to defend their cities somehow.
It is difficult to overstate just how dumb, ignorant, stupid, the people who currently govern the United States are.
Here is the Homeland Security Secretary claiming that the unionists & loyalists in *Northern* Ireland ‘want to be Irish’ & want to be in Ireland. Pure ignorance.
https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/2065390779334344998?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://x.com/kysportsradio/status/2065642110217330731?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
All they need to do is automate the racism and sexism and we can cut the Met by half and increase productivity at the same time.
If he loses Crimea, that could open a window for him.
https://x.com/lxsummer1/status/2065694474227871948
They really need to stay away from tall buildings.
Salvatore Maroni: [Batman holds him out over a ledge] From one professional to another: if you're trying to scare somebody, pick a better spot. From this height, the fall wouldn't kill me.
Batman: I'm counting on it.
[he drops Maroni off the ledge, who screams as he falls to the ground and breaks his legs]
Unfortunately the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire is immense and they keep saying they will on current contact lines, not their actual borders which should be the demand.
If Russia is on the verge of losing Crimea what stops Putin from "magnaminously" offering a ceasefire?
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.
So it's a defence to a prosecution to say the knife was carried for religious reasons, but the burden is supposed to be on the defendant to show that. In essence it is a matter of fact, the defendant has to show that he had the article with him for religious reasons. If a Sikh had a kirpan on him for other than religious reasons, while admittedly that might be hard to prove, he doesn't have the defence.
For example, if a Sikh online threatened to harm someone with a kirpan and then was arrested with the blade on the way to commit an offence then, theoretically, he won't have the defence because the prosecution could show that the item was not with him for religious reasons, but to cause harm. If another Sikh had exactly the same form of knife with him but had made no such threats then he'd be more likely to have the defence.
Case law exists to fill in the gaps in legislation that can't cover every single eventuality.
If it looked like Reform could simply replace the Tories, and be a harder right version of the Tories, then the threat to the Tories is very strong. Why view for weak tea, infested with wets Tories, when you can vote for 100% proof Reform?
But if Restore are splitting the Reform vote then it's not so simple. It's easier for the Tories to remain the leading party of the right with a three-way split, and Reform's ascendancy on the right looks less inevitable.
It wasn’t even a three stage nuclear weapon, and they get all sniffy.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/is-reform-heading-for-its-own-climate-crisis/ar-AA25xlOy?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6a2d53091929434d94785dae653ffc82&ei=20
"Research by Global Witness has shown that eight out of 10 of England’s most flood-prone constituencies are projected to vote in a Reform MP at the next election, which has already proven true in Boston and Skegness with deputy leader Richard Tice elected as their MP in 2024."
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/2065767692854792541
Map of Crimean bridges:
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/2065780906187444684
There’s also restrictions in Moscow and St. Petersberg, 20 litre limits for petrol. That’s not going to get you far in a very large country.
https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2065697645436227879
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/why-was-penny-mordaunt-the-one-to-carry-the-sword-of-state-645671b9d2ca9.jpg
Certainly firmed up my mind that renationalisation is a really bad idea, we could get even worse quality water and even more sewage dumps.
*This* is a knife:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&hs=thj&sca_esv=b9deebf3d4eef4da&sxsrf=ANbL-n7dcDF8bA0kQfiZf6qIIdf3Q202FA:1781357315629&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-YQanUcJSoe62luYRIM6gsUdrPbLi6w63glmGbBPeGKs4L7_ndoqDk-0jwJiw9KyfvquLvwel5d4wRoroBFWxs0oJy_TGdP0Dk30UFMPqzosQyIJyeEanq4e_7LmuUktj-n-zCDVYsJSSSHF50FlOGKSZ1EKTVX40VnpBiSto53fd3Eu41duBQ_mCGTWe-PPtmtcGORjmRnXIDYFpfamnXJW0Y0ebjRjjqblbVULVPbX_JfCLQ&q=thats+not+a+knife+gif&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPkpCQqYSVAxW9WUEAHbY0JHIQtKgLegQIERAB&biw=384&bih=642&dpr=2.81#sv=CAMSVxoyKhBlLVdseTg4WDZtMzVWR25NMg5XbHk4OFg2bTM1VkduTToOVkI2bTdQa0JBbVFJbE0gBCoXCgFzEhBlLVdseTg4WDZtMzVWR25NGAEwAUoECAEQAhgHIL_oku4ESggQAhgBIAIoAQ
But this is why the Ukrainian focus on Crimea is so interesting.
Suppose you are in the Ukrainian leadership and your war aim is to recover all sovereign Ukrainian territory. Not only do you need to militarily defeat Russia, you need to do so in such a way that prevents Russia from avoiding defeat by offering a ceasefire.
The way you do that is to liberate Crimea first. If Ukraine is able to land and supply troops in Crimea then they've created a situation in which Putin is much less likely to offer a ceasefire - he will be determined to retake all of Crimea before freezing the frontline.
Truss really upset the bond markets by her cavalier cutting of taxes with a complete rejection of the OBR or any expert opinion of the consequences. But that was very extreme.
If I were Starmer I would get Bowler, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and Rachel Reeves in a room and say to Bowler "We are going to provide an extra £20b for defence by borrowing it, a War Bond if you like. I want you to find the best way of doing and presenting this. I don't want any objections. Just do it. If you feel you can't, then I'm happy to accept your resignation."
And then to Rachel "Rachel I need your support on this. If not, then I'm happy to accept your resignation too."
That would force Putin's hand.
https://hacksmith.store/en-gb/products/mini-saber-gen-2-concept-edition-sunset
Other, non-hot but still retractable and go whumm, whumm are widely available.
I don't think you can work that argument absent total war like WWI and WWII, simply by calling the extra debt war bonds.
Remember that the bond market has been very lenient in allowing Britain to borrow vast sums of money already to spend on whatever it likes. But it's done so because there's always be a plan to stop borrowing within x years, and so there's been confidence that the money can be repaid.
If your government finance plan involves borrowing so much that you can't even create a theoretical explanation of how you would close the deficit in five years then you shouldn't expect anyone to willingly lend you money, because they would have no confidence in being repaid.
They will have the technology and extra economic resources to look after themselves.
I can see an emotional feeling towards our children and grandchildren but for me it ends there.
I've seen a video from someone in Crimea riding their horse about, and I'd guess a certain amount of travel range from a horse might be easier to guarantee than with a car right now. A supply of oats is safer to store than fuel.
I haven't seen any videos from smug Russians in Crimea with an EV and solar panels though.
Would have worked pre Truss.
Harder now but the question remains
Who in the Millitary and Civil Service do you trust to procure mid 21st century equipment and not late 20th century weaponry
Because that is money that no longer needs to be spent once we’ve put Putin back in his box, and should be able to be taken into account by the bond markets.
CENTRE
Thats where the traditional hard core Tory vote sits.
There's never a plan to stop borrowing or repay all the debt. Any specific debt will repaid when it falls due by rolling it over and borrowing more. That is how businesses finance themselves.
The UK public debt is about equal to the UK's annual income (GDP). Households often have mortgages much in excess of 100% of their annual income.
It's make-believe.
Trump gets a lot of criticism for his complete detachment from reality, but this idea of war bonds is a similar level of reality denial.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-support-to-ukraine-factsheet/uk-support-to-ukraine-factsheet
But I don't think that includes the spending on Ukrainian refugees in the UK, and it probably overstates the military support (if equipment provided from stocks was valued at its replacement cost).
It's a pretty small sum of money compared to the increase in defence spending that Britain has signed up to, so it doesn't affect them necessity of having to choose between some mix of spending cuts and tax increases if Britain intends to fulfil that commitment.
I think your are missing deficit and debt. I did not claim that there's a plan for Britain to repay the debt, but there is a plan to close the deficit - and that's what creates the confidence to allow Britain to continue borrowing.
I'm not confusing deficit and debt. It looks as if you are.
The current fiscal rules are that day-to-day government spending must be covered by tax revenues rather than by borrowing, but the government can borrow to fund long-term capital investments.
Some defence expenditure will be capital investment.
The point being that we can only borrow if there is credibility over the country's solvency, and that means demonstrating that there are limits on our borrowing.
Truss showed how brittle that credibility was. Simply adding increases in defence spending to already high levels of borrowing isn't credible in my view.
The challenge to the Treasury and the Chancellor is to do it in a way that doesn't lose the confidence of the bond market. And no excuses.
https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/2065792397053694048
A busy couple of days for the Ukranians.