# Ban on airtravel



## Stigmorgan (28 Jun 2022)

Just seen this on another forum I frequent,









UK to ban all air travel by 2050 - The Counter Signal


A report commissioned by the UK government says the entire country will ban most air travel within ten years and all air travel by 2050.




thecountersignal.com


----------



## Adam W. (28 Jun 2022)

I don't believe that will happen at all.


----------



## Daniel2 (28 Jun 2022)

Can't see that happening.


----------



## artie (28 Jun 2022)

clickbait


----------



## guineafowl21 (28 Jun 2022)

Doubtful - a very ‘courageous’ move for an island nation.


----------



## MARK.B. (28 Jun 2022)

I don't think that this will happen, but I do think that air travel especially on long haul flights will become so expensive that many who enjoy a holiday to distant lands will no longer be able to do so . Of course with advances in technology who can say what may happen in 10-20-30 years time.


----------



## johna.clements (28 Jun 2022)

I could see taxes being introduced to reduce the amount of flights but I can't see how it could be banned by the UK government. People just drive their electric car to France and cat a plane there if they want to go long haul.

It would be better to tax flights and give everybody an allowance that could be used to offset train and ferry fairs rather than an actual flight.


----------



## thetyreman (28 Jun 2022)

seems like a scaremongering article, if there's money to be made then why would they just shut it all down?


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Jun 2022)

Presumably it will still be allowed for work events …


----------



## Adam W. (28 Jun 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Presumably it will still be allowed for work events …


That's good, I need to work on my tan.


----------



## seanf (28 Jun 2022)

If you put any faith in Media Bias Fact Check, they rate the website as:



> *Overall, we rate The Counter Signal Far-Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories, a complete lack of transparency, and false claims*



Sean


----------



## TRITON (28 Jun 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> Doubtful - a very ‘courageous’ move for an island nation.


But its the tories. They're just short sighted.


----------



## Scruples (29 Jun 2022)

TRITON said:


> But its the tories. They're just short sighted.


Not really. The Tories are pro -business and wouldn't push an agenda like that. Aircraft designers are working frantically to cut emissions though. Don't listen to fake stories.


----------



## LittleEars (29 Jun 2022)

The article states there was a report.

Someone was assigned the task of investigating how to reach zero and this report is what they concluded. It doesn't mean the government will do it or that Boris Johnson has even read it.


----------



## HamsterJam (29 Jun 2022)

Actually “According to the authors of the report, the only way that the UK government can meet their Absolute Zero obligations is to phase out all air travel, implementing an outright ban in 2050”

Note this is different to saying the UK will ban air travel. 
We could just not meet those targets, find another way to achieve the goal or most likely revise the target.


----------



## isaac3d (29 Jun 2022)

Ban air travel in the UK? Ha ha! They may be talking about local flights "within" the UK, but even then there will always be flights for government officials, royalty and those with "loadsa money". Reducing air travel in general is an excellent idea. The idea that you can travel thousands of miles in a few hours for a few quid is totally unsustainable with our current technology (ie fossil fuel based). People of this era have grown up with the idea that they can flit off on holiday anywhere, anytime and as often as they like for peanuts as though it is some kind of fundamental right. Well, they do so at the cost of landing their (and everyone else's) children and grandchildren with huge environmental problems. Does that attitude strike anyone as selfish? Or is it just me?


----------



## MorrisWoodman12 (29 Jun 2022)

Is this just yet another diversion to take our minds off what is really going on?


----------



## Geoff_S (29 Jun 2022)

I couldn’t see who “the authors” are? Did I miss that?

Edit: I did, it’s Absolute Zero


----------



## TRITON (29 Jun 2022)

Scruples said:


> Not really. The Tories are pro -business and wouldn't push an agenda like that. Aircraft designers are working frantically to cut emissions though. Don't listen to fake stories.


I dont. I look at a broad spectrum of news and listen to a wide range of views coupled with long experience of how the tory party(and other parties) have operated within my lifetime.

I think it is you who is unaware and uninformed to the point you readily dismiss criticism.


----------



## trvlr (29 Jun 2022)

Always wise to be “very” careful one is not being fooled by a site which may well be something akin to Infonews which peddled, and allegedly still peddles, what they claim as genuine facts, which are later shown to be “fake news” (as per Trumpet…). The web allows all manner of disinformation, rumours with no substance, alleged “genuine/true“ reports from whomver/wherever to be be posted, and thus circulated in due course, and that site seems to be one…; who knows who’s behind it, and their motives too…? Oil barons come to mind, as do Russian, Chinese state organisations, as do far right groups in the US and elsewhere; not forgetting extreme left groups too?

Also one can bias a presentation of data from an alleged publication (selective editing etc.. of content and quotations) to give s specific POV; and often with less than a true representation of what was said; and/or with intent to deliberately mislead. Currently Putin is up to this game; and no doubt many others about the Ukraine situation are as well.Trumpet and his far right chums, the NRA, and Christian Taliban are well versed in the art. Goebbels a master of the "art" too and would have a field day if around today with all the web offers... During Obama's battle to establish a fairier medical system in the US... the HMOs, the Republicans (especially and the far right) - often via FOX news - misrepresented the NHS here and the equivalent in Canada. Clever use of words, biased reports and so on were considered the "real" facts - the truth; when in fact they were complete fabrications.

The tabloids use a similar approach with banner headlines; and sadly some of the broad sheets have adopted similar tactics. Big headlines with a deliberate slant to influence the reader; who is unlikely, in many cases, to read further and discover the finer details often buried in smaller print...; or research more fully both sources and content - and the biases of the writers /publishers.


----------



## Spectric (29 Jun 2022)

guineafowl21 said:


> Doubtful - a very ‘courageous’ move for an island nation.


But the Romans managed to invade and they did not have air travel and the vikings came along to rape and pillage but again no air travel so we just go back to boats or maybe airships but no hydrogen please.


----------



## johna.clements (29 Jun 2022)

Spectric said:


> But the Romans managed to invade and they did not have air travel and the vikings came along to rape and pillage but again no air travel so we just go back to boats or maybe airships but no hydrogen please.



You missed out trains, which are often faster than flying now up to about 500 miles.

Airships are a bit slow but could be good for getting to islands or crossing to France. If they could load passengers whilst attached to the top of a tower they could be used to get directly to a city centre or railway station. Maybe catch an airship from Weymouth railway station to Cherbourg railway station etc.


----------



## Spectric (29 Jun 2022)

johna.clements said:


> You missed out trains,


Yes I forgot about the channel tunnel, direct rail link into europe so yes maybe we don't need planes and getting rid of them would help global warming. They found out that there was a reduction in air temperature following 911 when they grounded all aircraft so imagine the impact if that happened globally.


----------



## Just4Fun (29 Jun 2022)

Spectric said:


> ... maybe we don't need planes and getting rid of them would help global warming. They found out that there was a reduction in air temperature following 911 when they grounded all aircraft so imagine the impact if that happened globally.


hmmm That is interesting. The drastic reduction in air travel due to covid apparently had the opposite effect. Click here for details.


----------



## Jonm (29 Jun 2022)

Looking very briefly at the referenced report, it is saying what needs to be done for UK to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 using existing technology. It seems quite lightweight, all I could see about electricity generational was “Electricity sector and infrastructure: Absolute Zero requires a 3x expansion in non-emitting electricity generation, storage, distribution and load balancing“

Given what it’s terms of reference are, it is probably about right. It is more or less what we would have to do to reach the targets we are aiming for using current technology.

As for the original article, it is just sensationalist nonsense.


----------



## heimlaga (29 Jun 2022)

Banning most air travel is the only sensible way to go. We just cannot get away from the fact. Exceptions could maybe be made for places like the Faroes and Shetland and for specialists flown in to sort out oil rig breakdowns or mayor wildfires and specialist doctors flown in to provide certain types of care that local doctors cannot provide.
I just doubt anyone except maybe some foolhardy third world dictator is courageous enough to be the first to do it........ but it has to be done.......


----------



## Jonm (29 Jun 2022)

Looking very briefly at the referenced report, it is saying what needs to be done for UK to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 using existing technology. It seems quite lightweight/superficial, all I could see about electricity generation was “Electricity sector and infrastructure: Absolute Zero requires a 3x expansion in non-emitting electricity generation, storage, distribution and load balancing“

Given what it’s terms of reference are, it is probably about right and it has a few universities behind it.

As for the original article, normal sensationalist nonsense.

Here is a link to the original report


http://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf


----------



## Limey Lurker (30 Jun 2022)

Scruples said:


> Not really. The Tories are pro -business and wouldn't push an agenda like that. Aircraft designers are working frantically to cut emissions though. Don't listen to fake stories.


The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".


----------



## Spectric (30 Jun 2022)

The UK stands as much chance of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 as there is of unicorns in reagents park. 



Limey Lurker said:


> The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".


Always been a big problem with the torries, many of their policies cannot be implemented because it would impact there rich financial supporters like property developers who themselves are destroying our countryside for the sake of wealth and not looking at building homes fit for the future. 

If that clown Borris continues to provoke Putin then it will be good bye britain because no amount of money poured into defence can save us from what he could unleash on us and the money would be better spent on the NHS and other services that benefit the majority but the very best outcome will be another cold war that will drain the finances of the west and impact us all.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (30 Jun 2022)

Air travel does not need to be banned to be net zero. In 30 years time it may be fuelled by more efficient batteries, hydrogen or plant based crops (ethanol etc). The article is at best superficial selective journalistic babble.

Society needs to be clear on priorities. Currently ££ tends to be the dominating factor. Speed/time usually takes second place. Emissions are often subordinate to traveller convenience and preference.

Taxation on air travel may (and should) increase to reduce demand, but needs international support. Tourism is an obvious beneficiary of air travel. For business investment and activity unimpeded air travel is an enabler which individual countries may use as a policy tool. 

So it would be a very courageous government which bans, rather than just taxes, air travel.


----------



## thetyreman (30 Jun 2022)

what next shall we ban freedom of speech? and also whilst were at it lets ban all unions, all human rights, all working rights and label anybody who's left leaning as a marxist shall we? if we allow anybody to ban air travel I will be out on the streets protesting, once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power, this is how fascism started in the 20s and 30s, people need to stand against it in huge numbers.


----------



## Jonm (30 Jun 2022)

Spectric said:


> no amount of money poured into defence can save us from what he could unleash on us


“Could” being the operative word. But they would get the same back hence MAD.

History tells us that Dictators/bullies are not appeased by giving them what they say they want, that is just the start. Sweden has been fiercely neutral since the Napoleonic wars, not any more, they obviously see Russia as a dangerous aggressor.

If we (NATO) do not have adequate conventional forces, faced with Russian aggression then I cannot see USA, UK, France going nuclear first, unless their respective homelands are invaded. So we have to be able to stop Russia with conventional forces.should “western” Europe be invaded by Russia.

I agree Boris is a clown, and a lot worse.


----------



## Spectric (30 Jun 2022)

Jonm said:


> But they would get the same back hence MAD.


But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?


----------



## Jonm (30 Jun 2022)

Spectric said:


> But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?


Peace in our time


----------



## Jonm (30 Jun 2022)

Limey Lurker said:


> The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".


That and staying in power with lies and misrepresentation. If Johnson told me it was raining I would look out the window to check.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (30 Jun 2022)

As would I if any PM in the last 30 years told me.


----------



## Jonm (30 Jun 2022)

heimlaga said:


> specialists flown in to sort out oil rig breakdowns


I do not think we will have any of those.


----------



## Scruples (1 Jul 2022)

Limey Lurker said:


> The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".


Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.


----------



## Scruples (1 Jul 2022)

TRITON said:


> I dont. I look at a broad spectrum of news and listen to a wide range of views coupled with long experience of how the tory party(and other parties) have operated within my lifetime.
> 
> I think it is you who is unaware and uninformed to the point you readily dismiss criticism.


Yes me too and I know that when the Tories are in we have growth, excepting the war years and pandemics, my shares grow faster. When my shares grow, it indicates to me that the economy is doing alright. This isn't about loving or hating a party, it's knowing when you're better off.


----------



## whereistheceilidh (1 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.


I would suggest, Scruples, that this is rather a simplistic view of the right/left, rich/poor debates. Certainly at the moment it can take quite a bit of effort just to stay afloat in this climate without getting rich....or perhaps even needing to. Having enough is good for some folks. Quite a few rich people have merely worked with what they have been given already, either through inheritance or education.... or a leg up.
You mention shares... I appreciate they are needed in this ecconomy, but it disturbs me that quite often in this country the people who actually do the work are not given share options ..or even a share of the profits. Just sayin......


----------



## plum60 (1 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> Yes me too and I know that when the Tories are in we have growth, excepting the war years and pandemics, my shares grow faster. When my shares grow, it indicates to me that the economy is doing alright. This isn't about loving or hating a party, it's knowing when you're better off.


Shareholders take the profits though not the community. I remember when my dad said the factory next door was moving all it's production to Hungary where labour was cheaper and they could produce the construction vehicles/equipment for less money. But he pointed out that the objects themselves never get reduced in price for the consumer only the profits go up and the shareholders split it between themselves with a much smaller amount going in tax to central gov. Lost jobs lost industry but happy shareholders isn't better for community the nhs etc etc.
Uk people should have some civic education at school like mainland European countries if you ask me which might create a nation that thinks properly that respects and likes each-other a bit more than I keep noticing these days.


----------



## Keith Cocker (1 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?


Wrong, wrong and wrong on every count.


----------



## Scruples (1 Jul 2022)

Interesting opinion but not without flaws. It is because some companies issue shares to to raise money for their businesses. Those businesses can then, with good management and few unforeseen interruptions, expand and employ more people who, in time, can save and prosper and, who knows, they too can invest in the economy. 

It is not I that see the world in black and white; it never is, but there is a link between the less well-off and left, as there is a link between well-off and the right. As more people in the middle are seeing the benefits of home ownership and better wages they are moving towards the right and it's why Labour has struggled to gain public support.
Modern 'relative poverty' is a more modern concept than it was in the post-war days. Then, we were really poor, thin, under-privileged with little prospects but, in some ways, happier because we weren't being told, continuously, that we were poor.


----------



## Scruples (1 Jul 2022)

plum60 said:


> Shareholders take the profits though not the community. I remember when my dad said the factory next door was moving all it's production to Hungary where labour was cheaper and they could produce the construction vehicles/equipment for less money. But he pointed out that the objects themselves never get reduced in price for the consumer only the profits go up and the shareholders split it between themselves with a much smaller amount going in tax to central gov. Lost jobs lost industry but happy shareholders isn't better for community the nhs etc etc.
> Uk people should have some civic education at school like mainland European countries if you ask me which might create a nation that thinks properly that respects and likes each-other a bit more than I keep noticing these days.


Shareholders get a return on their investment. The companies get funding from the shareholders to enable them to make profits and grow. The communities benefit by having more employment and jobs which allow people to earn money to pay taxes which benefit the country. 
Lost jobs, lost industires and happy shareholders is almoat an oxymoron.
In the 70s, I studied basic politics in a high school in Cornwall. I learned a lot about the Parliamentary processes and the reason why it's dangerous to ignore what's happening in the country and the world at large. We also did Community Service in homes around the school. Experience is invaluable, good and bad.


----------



## Spectric (1 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> Wrong, wrong and wrong on every count.


Why? It is the basis of survival where you don't risk the lives of say forty people in a lifeboat just trying to get four more in. It comes down to simple analysis where you have to weigh up the worst possible outcome and decide if that would be acceptable as a result of your actions and in this case it is no. What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so you are saying this is an acceptable gamble!


----------



## IZZY (1 Jul 2022)

isaac3d said:


> Ban air travel in the UK? Ha ha! They may be talking about local flights "within" the UK, but even then there will always be flights for government officials, royalty and those with "loadsa money". Reducing air travel in general is an excellent idea. The idea that you can travel thousands of miles in a few hours for a few quid is totally unsustainable with our current technology (ie fossil fuel based). People of this era have grown up with the idea that they can flit off on holiday anywhere, anytime and as often as they like for peanuts as though it is some kind of fundamental right. Well, they do so at the cost of landing their (and everyone else's) children and grandchildren with huge environmental problems. Does that attitude strike anyone as selfish? Or is it just me?


To say nothing about spreading disease's etc.


----------



## Jonm (1 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.


I think you need to read carefully what limey lurker actually said not what you think he said.


Limey Lurker said:


> The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".


He is talking about the governments personal wealth nothing about general wealth and the value of your shares.


----------



## Robbo60 (2 Jul 2022)

Phil Pascoe said:


> As would I if any PM in the last 30 years told me.


I do it with weather forecasters


----------



## AlanY (2 Jul 2022)

Limey Lurker said:


> The ONLY thing this particular Tory Government is "pro", is their personal wealth, and if they can increase their wealth by destroying Great Bitain, then it's "Good-bye Britain!".


I wonder if people have missed the fact that ALL modern politicians - and particularly Party Leaders - seem to have a managed to accumulate great wealth. The Kinnocks became very rich (how? They did ferk all!), Tony Blair became a multi-millionaire (as did his wife through being a 'top' HRA lawyer - an Act that her husband introduced and which is the bane of our society now). Blair also ensured that his wife's profession was exempted from IR35, meaning she does not even pay a fair tax on her 'earnings'. Odd that, for a 'socialist' party leader, eh? Nicola Sturgeon has somehow managed to accumulate between '£2 million and £5 million' in personal wealth from just 14 years on a First Ministers salary. How? Jeremy Corbyn is a millionaire on an MP's salary and he has never done a damned thing in his decades of protesting!

The point being, politicians looking to get rich is not a Tory phenomenon. And it is not new.


----------



## Auldfart2010 (2 Jul 2022)

Aaand, we're back to politics again.


----------



## Yorkieguy (2 Jul 2022)

The 'Absolute Zero' paper is just so simplistic and naïve, that really, the authors should be laughed off the face of the planet. I ought not to dignify it by taking the bait, but here are just three snippets:

Here is what they are saying will happen in the decade from 2020 to 2030:

QUOTE:

Living well:

The activities we most enjoy, according to the UK’s comprehensive time-use survey, are sports, social-life, eating, hobbies, games, computing, reading, tv, music, radio, volunteering (and sleeping!) We can all do more of these without any impact on emissions.

UNQUOTE.

Nonsense. All those activities have an impact of emissions. Consider hobbies – purchase of equipment, tools, materials, use of electricity for power tools. All of that involves sourcing materials, manufacturing, packaging, transportation.

Quite apart from that, a recent report said that on average, in the UK people spend upwards of six hours a day not actually engaging in any of the listed activities quoted above, but on social media - not even mentioned in the report, (which ironically - as a sedentary activity - does reduce emissions, apart from generating lots of hot air).

QUOTE:

Development of petrol/diesel engines ends; Any new vehicle introduced from now on must be compatible with Absolute Zero.

UNQUOTE.

2030 is just seven years away – the blink of an eye. 

It’s nonsense to say that new vehicles (which - if petrol/diesel cars cease production will be electric vehicles), must be compatible with Absolute Zero. What is never mentioned is the environmental ‘footprint’ of electric cars compared to petrol cars. Mining and refining lithium and cobalt for batteries, (from countries that aren’t exactly friendly, and are many thousands of miles away), then energy used in recycling batteries when they’re past their best. 

In an electric car, the energy storage is in a huge heavy battery with a limited life-span, which takes a lot of energy to produce, and to recycle. In a petrol car, the energy storage is in a petrol tank, which takes little energy to produce or to re-cycle and will last the life of the car.

QUOTE:

National consumption of beef and lamb drops by 50%, along with reduction in frozen ready meals and air-freighted food imports.

UNQUOTE.

Well, here we are, with no significant reduction in any of those things in the last two years, and 2030 just seven years to go to 2030.

Ho hum.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jul 2022)

Yorkieguy said:


> Yorkieguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yorkieguy said:
> ...


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jul 2022)

I couldn't get that quote to work properly for some reason.


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Why? It is the basis of survival where you don't risk the lives of say forty people in a lifeboat just trying to get four more in. It comes down to simple analysis where you have to weigh up the worst possible outcome and decide if that would be acceptable as a result of your actions and in this case it is no. What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so are you saying this is an acceptable gamble!



Your example of a lifeboat isn’t in my opinion really comparable to the decision to support a country that is trying to defend itself against blatant aggression.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2022)

Yorkieguy said:


> Well, here we are, with no significant reduction in any of those things in the last two years, and 2030 just seven years to go to 2030.
> 
> Ho hum.


Ho hum - exactly.
Things are changing very quickly. One consistent thing about many of the climate change observations is that they say things are changing faster than forecast. Probably because they are being over cautious about the climate change sceptic lobby, who have held things back and still are doing.
I reckon we have 5 years before things go very s**t shaped. Change seems to be irreversible. It will hit us too, but in different ways to places already on climate margin. e.g. 2 weeks of failed "just in time' deliveries would be difficult, 2 months would be a catastrophe.
PS I also think the big emphasis on electric vehicles is very short sighted - just boys hoping to hang on to their toys. Party's nearly over!


----------



## johna.clements (2 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Ho hum - exactly.
> Things are changing very quickly. One consistent thing about many of the climate change observations is that they say things are changing faster than forecast. Probably because they are being over cautious about the climate change sceptic lobby, who have held things back and still are doing.
> I reckon we have 5 years before things go very s**t shaped. Change seems to be irreversible. It will hit us too, but in different ways to places already on climate margin. e.g. 2 weeks of failed "just in time' deliveries would be difficult, 2 months would be a catastrophe.



Things aren't suddenly going to go to pot it is most likely to be like the lobster in the pot.

In the UK we will likely get more heavy rain, storms etc to some people will be flooded and everybody will pay more insurance and tax. 
Some plants will die off because of the hotter summers and new pests, changing the countryside like dutch elm.
There will be more wars abroad so more tax for our military and more refugees.
etc

Each thing is not big for everyone but they will slowly add up, slowly boiled.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Jul 2022)

Out of interest I refer folk to the Met Office:

Climate extremes

Many extremes for temperature, wind gust, rainfall, sunshine hours go back decades. Sunshine hours monthly record is held by Eastbourne in July 1911!

This is not to suggest we should be complacent about climate change - what humanity is doing is unsustainable for a whole range of reasons.

The UK is fortunate in having a temperate climate - changes are unlikely to be quickly catastrophic. It is also relatively wealthy - adaptation is a plausible response to moderate speed of change. 

Note - the world and society almost completely shut down at the start of Covid, and has been seriously compromised for two years. Yet the UK remained generally fed and watered. Shortages were an annoyance but hardly survival critical - toilet rolls, computer chips etc. 

Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Out of interest I refer folk to the Met Office:
> 
> Climate extremes
> 
> ...


There you go - a classic piece of climate change scepticism! Flawed is the word!
Normal "climate extremes" are not the same as "climate change", which is bringing about _abnormal_ climate extremes.
Even if our UK climate remains temperate (which it isn't doing - it's hotting up) we will be hit by secondary effects - fossil fuel usage, global food supplies etc etc.
The science isn't about "simple interpretation of short term trends" in fact is looking at evidence in the very long term, though geological time - ice core studies being just one.
Anyway you are looking at the wrong Met office page Terry. Understanding climate change


----------



## johna.clements (2 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Out of interest I refer folk to the Met Office:
> 
> Climate extremes
> 
> ...



The thing about extremes of weather is that they are distributed on a bell type graph. In the long run the extremes will happen by chance. When you shift the bell curve to the right, by putting more heat into the system the chances of events change. The odds of some events happening go up so they may now take place every forty years on average rather than a hundred. 

According to the Met office site that you linked of the twelve months in a year the highest recorded temperatures in England have occurred in five of those months since 2000. I have not looked at the other figures. 

Sunshine hours are not directly related to the temperature. Where I live we seem to be getting a lot less crisp sunny days in January, dull overcast seems to becoming the norm.


----------



## Keith Cocker (2 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Why? It is the basis of survival where you don't risk the lives of say forty people in a lifeboat just trying to get four more in. It comes down to simple analysis where you have to weigh up the worst possible outcome and decide if that would be acceptable as a result of your actions and in this case it is no. What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so you are saying this is an acceptable gamble!


This isn't comparable in my view. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of a sovereign territory. It was an act of aggression with severely damaging consequences for Ukraine. the Russian forces have been guilty of appalling acts. At a pragmatic level allowing Putin to get away with this puts a whole range of European countries from Finland to Moldavia at risk. We cannot allow him to get away with this otherwise the stability of Europe and the freedom of millions of people will be threatened. Its is already having a huge impact on the world economy, on food supplies, fuel costs and prices generally. The west should not appease Putin or shy away from this situation. We should be pouring resources into Ukraine to support them in every way possible. Not to do so is a much greater risk.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> This isn't comparable in my view. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of a sovereign territory. It was an act of aggression with severely damaging consequences for Ukraine. the Russian forces have been guilty of appalling acts. At a pragmatic level allowing Putin to get away with this puts a whole range of European countries from Finland to Moldavia at risk. We cannot allow him to get away with this otherwise the stability of Europe and the freedom of millions of people will be threatened. Its is already having a huge impact on the world economy, on food supplies, fuel costs and prices generally. The west should not appease Putin or shy away from this situation. We should be pouring resources into Ukraine to support them in every way possible. Not to do so is a much greater risk.


There's a lot of Putin apologists out there who say it was provoked - NATO expansionism etc.
But even if it was provoked the barbaric and brutal Russian reaction doesn't fit the narrative. They have enormous global economic power through fuel and food resources and could serve their ostensible interests far better through diplomacy or even peaceful economic bullying.
It makes the alternative narrative more convincing; that Putin, a crazed dictator in his dying days, is having megalomaniac fantasies about reclaiming the lost Russian empire of Peter the Great.
There could be no end to that, until he drops dead or the Russians have had enough of him.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Jul 2022)

I fully buy in to climate change concerns - simply consuming carbon based fuels at a rate ~1,000,000 times faster than they were created will cause disruption. It is also completely unsustainable - total reserves are effectively fixed - as with other resources.

Climate has constantly changed. This is not to diminish the concern, but expecting the pre-industrial era climate, if that is your datum, to remain forever unchanged is a nonsense.

The real issue is how quickly changes occur, their magnitude, and the ability to adapt. 

the UK lies in the middle of what is usually defined as "temperate" - tropics 23 degrees, artic circle 66 degrees, UK ~53 degrees. It seems unlikely that the UK will be unable to adapt to plausible climate changes given time.
as a fairly wealthy country the UK can adapt to slower changes. "Slow" is context related - hard infrastructure may take (say) 25-100 years, agricultural output more easily flexed.
The Met Office usually define climate as an average over 30 years. Climate (tipping points aside) does not change rapidly, but over multi-decadal timescales. Using record weather statistics to prove or disprove climate change is not defensible.

Many parts of the globe, which already experience more extreme climates cannot take so relaxed a view. Gross over population means that the poorest will suffer most. Blindingly obvious to my mind but the basic instinct to reproduce evidently renders it far too difficult to be addressed. 

With technologies now available, a much smaller global population could thrive on green energy and (almost) infinite resource availability given effective recycling. Concerns for the future would be several generations into the future - more speculation than real threat.


----------



## Limey Lurker (2 Jul 2022)

Jonm said:


> That and staying in power with lies and misrepresentation. If Johnson told me it was raining I would look out the window to check.


I'd first check to see if he'd sold the window!


----------



## Limey Lurker (2 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> Spoken like a true lefty. Without wealth there is no growth and fewer jobs with lower wages. Wealth doesn't increase on its own. It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people. People taking risks in new ideas and inventions. Without wealth there would be less tax revenue and the economy would weaker for it. It's always easy to attack the rich but it takes a lot more effort to get rich too.


 I AM a true lefty. What we DON'T need are the crooks and lying toads that comprise this present Government.


----------



## Jonm (2 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> There you go - a classic piece of climate change scepticism! Flawed is the word!
> Normal "climate extremes" are not the same as "climate change", which is bringing about _abnormal_ climate extremes.
> Even if our UK climate remains temperate (which it isn't doing - it's hotting up) we will be hit by secondary effects - fossil fuel usage, global food supplies etc etc.
> The science isn't about "simple interpretation of short term trends" in fact is looking at evidence in the very long term, though geological time - ice core studies being just one.
> Anyway you are looking at the wrong Met office page Terry. Understanding climate change


I think if you look at what Terry actually wrote you might find far less to disagree about. 

for example 



Terry - Somerset said:


> This is not to suggest we should be complacent about climate change


Are you suggesting we should be complacent about climate change?

Another example 



Terry - Somerset said:


> Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed


are you suggesting that we should look at simple interpretations of short term trends.


----------



## johna.clements (2 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I fully buy in to climate change concerns - simply consuming carbon based fuels at a rate ~1,000,000 times faster than they were created will cause disruption. It is also completely unsustainable - total reserves are effectively fixed - as with other resources.
> 
> Climate has constantly changed. This is not to diminish the concern, but expecting the pre-industrial era climate, if that is your datum, to remain forever unchanged is a nonsense.
> 
> ...



The rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere is rapid. When it has changed this rapidly before there has been global changes.

Very few people expect the climate to change to pre-industrial, that is a redherring on your part.

The UK is a trading nation. If the nations we trade with are effected by climate change our economy will be effected. We can not become like North Korea and cut ourselves off.

People who do not want to act are borrowing from their children in just the same way as people who want to cut income tax to zero and borrow the money.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jul 2022)




----------



## Jonm (2 Jul 2022)

Limey Lurker said:


> I AM a true lefty. What we DON'T need are the crooks and lying toads that comprise this present Government.


One does not have to be a “true leftie” to dislike this government. We know that all politicians lie or at least twist the truth at times but I think that Johnson is amoral. Blaming problems with sending kippers through the post on the EU when it was a UK regulation, nothing to do with the EU. Kipper rules Boris Johnson blamed on EU are actually British, says Brussels
More seriously he told the DUP there would be no border down the Irish Sea and promptly signed an agreement which did exactly that.
The lies go back at least to when he was a journalist and just continue.


----------



## Spectric (2 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> This isn't comparable in my view. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia was an unprovoked and unjustified invasion of a sovereign territory. It was an act of aggression with severely damaging consequences for Ukraine. the Russian forces have been guilty of appalling acts. At a pragmatic level allowing Putin to get away with this puts a whole range of European countries from Finland to Moldavia at risk. We cannot allow him to get away with this otherwise the stability of Europe and the freedom of millions of people will be threatened. Its is already having a huge impact on the world economy, on food supplies, fuel costs and prices generally. The west should not appease Putin or shy away from this situation. We should be pouring resources into Ukraine to support them in every way possible. Not to do so is a much greater risk.


Nobody is saying that it was not an unprovoked attack or that there is any justification to any form of war or conflict but we need to be honest with ourselves and be realistic. This has been brewing for some time and Nato along with the west are not squeaky clean in all of this, they could have put a lot more effort into diplomacy which is the only way we can all live in peace. You always need to look at the worst possible outcome in any decision making process and then base your actions upon whether this is something acceptable and you can live with, in this case you will not live with it because you may well be dust.

Russia cannot lose this conflict, whether we like that or not is irrelevant because it is fact, they may not win but if they lose then we will all lose and that is where my lifeboat analogy comes from. We supply the weapons to keep this war going and we get closer and closer to an unstopable escalation where the next level of weapons will be used, and even some Americans do realise the potential outcome, quote

"And if you think about just Virginia, where I happen to live, if there were a nuclear war—and keep in mind, they also have a very large and effective fleet of nuclear submarines that lie off the coast of the United States. They have a great number of nuclear-tipped missiles, and they can evade any defenses we have. So just in Virginia, if you look at it, all of Northern Virginia would be essentially annihilated. There would hardly be any human life remaining in Loudoun County, Prince William County, Fairfax County, Arlington, Alexandria. The Pentagon lies in in Arlington County: The Pentagon would simply be a glowing mass of molten sand. There would be no human life there. And there would be no human life for many miles around it. Just across the Potomac, the nation’s capital, there would be no life remaining in the nation’s capital. The Capitol building would disappear forever. All of the monuments, all of these glorious things—nothing would remain. 

If you go to the coast of Virginia, you have the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, you have the Port of Norfolk. You have you have the greatest accumulation of naval power on the face of the Earth. This is where we park all of our aircraft carriers, our nuclear submarines, all of those things. There would be nothing remaining. There would be _nothing remaining_ of any of those shipping industries there. "

It that could happen in the USA then in comparison we are nothing more than a canoe, so is doing the right thing really doing the right thing knowing what could happen, are a million lives worth several billion, this is not a decision about what is right or wrong, about doing the moral thing but a simple question of survival, prevention of a possible extinction event.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine knowing that the risk of escalation is just ramping up. Basically Nato has just been pouring fuel on the fire, had it kept out it would be over and we would not be facing the worst financial crisis for many decades that will drag on for some time. Now we are putting Putin into a corner, if faced with bad odds due to Nato weapons what do you think he will do. Just say ok and withdraw, hit Ukraine with something that will stop them in their tracks or deliver a substantial warning to Nato?


Ah the old appeasement argument, I'm OK **** everyone else. That's worked so well in the past.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Nobody is saying that it was not an unprovoked attack or that there is any justification to any form of war or conflict but we need to be honest with ourselves and be realistic. This has been brewing for some time and Nato along with the west are not squeaky clean in all of this, they could have put a lot more effort into diplomacy which is the only way we can all live in peace. You always need to look at the worst possible outcome in any decision making process and then base your actions upon whether this is something acceptable and you can live with, in this case you will not live with it because you may well be dust.
> 
> Russia cannot lose this conflict, whether we like that or not is irrelevant because it is fact, they may not win but if they lose then we will all lose and that is where my lifeboat analogy comes from. We supply the weapons to keep this war going and we get closer and closer to an unstopable escalation where the next level of weapons will be used, and even some Americans do realise the potential outcome, quote
> 
> ...


The point being that Putin ought to know that if he pressed the button then he had better have his popcorn ready as Russia will also be a smouldering ruin minutes later. Given what we have seen of the state of the Russian military in Ukraine you have to wonder how many of their missiles would even function of called upon, so The likelihood is they would probably end up worse off, although in this context that is debatable. Putin might be mad enough to order such a thing, hopefully those who would be responsible for carrying it out might have more sense than to obey it.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I fully buy in to climate change concerns - simply consuming carbon based fuels at a rate ~1,000,000 times faster than they were created will cause disruption. It is also completely unsustainable - total reserves are effectively fixed - as with other resources.
> 
> Climate has constantly changed. This is not to diminish the concern, but expecting the pre-industrial era climate, if that is your datum, to remain forever unchanged is a nonsense.


In fact the holocene is notable for steady state with little change - and arguably anthropogenic


Terry - Somerset said:


> The real issue is how quickly changes occur, their magnitude, and the ability to adapt.
> 
> the UK lies in the middle of what is usually defined as "temperate" - tropics 23 degrees, artic circle 66 degrees, UK ~53 degrees. It seems unlikely that the UK will be unable to adapt to plausible climate changes given time.


Even if it was true that isn't the issue. We live a global life and are utterly dependent on globally sourced food and energy (including Russian gas!)
But it isn't necessarily true in the first place. We have had record floods in recent years for example. And we can't escape rising sea levels.


Terry - Somerset said:


> as a fairly wealthy country the UK can adapt to slower changes. "Slow" is context related - hard infrastructure may take (say) 25-100 years, agricultural output more easily flexed.
> The Met Office usually define climate as an average over 30 years. Climate (tipping points aside) does not change rapidly, but over multi-decadal timescales. Using record weather statistics to prove or disprove climate change is not defensible.
> 
> Many parts of the globe, which already experience more extreme climates cannot take so relaxed a view. Gross over population means that the poorest will suffer most. Blindingly obvious to my mind but the basic instinct to reproduce evidently renders it far too difficult to be addressed.


In point of fact the world's poor contribute least to climate change. The problem is with over consumption in the wealthy first world.


Terry - Somerset said:


> With technologies now available, a much smaller global population could thrive on green energy and (almost) infinite resource availability given effective recycling. Concerns for the future would be several generations into the future - more speculation than real threat.


Yes but we want to choose how we make the transition to a green economy and not just wait until populations are wiped out.
One of the biggest single issues is animal farming. We could in theory support the current population with a vastly reduced carbon footprint if we go largely vegetarian. This fact (and George Monbiot) enrage climate change sceptics but seems inescapable!


----------



## Spectric (2 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> the Russian military in Ukraine you have to wonder how many of their missiles would even function of called upon,


Thats probably where the term russian roulette comes from, but these days why waste money on conventional military hardware, just get the biggest & fastest nukes you can then you are in a good position to take no shieete from anyone.

I think a lot of people must be realising that the whole concept of nuclear weapons is just utter stupidity, all it can deliver is the end so all rather pointless, like a big game of poker until someone thinks he has bigger balls than the others and takes a chance, what we need is total global nuclear disarmament because don't we have enough to worry about with global warming as it is. 



Fergie 307 said:


> Ah the old appeasement argument, I'm OK **** everyone else.


It is so much more than that, you have to realise when you cannot win and take the right course of action in the interest of the majority, just basic survival skills. It is a bit like gamblers who are just so happy to win a tenner even though it has cost them sixty.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

I agree very much with your first point. Unfortunately we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. 
On your second point we can confront these situations, rather than appease. Think of the Cuban missile crisis, the USA could have let them get on with it, rather than risk a nuclear confrontation. Instead they chose to call their bluff, and The USSR backed down. The reality is that we should have taken the sort of measures against the Russians we are now when they first started misbehaving. Instead the world huffed and puffed but did nothing, effectively the very sort of appeasement you are advocating. What happened was that Putin not unreasonably came to the conclusion that he could do whatever he liked, and all we would do is talk. Had we reacted more positively years ago and made it clear to him that this behaviour would not be tolerated, then I doubt we would be having this conversation, and the world would be a safer place, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives that would have been saved.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

Jonm said:


> I think if you look at what Terry actually wrote you might find far less to disagree about.
> 
> for example
> 
> ...


I agree Terry makes some good points. The most extreme examples of climate change in the past, the comings and goings of the numerous ice ages for example, had nothing to do with human activity. The fact is the climate changes over millenia, and always has done. Are we exacerbating the problem, most certainly, and we should do everything we can to minimise our own impact, and we are by far the most destructive species that has ever existed. But my concern is that if we are seeing the beginning of a naturally occurring warmer period, albeit accelerated by our own activities, then we are deluding ourselves if we think we will be able to control it.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I agree Terry makes some good points. The most extreme examples of climate change in the past, the comings and goings of the numerous ice ages for example, had nothing to do with human activity.


Actually the holocene is thought to be anthropogenic - we caused it, unknowingly, 12000 relatively stable years.
All the evidence says the current crisis is anthropogenic and we could in theory reverse it, basically by total stop on fossil fuel use.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

You may well be correct in some respects But the numerous ice ages, when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice kilometres thick, and it's subsequent thawing had nothing to do with humans, there simply weren't enough of us. These were far more extreme events than anything currently predicted, and were entirely natural phenomena. So climate change is very real, and we are undoubtedly contributing to it very significantly. Just not sure what the underlying trends are. We do tend to be a very conceited species and often forget that the whole of human existence is the merest blink of an eye in terms of the planet's history.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I agree very much with your first point. Unfortunately we cannot uninvent nuclear weapons.
> On your second point we can confront these situations, rather than appease. Think of the Cuban missile crisis, the USA could have let them get on with it, rather than risk a nuclear confrontation. Instead they chose to call their bluff, and The USSR backed down. The reality is that we should have taken the sort of measures against the Russians we are now when they first started misbehaving. Instead the world huffed and puffed but did nothing, effectively the very sort of appeasement you are advocating. What happened was that Putin not unreasonably came to the conclusion that he could do whatever he liked, and all we would do is talk. Had we reacted more positively years ago and made it clear to him that this behaviour would not be tolerated, then I doubt we would be having this conversation, and the world would be a safer place, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives that would have been saved.


Interesting that you use the "Cuban Crisis" as an example: what you don't seem to know is that the USSR responded to the American provocation of putting nuclear missiles in Turkey, on the border with the USSR. The crisis was created by American/NATO expansion and aggression, just like the current crisis. Fun to see how reality is often diametrically opposed to the agreed upon narrative du jour.
From wikipedia :

The *Cuban Missile Crisis*, also known as the *October Crisis of 1962* (Spanish: _Crisis de Octubre_), the *Caribbean Crisis* (Russian: Карибский кризис, tr. _Karibsky krizis_, IPA: [kɐˈrʲipskʲɪj ˈkrʲizʲɪs]), or the *Missile Scare*, was a 35-day (16 October – 20 November 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which escalated into an international crisis when American deployments of missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba​


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> You may well be correct in some respects But the numerous ice ages, when much of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice kilometres thick, and it's subsequent thawing had nothing to do with humans, there simply weren't enough of us. These were far more extreme events than anything currently predicted, and were entirely natural phenomena. So climate change is very real, and we are undoubtedly contributing to it very significantly. Just not sure what the underlying trends are. We do tend to be a very conceited species and often forget that the whole of human existence is the merest blink of an eye in terms of the planet's history.


It's not conceit to be bothered about our own survival, however brief and pointless!


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

The point I sought to make was simply that you can confront behaviour you find unacceptable, you don't have to just go along with it. And of course you could argue that the deployment of missiles in Turkey and elsewhere was no different to the missiles the USSR had in Eatern Russia, just across the water from Alaska. The USSR had prepared it's intended based in Cuba in great secrecy, presumably intending to represent the USA with a fair accompli. When the plan was rumbled they were forced to back down and abandon the plan.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> It's not conceit to be bothered about our own survival, however brief and pointless!


That's not what I said, or meant. I merely observe that we tend to emphasise the period of "recorded history" or whatever else you want to call the period of our existence,


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> When the plan was rumbled they were forced to back down and abandon the plan.


No, when the USA agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey, the USSR removed the missiles from Cuba. It's not rocket science ;-). Interestingly the USSR trusted the Americans sufficiently to allow them a 6 month grace period, so they wouldn't lose face - the Cuban missiles were removed before the Turkish missiles. It is unlikely that Russia will trust the west ever again to that extent.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

I think in reality the idea that the Soviets intended to put missiles in Cuba in response to the provocation of missiles in Turkey was propoganda. I don't think that argument had a lot more credibility that Putin claiming that the invasion of Ukraine was in response to NATO aggression. After all you had batteries of missiles on both sides of the Soviet European border. I think the real reason was that it irked the Soviets that, for purely geographical reasons, they were unable to deploy missiles as close to the US as the US and it's allies could to them. To have had missiles right in the US backyard in Cuba would have been a real coup if they could have managed it.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> No, when the USA agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey, the USSR removed the missiles from Cuba. It's not rocket science ;-). Interestingly the USSR trusted the Americans sufficiently to allow them a 6 month grace period, so they wouldn't lose face - the Cuban missiles were removed before the Turkish missiles. It is unlikely that Russia will trust the west ever again to that extent.


a bit of a simplistic view. The missiles were installed at the request of Castro, ostensibly to avoid a repetition of the US attempted invasion. Classic move used by Hitler and repeatedly by the soviets, and now Putin, satellite asks for help against an agressor and in you go. When the US realised what was going on they effectively blockaded Cuba to prevent further missiles and infrastructure arriving. This very nearly resulted in an engagement between the US and Soviet navies as Soviet ships approached the blockade line. When it became apparent that the US were not prepared to back down the Soviets did so. In the background the agreement was reached, and just as well. So diplomacy worked but only because the Soviets came to the view that the US were prepared to stop them by force if necessary, and that was what arguably brought them to the table. As to trust I'm not sure I understand your point. The Soviets deployed missiles to Cuba in the utmost secrecy, so if anyone was not to be trusted it was probably them, although you can see why they wanted to do it, would have brought huge kudos to them and been very embarrassing for the Americans. It is very sad to reflect that just as Gorbachev sought to bring his great nation into a more open stance, so Putin seems bent on returning them to the worst of the Soviet era.


----------



## Fergie 307 (2 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> No, when the USA agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey, the USSR removed the missiles from Cuba. It's not rocket science ;-). Interestingly the USSR trusted the Americans sufficiently to allow them a 6 month grace period, so they wouldn't lose face - the Cuban missiles were removed before the Turkish missiles. It is unlikely that Russia will trust the west ever again to that extent.


Again not sure this is entirely correct. My understanding has always been that when the project was discovered the US military predictably wanted to go straight out and bomb everything in sight. Kennedy was persuaded to take a less aggressive approach because it appeared that the missiles were not yet operational, hence the blockade. This seems entirely plausible as I can't see that The Soviets would have acted as they did if the missiles had been fully operational.The Soviets were effectively caught with their pants down and weren't really in a position to argue much once they had conceded. Kennedy wanted to leave it a year before withdrawing the Turkish missiles, so it would appear to be some kind of altruistic coincidence. And I seem to recall that it was actually longer than six months. So lots of sneaky behind the scenes stuff on both sides.


----------



## Keith Cocker (2 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> There's a lot of Putin apologists out there who say it was provoked - NATO expansionism etc.
> But even if it was provoked the barbaric and brutal Russian reaction doesn't fit the narrative. They have enormous global economic power through fuel and food resources and could serve their ostensible interests far better through diplomacy or even peaceful economic bullying.
> It makes the alternative narrative more convincing; that Putin, a crazed dictator in his dying days, is having megalomaniac fantasies about reclaiming the lost Russian empire of Peter the Great.
> There could be no end to that, until he drops dead or the Russians have had enough of him.


Yes there are Putin apologists. There were Hitler apologists and Stalin apologists. But they were all wrong and evil. No decent person supports or excuses what Russia is doing in Ukraine.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (2 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I think in reality the idea that the Soviets intended to put missiles in Cuba in response to the provocation of missiles in Turkey was propoganda. I don't think that argument had a lot more credibility that Putin claiming that the invasion of Ukraine was in response to NATO aggression. After all you had batteries of missiles on both sides of the Soviet European border. I think the real reason was that it irked the Soviets that, for purely geographical reasons, they were unable to deploy missiles as close to the US as the US and it's allies could to them. To have had missiles right in the US backyard in Cuba would have been a real coup if they could have managed it.​


???

There were no missiles in Turkey? Is that your suggestion? Or the medium range nuclear missiles were just "defensive", and therefore not really threatening? 


The Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the most studied moments of the Cold War. It is a story every eighth-grade American child is taught and is paraded about as a victory for the United States. In most retellings, the US is seen as a victim in an act of unprovoked aggression by the Soviets. After some show of US Naval force, this narrative ends with the Soviets running away with their missiles. What is often forgotten is the fact that the Soviets were not acting unprovoked. In 1961, after a failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the United States moved American Jupiter ballistic missiles into Italy and Turkey. This put American missiles within range of Moscow. In response, the Soviets sent nuclear warheads to Cuba. *For the first time in the Cold War, both the US and the USSR had a real threat posed against their mainland.*​​Kennedy was astonished to learn that the Americans had missiles in Turkey - it wasn't a politically authored policy. 

If what you know about 60 year old history is wrong, how certain are you that current affairs are really happening as stated by Jeremy Bowen? Of course, if you want to keep on believing that what you _know_ is _true_, then we are not really having a conversation, are we? I shall leave you to your agreed upon narrative, while I keep rummaging for reality.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Jul 2022)

Humanity has the capacity to destroy mankind - it matter not whether the threat is biological chemical or nuclear. 

The rational would not contemplate a first strike knowing that the response would likely be both immediate and terminal. This relies upon world leaders behaving rationally, or at least having a chain of command which can challenge the irrational. Sadly there are no guarantees. 

Events have shown that one nation cannot dominate globally. Minimising risks relies upon shared solutions, dialogue, fairness, negotiation and integrity. The UN does not have a mandate to stop wars, but (IMHO) they could do far more to stop them starting. 

The position we find ourselves with respect to Ukraine is in large part of our own making:

since the break up of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, many ex-union countries have been welcomed into EU and NATO with little regard for Russian sensitivities.
in 2014 Russia invaded Crimea and supported a separatist movement in the Donbas in clear breach of internationally agreed borders. The West and UN did close to nothing
the current conflict was (in part) enabled due to a failure to address these earlier deficiencies
we cannot allow Russia to "win" - it will simply encourage future expansion in the knowledge that the West is effectively impotent. 
equally Russia cannot be seen to lose - it could provoke a very unpleasant response. A negotiated settlement to save both sets of faces seems a likely outcome. 
the balance is thus providing a level of support to Ukraine which is assessed as unlikely to lead to destructive escalation. Again there are no guarantees!


----------



## Noel (2 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Humanity has the capacity to destroy mankind - it matter not whether the threat is biological chemical or nuclear.
> 
> The rational would not contemplate a first strike knowing that the response would likely be both immediate and terminal. This relies upon world leaders behaving rationally, or at least having a chain of command which can challenge the irrational. Sadly there are no guarantees.
> 
> ...




Better not upset Vladimir, so here's 25% of our country. Take it and stop attacking the rest of the place.
Oh, and by the way, don't get any ideas about nicking more of the country.

Are you serious?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jul 2022)

Oh, and by the way, don't get any ideas about nicking more of the country or the ones next door ...


----------



## johna.clements (3 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Again not sure this is entirely correct. My understanding has always been that when the project was discovered the US military predictably wanted to go straight out and bomb everything in sight. Kennedy was persuaded to take a less aggressive approach because it appeared that the missiles were not yet operational, hence the blockade. This seems entirely plausible as I can't see that The Soviets would have acted as they did if the missiles had been fully operational.The Soviets were effectively caught with their pants down and weren't really in a position to argue much once they had conceded. Kennedy wanted to leave it a year before withdrawing the Turkish missiles, so it would appear to be some kind of altruistic coincidence. And I seem to recall that it was actually longer than six months. So lots of sneaky behind the scenes stuff on both sides.



The USSR had fully operational tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba which were stupidly under local control. Some of the USSR's submarines that were being harrased by the US navy had nuclear tipped torpedoes which again were under the control of the submarine captain.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

johna.clements said:


> The USSR had fully operational tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba which were stupidly under local control. Some of the USSR's submarines that were being harrased by the US navy had nuclear tipped torpedoes which again were under the control of the submarine captain.


And equally there are accounts that the missiles, although complete with warheads weren't able to be fired as all the necessary infrastructure wasn't in place. In reality the only people who know the truth are not going to tell us, so I don't think we can say definitively one way or the other. The bottom line is that neither leader was prepared to start a full on war over it. So effectively the world's future depended on the actions of two individuals, crazy.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Humanity has the capacity to destroy mankind - it matter not whether the threat is biological chemical or nuclear.
> 
> The rational would not contemplate a first strike knowing that the response would likely be both immediate and terminal. This relies upon world leaders behaving rationally, or at least having a chain of command which can challenge the irrational. Sadly there are no guarantees.
> 
> ...


The big problem for the UN is that no one seems to have considered what would happen if a permanent member of the security council went rogue. Rather leaves them hamstrung.
And of course we cannot have a situation where a sovereign nation is prevented from joining NATO or the EU just on the basis that Russia won't like it, I doubt that there would have been much scope for addressing Russian concerns through diplomacy. Putin's stance is that any expansion of NATO is threatening. The irony being that of course now Sweden and Finland are going to join the alliance, something he definitely didn't want to happen but which has been brought about directly by his actions, and the very real threat posed by Russia to its neighbours.
We also need to beat in mind others who have expansion on the agenda. If we allow this to go unchecked then who will be the next to try it.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Noel said:


> Better not upset Vladimir, so here's 25% of our country. Take it and stop attacking the rest of the place.
> Oh, and by the way, don't get any ideas about nicking more of the country.
> 
> Are you serious?


Exactly. Ok Me Hitler and Mr Stalin you can keep Poland etc, and murder as many of the inhabitants as you like, just as long as you absolutely promise, hand on heart, that you will stop there.
And yet then there were plenty who advocated exactly that, just as there are those now who would abandon Ukraine, Bernie Ecclestone presumably being one.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ???
> 
> There were no missiles in Turkey? Is that your suggestion? Or the medium range nuclear missiles were just "defensive", and therefore not really threatening?
> 
> ...



Of course the Americans had missiles in Turkey, don't know if anyone who would doubt that. I do think the idea that Kennedy knew nothing about it is rather naive.
Let's face it it has always been fairly standard practice throughout history to try and gain an advantage over your opponent, then cry foul when he matches it. So I agree that the narrative that the US barked and the Soviets ran away is nonsense. The fact is that they very nearly pulled off a tremendous strategic coup right under the American's noses, unfortunately from their perspective they were caught before they had quite managed to put the cherry on top of the cake.
And you are quite right that the fiasco of the attempted invasion of Cuba handed the Soviets a justification for their actions on a plate. But that does not mean that the Soviets were entirely motivated out of a desire to protect the poor little Cubans from their nasty neighbours. It would be strange indeed if weaponising Cuba had not always been on the Soviet agenda, why else would they have been so interested in the place, cigars? No, it's position gave it a strategic importance out of all proportion to its value in any other respect.


----------



## Jester129 (3 Jul 2022)

I'm just concerned that Putin is mentally unstable and is thinking, "If I'm dying, you're gonna die too!"


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The position we find ourselves with respect to Ukraine is in large part of our own making:
> 
> since the break up of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, many ex-union countries have been welcomed into EU and NATO with little regard to Russian sensitivities.



This was actually in breach of at least two treaties between eu/NATO and the Russian Federation. This is the root of why Russia has now resorted to "techniical means" to solve its perceived security issues. They tried for the last 8 years to get people to listen to them, but no one was interested.





Terry - Somerset said:


> in 2014 Russia invaded Crimea and supported a separatist movement in the Donbas in clear breach of internationally agreed borders. The West and UN did close to nothing



This is actually not what happened. Russia not only didn't invade, but Russia refused to acknowledge the referendums asking to allow the two "breakaway republics" to join the Russian Federation. Why didn't Russia just bite off the east of the Ukraine then and there, when it was offered? The two areas declared independence because they didn't want to be ethnically cleansed - people were locked in buildings and then burnt to death, civilians were strafed by fighter jets at a market - little things that get forgotten. Russia didn't invade (although there were claims of "little green men", an invasion is what you are seeing now, not 8 years ago).


Terry - Somerset said:


> The West and UN did close to nothing


The west did a lot - they spend $5 billion on building up an armed insurrection that toppled the government. The USA in the guise of Victoria Newland is on record overturning the head of state, selecting which billionaire gangster would be the new king etc. Interestingly Victoria Newland is married to a Mr Kagan who's sister runs the think tank that the BBC and everyone else use as a source of expert knoledge: Institute for the Study of War Just to be clear, the West created the situation we are now in, purely for the purpose of "putting pressure" on Russia. 14,000 dead people later, Russia finally intervened only when it was clear that the Ukrainian government (pressured by the USA) were about to invade the Donbas, again purely to put pressure on Russia. In other words, we broke it, so we now get to own it. 


Terry - Somerset said:


> the current conflict was (in part) enabled due to a failure to address these earlier deficiencie


The current conflict is entirely due to work done by the west. The Russians tried to resolve the issues, tried to get agreements, sponsored the two Minsk agreements. No one in the west had any intention of honouring these solutions because the plan was always for war. 



Terry - Somerset said:


> we cannot allow Russia to "win" - it will simply encourage future expansion in tihe knowledge that the West is effectively impotent.


Russia has confirmed repeatedly that they view this as an existential war. Biden has said that "Putin must go", and that Russia must be broken up (ie cease to exist). Russia (Putin himself) has explained that a world without Russia serves no purpose, so has no reason to exist. That was a hint. Are you _sure_ you want that?


Terry - Somerset said:


> the balance is thus providing a level of support to Ukraine which is assessed as unlikely to lead to destructive escalation. Again there are no guarantees!


As mentioned in various places - fight to the last Ukrainian. This is now happening. Various estimates have Ukranian casualties at over 100,000 (more than the entire British army, for comparison). Most units seem to be 60%or more under strength, with the majority of soldiers on the line untrained new conscripts, who are dieing in droves. The Ukraine will be calling up women from October, and has just passed a law allowing conscription of disabled persons. Winning! What could possibly go wrong?

Here is an alternative view of how we got to where we are, and how: Jacques Baud: The Military Situation In The Ukraine - Update. - Labour Heartlands


----------



## niemeyjt (3 Jul 2022)

China and India, over the next two years, will increase their coal consumption by 700,000 tons. As a comparison, the total US consumption of coal is 600,000 tons.

While European Governments nobble their industries and hike their costs with more expensive energy and green taxes Chinese and Indian Companies don't face such costs and hurdles.

So how many people are prepared to give up on Alibaba, Banggood and Chinese manufactured items to help save the planet?


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Jester129 said:


> I'm just concerned that Putin is mentally unstable and is thinking, "If I'm dying, you're gonna die too!"


Which of course was Hitler's view, and is certainly a concern.


----------



## Blackswanwood (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> This was actually in breach of at least two treaties between eu/NATO and the Russian Federation. This is the root of why Russia has now resorted to "techniical means" to solve its perceived security issues. They tried for the last 8 years to get people to listen to them, but no one was interested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your post reminds me that until recently you described yourself as Putin Apologist (or similar).

I’m sure Russia feels wronged that NATO and the EU have expanded. At the end of the day though democratically elected governments decided they wanted to join the EU and NATO presumably as they didn’t like the look of an increasingly undemocratic Russia. 

I don’t understand what Russia fears about it’s neighbours deciding their own destiny to the point of being willing to turn them into rubble. Perhaps it’s that their ruling elite would prefer to keep living in a country that doesn’t have free elections or free speech.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> This was actually in breach of at least two treaties between eu/NATO and the Russian Federation. This is the root of why Russia has now resorted to "techniical means" to solve its perceived security issues. They tried for the last 8 years to get people to listen to them, but no one was interested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



be careful comrade you referred to what's going on in Ukraine as an invasion, whereas of course it is nothing of the kind. 
Mr Putin has repeatedly said, blah blah. Just as he repeatedly assured everyone that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, and the troops massing on the border were on exercise. The man is a serial liar, easy to tell when he's doing it, just look to see if his mouth is open. He lies to his own people everyday, and presided over a regime where ANY dissent from.his narrative is ruthlessly supressed. How many casualties have the Russians sustained? No body knows for sure, and the Russian people certainly aren't being given accurate figures, I believe the current official line is that losses have been "'substantial". Not sure he will survive when the true figures start to emerge, or how he will suppress that information is He is pursuing the war in the most brutal way possible, deliberately targeting civilians in a massive scale. How you can be an apologist for this is quite beyond me, Are the rest of the world entirely blameless, no, who is. But Putin's actions far exceed anything that could be remotely justifiable.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> .............
> 
> as a fairly wealthy country the UK can adapt to slower changes. "Slow" is context related - hard infrastructure may take (say) 25-100 years, agricultural output more easily flexed.
> ..........


The UK is already giving up adapting to slow change.
Trivial though it may seem but Fairbourne is the first conspicuous case. Coastal defences are being slowly abandoned in other areas too. Rising sea level beyond a certain point is impossible to fight.
OK this is a scary presentation but can't be ignored: Will London really be underwater by 2050?
Inland flood defence measures are being overwhelmed annually with repeat "100 year" events. 
In the meantime people witter on about electric vehicles and batteries, which in the greater scheme of things are utterly irrelevant.
On a personal level, however improbable this seems, going vegetarian seems to be the single most useful thing you could do! Regenesis review: Farming is killing the planet but we can stop it
This is a message which won't go down well with the "unwoke"


----------



## AlanY (3 Jul 2022)

Limey Lurker said:


> I AM a true lefty. What we DON'T need are the crooks and lying toads that comprise this present Government.


You would rather have the crooks and lying toads that comprised previous governments, then? How about that shining star of socialism that was Blair's Labour government? You know the one, it bankrupted the UK and took part in an illegal war that killed a million people and unleashed the islamic invasion from which Europe and, particularly, the UK suffer today (and will get progressively worse unless European Governments get to grips with this uncontrolled immigration). Or, perhaps, the Tory Government of John 'Curry [email protected]' Major? The one that took us into the EU without a Referendum and paved the way for Brexit. Or you might just have had a Labour Government led by a career protestor whose biggest achievement was to go for a beer with his IRA mates and to stand on a platform in support of Hamas terrorists. That he was wiped out by Boris (with all his faults already well known) tells you all you need to know about what the British public thought of that.

Whatever your personal political beliefs, you will never get a perfect government in a democracy. Because you cannot please all the people all the time and, in the end, politicians are all just power lusting, greedy bast*rd human beings, with human flaws. Terry Pratchett got it right in his 'Lost Continent' DiscWorld book, where the people of 'XXXX' immediately jailed their newly-elected PMs because it simply saved time.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> be careful comrade you referred to what's going on in Ukraine as an invasion, whereas of course it is nothing of the kind.
> Mr Putin has repeatedly said, blah blah. Just as he repeatedly assured everyone that he had no intention of invading Ukraine, and the troops massing on the border were on exercise. The man is a serial liar, easy to tell when he's doing it, just look to see if his mouth is open. He lies to his own people everyday, and presided over a regime where ANY dissent from.his narrative is ruthlessly supressed. How many casualties have the Russians sustained? No body knows for sure, and the Russian people certainly aren't being given accurate figures, I believe the current official line is that losses have been "'substantial". Not sure he will survive when the true figures start to emerge, or how he will suppress that information is He is pursuing the war in the most brutal way possible, deliberately targeting civilians in a massive scale. How you can be an apologist for this is quite beyond me, Are the rest of the world entirely blameless, no, who is. But Putin's actions far exceed anything that could be remotely justifiable.


It's all about narrative, isn't it. Putin is a tyrant, dictator and serial monster. Russia is poor, incompetent, disorganised and stupid. The Russian military is a failure. There is no democracy in Russia. All of these are known facts - reality has no bearing on any of it. You are living in a vacuum where only authorised narratives are presented. Anyone who goes against the agreed-upon version of truth is excoriated. The polls all show that Russians both fully support their government, and agree with the idea that the war is existential - that's their narrative, which you claim is false. Your narrative must be true, because?


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Hear hear. And however much we may lament the self serving action of the likes of Boris and Blair, they are rank amateurs compared to Putin and his cronies. At least we are free to reveal their antics and take them to task, not always as effectively as we might like admittedly, and ultimately we can vote them out. So whilst our system is very far from perfect, it is infinitely preferable to many of the alternatives.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It's all about narrative, isn't it. Putin is a tyrant, dictator and serial monster. Russia is poor, incompetent, disorganised and stupid. The Russian military is a failure. There is no democracy in Russia. All of these are known facts - reality has no bearing on any of it. You are living in a vacuum where only authorised narratives are presented. Anyone who goes against the agreed-upon version of truth is excoriated. The polls all show that Russians both fully support their government, and agree with the idea that the war is existential - that's their narrative, which you claim is false. Your narrative must be true, because?


Russians fully support their government? So why have they imprisoned thousands for protesting against the war, sorry "special military operation"? Why does any country who's people are fully supportive of the government need laws forbidding dissent ? I could go on but you really need to take your head out of the sand.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Jul 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Your post reminds me that until recently you described yourself as Putin Apologist (or similar).
> 
> I’m sure Russia feels wronged that NATO and the EU have expanded. At the end of the day though democratically elected governments decided they wanted to join the EU and NATO presumably as they didn’t like the look of an increasingly undemocratic Russia.
> 
> I don’t understand what Russia fears about it’s neighbours deciding their own destiny to the point of being willing to turn them into rubble. Perhaps it’s that their ruling elite would prefer to keep living in a country that doesn’t have free elections or free speech.


The narrative is that Putin (not Russia, but dictator Putin who rules with an iron fist and makes all decisions) woke up one day and randomly invaded the Ukraine without any rhyme or reason. Even you must understand that this is complete nonsense, but it is peddled every day by the media and politicians: "the illegal and unprovoked attack" is used at every turn. It is neither illegal nor unprovoked, but don't let reality get in the way of a good bit of propaganda. I watch the BBC from time to time, and the outright lies and insistence on portraying Kiev propaganda as truth is astonishing. So many things are 180 degrees from reality.

Getting back on topic, if they lie about the source, reason and course of this war in the Ukraine, what else have they lied about? Covid? Climate change? The impending financial meltdown that "no one could have seen coming"?

I think it is time to let the thread get back on topic - just remember that in 1944/5 Germany the glorious victories were won with each just a little closer to Berlin. Kiev is running a similar campaign.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The narrative is that Putin (not Russia, but dictator Putin who rules with an iron fist and makes all decisions) woke up one day and randomly invaded the Ukraine without any rhyme or reason. Even you must understand that this is complete nonsense, but it is peddled every day by the media and politicians: "the illegal and unprovoked attack" is used at every turn. It is neither illegal nor unprovoked, but don't let reality get in the way of a good bit of propaganda. I watch the BBC from time to time, and the outright lies and insistence on portraying Kiev propaganda as truth is astonishing. So many things are 180 degrees from reality.
> 
> Getting back on topic, if they lie about the source, reason and course of this war in the Ukraine, what else have they lied about? Covid? Climate change? The impending financial meltdown that "no one could have seen coming"?
> 
> I think it is time to let the thread get back on topic - just remember that in 1944/5 Germany the glorious victories were won with each just a little closer to Berlin. Kiev is running a similar campaign.


So you believe one of Putin's excuses, that this was a pre emotive strike to forestall an intended Ukranian invasion of Russia? Words fail me. You need to pop the collander back on your head and retreat back to your foil lined room. And to compare what is going on in Ukraine now with the sacrifice made by the Soviet Union fighting Hitler is frankly insulting to those involved, shame on you for that remark.


----------



## Keith Cocker (3 Jul 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Your post reminds me that until recently you described yourself as Putin Apologist (or similar).
> 
> I’m sure Russia feels wronged that NATO and the EU have expanded. At the end of the day though democratically elected governments decided they wanted to join the EU and NATO presumably as they didn’t like the look of an increasingly undemocratic Russia.
> 
> I don’t understand what Russia fears about it’s neighbours deciding their own destiny to the point of being willing to turn them into rubble. Perhaps it’s that their ruling elite would prefer to keep living in a country that doesn’t have free elections or free speech.


My daughter in law is from the Czech Republic. She, and even more so her parents, remember life under the shadow of the Soviet Union. No way would they wish to return to that.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It's all about narrative, isn't it. Putin is a tyrant, dictator and serial monster. Russia is poor, incompetent, disorganised and stupid. The Russian military is a failure. There is no democracy in Russia. All of these are known facts - reality has no bearing on any of it. You are living in a vacuum where only authorised narratives are presented. Anyone who goes against the agreed-upon version of truth is excoriated. The polls all show that Russians both fully support their government, and agree with the idea that the war is existential - that's their narrative, which you claim is false. Your narrative must be true, because?


Repeating myself, Nato threat just an excuse:
."......alternative narrative more convincing; that Putin, a crazed dictator in his dying days, is having megalomaniac fantasies about reclaiming the lost Russian empire of Peter the Great."

There have been several confirmations of this - from Putin himself
Putin and Peter the Great: Russian leader likens himself to 18th Century tsar

https://www.usnews.com/news/world-r...t-in-comparing-ukraine-war-to-imperial-russia
and from Fiona Hill the great Russian expert



Anybody who doesn't think he is raving mad only has to look at his tables! Surprised there hasn't been more comment on this woodworking forum!



https://www.google.com/search?q=putins+tables&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB924GB924&oq=putins+tables&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10j0i5i10i30j0i390.10583j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## selectortone (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The polls all show that Russians both fully support their government,


Thanks for a good morning laugh.


----------



## Blackswanwood (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> The narrative is that Putin (not Russia, but dictator Putin who rules with an iron fist and makes all decisions) woke up one day and randomly invaded the Ukraine without any rhyme or reason. Even you must understand that this is complete nonsense, but it is peddled every day by the media and politicians: "the illegal and unprovoked attack" is used at every turn. It is neither illegal nor unprovoked, but don't let reality get in the way of a good bit of propaganda. I watch the BBC from time to time, and the outright lies and insistence on portraying Kiev propaganda as truth is astonishing. So many things are 180 degrees from reality.



I don‘t see that as the “narrative”. Putin didn’t just wake up one day and decide to go to war - it’s part a long term strategy to secure his and his inner circles position.

At the end of the day though I am happy to draw my own conclusions from the plethora of free press that is available that what Russia is currently doing is unjustifiable.


----------



## Spectric (3 Jul 2022)

No one has mentioned the fact that Borris the clown has blatantly breached international law when he said I plan to increase the UK's stockpile of Trident nukes by 40% and then we have the UK, US and Australia making a pact in the Asia-Pacific to counter China, which will let Australia build nuclear-powered submarines for the first time using technology provided by the US.

These are hardly the sort of actions that peaceful nations would entertain and who knows how Russia and China looked upon them, they are not what is required if we want peace, only diplomacy and acceptance can work.

The one thing we should learn from the Cuban missile crisis is that it takes only a single action to ignite the whole situation, there was a documentary that gave details of just how close a russian submarine commander came to firing a nuclear torpedo into the American fleet near Cuba, it was only when another officer onboard asked the question if he was sure they were under direct threat and that was enough to stop the firing. Something like this is more than possible now and is why they have that direct phone line to try and prevent escalation but it is a narrow line with people like miss trust only flaming the situation.


----------



## Spectric (3 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> I watch the BBC from time to time, and the outright lies and insistence on portraying Kiev propaganda as truth is astonishing.


That is the BBC all over with many subjects and biased reporting but it is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident. Try watching the news on freesat 216 & 217 and some of the presenters just tell the news as it is without bias and using straight talking language.


----------



## Yorkieguy (3 Jul 2022)

Putin didn't 'invade Ukraine without rhyme or reason'. He did it because he thought Ukraine would surrender and he could move in without a shot, take over the Donbas region and install a puppet regime. Furthermore, he perceived NATO as weak and dysfunctional (as it was) so would stand by and allow it to happen, just as they did when Russia made a land-grab for Crimea in 2014, The West carried on with Russia business as usual - buying its coal, gas, timber etc.. Just as the West stood back from Syria, where Obama sad 'if they used Chemical weapons it was a red line and if they crossed it, America would act. They did use chemical weapons and America didn't act. 

If Ukraine had surrendered, it's debatable whether or not NATO or the West would have done much about it. Like any tyrant, Putin was probably misinformed by those who advise him, because they'll only tell him what he wants to hear, just as was the case with Hitler, Saddam, Gadhafi, whoever.

Putin miscalculated and started something he doesn't know how to finish, but the reaction of Ukraine, Nato and the West will most likely cause him to think twice about trying it on elsewhere. Having failed to take over Ukraine, his aim is clearly, to destroy the infrastructure, damage the economy and target civilians - one war crime after another. After all, if he can't succeed in a land grab, it matters not that he destroys the infrastructure.

His failed adventure is of no benefit to Russian people, to it's standing in the world, and is damaging to it's economy and ours, with no end in sight. What this has demonstrated one more is that appeasement ('peace in our time') doesn't work - only deterrence. If a lamb lies down with a lion, the lamb won't get much sleep.

It will take a generation before this is resolved.

As to 'nukes' the reason the Russians didn't press the nuke button in the Bay of Pigs is that they knew they would be toast. Same goes for Putin and his ilk. (Mutually Assured Destruction').


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> The Tories are pro -business


----------



## Spectric (3 Jul 2022)

Yorkieguy said:


> As to 'nukes' the reason the Russians didn't press the nuke button in the Bay of Pigs is that they knew they would be toast. Same goes for Putin and his ilk. (Mutually Assured Destruction').


That is providing you take the western view, take a russian view and you get a different outcome with there philosophy of escalate to de-escalate.


----------



## thetyreman (3 Jul 2022)

AlanY said:


> You would rather have the crooks and lying toads that comprised previous governments, then? How about that shining star of socialism that was Blair's Labour government? You know the one, it bankrupted the UK and took part in an illegal war that killed a million people and unleashed the islamic invasion from which Europe and, particularly, the UK suffer today (and will get progressively worse unless European Governments get to grips with this uncontrolled immigration). Or, perhaps, the Tory Government of John 'Curry [email protected]' Major? The one that took us into the EU without a Referendum and paved the way for Brexit. Or you might just have had a Labour Government led by a career protestor whose biggest achievement was to go for a beer with his IRA mates and to stand on a platform in support of Hamas terrorists. That he was wiped out by Boris (with all his faults already well known) tells you all you need to know about what the British public thought of that.
> 
> Whatever your personal political beliefs, you will never get a perfect government in a democracy. Because you cannot please all the people all the time and, in the end, politicians are all just power lusting, greedy bast*rd human beings, with human flaws. Terry Pratchett got it right in his 'Lost Continent' DiscWorld book, where the people of 'XXXX' immediately jailed their newly-elected PMs because it simply saved time.


stop reading the daily mail


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2022)

Trip down memory lane on the CC issue:


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Sadly going to happen to a lot more people all over the world in the coming years. All the more tragic when you see it happening in some remote community who have done very little themselves to contribute to the problem.


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Yorkieguy said:


> Putin didn't 'invade Ukraine without rhyme or reason'. He did it because he thought Ukraine would surrender and he could move in without a shot, take over the Donbas region and install a puppet regime. Furthermore, he perceived NATO as weak and dysfunctional (as it was) so would stand by and allow it to happen, just as they did when Russia made a land-grab for Crimea in 2014, The West carried on with Russia business as usual - buying its coal, gas, timber etc.. Just as the West stood back from Syria, where Obama sad 'if they used Chemical weapons it was a red line and if they crossed it, America would act. They did use chemical weapons and America didn't act.
> 
> If Ukraine had surrendered, it's debatable whether or not NATO or the West would have done much about it. Like any tyrant, Putin was probably misinformed by those who advise him, because they'll only tell him what he wants to hear, just as was the case with Hitler, Saddam, Gadhafi, whoever.
> 
> ...


Have to agree with you. Putin presumably concluded that invading Ukraine would result in a similar reaction to his previous adventures, lots of hand wringing but little action. Sad to say that if he had overrun the country in a few days, as it appears he expected to, then his assessment may well have proved correct. As to Syria it is interesting that Trump did act in similar circumstances, with extensive strikes against the Syrian sir force, and not a peep out of the Russians really regarding this attack on their ally I would love to know what conversations went on behind the scenes. Presumably along the lines that we are going to do this whether you like it or not, best you keep your people out of the way. I am no fan of Trump, but there is little point in threatening dire consequences if you are not in fact prepared to carry them out, which is sadly what Obama did.


----------



## AlanY (3 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> stop reading the daily mail


I don't read the Daily Mail. I haven't read any newspaper or watched any so-called 'mainstream' TV news or political programme since 2016 when the bias from all of them became intolerable. But I have lived through many Parliamentary terms and have witnessed the performance and outcome of these past governments. Perhaps you should stop reading the Daily Mirror? Maybe remove your leftie blinkers for a little while?


----------



## Fergie 307 (3 Jul 2022)

Always reminds me of Margot's horrified reaction when Tom Good handed her a home made party hat, folded from either the mail or the mirror, cant remember now. With a hat made out of the torygraph firmly on her head all was well. Very funny.


----------



## Jonm (3 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> 2014 Russia invaded Crimea and supported a separatist movement in the Donbas in clear breach of internationally agreed borders. The West and UN did close to nothing


The correct signals were not sent to Russia to convey that they had overstepped the mark. Action like suspending/stopping Nord stream 2, cutting down on purchase of Russian raw materials, not attending 2018 FIFA World Cup, not attending 2014 winter Olympics. 

The west did not see it for what it was. Winston Churchill would have seen the wood for the trees.


----------



## thetyreman (3 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Always reminds me of Margot's horrified reaction when Tom Good handed her a home made party hat, folded from either the mail or the mirror, cant remember now. With a hat made out of the torygraph firmly on her head all was well. Very funny.



reminds me a bit of this guy


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Air travel does not need to be banned to be net zero. In 30 years time it may be fuelled by more efficient batteries, hydrogen or plant based crops (ethanol etc).


All the major crop sources of biodiesel have a higher climate impact than the fossil fuels they replace. Rapeseed oil causes 1.2 times as much global heating, soy oil twice as much, palm oil three times. The same goes for ethanol made from wheat.


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power,


What shall we lift first?

The ban on child prostitution?
The ban on beating people up because you don't like the colour of their skin?
Ditto their sexual orientation?
The ban on men beating their wives?
The ban on bear-baiting?
The ban on dog or cock fighting?
The ban on lead in petrol?


Please tell us which things "we" allowed "them" to ban which we shouldn't have done because of the abuses of power they led to.


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> But this is something we should have kept our noses out of, there is no reason why the west needs to put it's head on the block for Ukraine


Ah, the old "_a quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing_” idea.

Do you have any evidence showing how that sort of laissez-faire has worked well in the past?

And let's say we sit back and let Russia subsume Ukraine. Of the following, which would be the one where you would at last say we need to stand up to them?

Moldova?
Georgia? 
Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Estonia?
Latvia?
Lithuania?
Montenegro?
Poland?
Finland?


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

Jonm said:


> If Johnson told me it was raining I would look out the window to check.


I wouldn't waste my time doing that - I'd get the mower out, or pack a picnic.


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

Scruples said:


> It needs investment and speculation. Investment in business, technology and people.


Which we don't have.



Scruples said:


> I know that when the Tories are in we have growth,


You have actually checked the real economic statistics regarding that, have you?

Do you have an explanation for the poor performance of this country compared to others in the G#?




Scruples said:


> excepting the war years and pandemics, my shares grow faster. When my shares grow, it indicates to me that the economy is doing alright.


No, it indicates that the profits which companies are making because they are *not *paying taxes and are *not *paying their workers properly and are *not *investing in business, technology and people and which are left over after they've paid their executives even more obscene amounts are being returned to shareholders as dividends.




Scruples said:


> This isn't about loving or hating a party, it's knowing when you're better off.


You mean it's about being selfish.


----------



## morqthana (3 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> What we are saying is that it would be acceptable to wipe out billions trying to save a few million, in fact the very worse case could be extinction for all so you are saying this is an acceptable gamble!


Your gamble is that if we show Putin that we are too weak or scared to stop him taking Ukraine he will go back to Moscow, settle down, and behave, once he's succeeded there.

I like the photo of yourself which you posted on Facebook, BTW.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

AlanY said:


> ..an Act that her husband introduced and which is the bane of our society now


So do you not think that people should have human rights?

Are you opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Could you look through this list of rights and tell us which ones you object to, and why?









European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Are you aware that the chairman of the committee which oversaw the drafting of the EHCR was a Conservative politician?

Are you aware that all that the HRA did was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the ECHR which we had been a signatory to for the previous 47 years?

Are you aware that it was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party in the 1997 General Election? Do you have a problem with democratic mandates?


----------



## thetyreman (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> What shall we lift first?
> 
> The ban on child prostitution?
> The ban on beating people up because you don't like the colour of their skin?
> ...


now you're completely mispresenting what I originally said, it's completely out of context and you're bringing in about 10 subjects, I'm actually *against* banning air travel thanks.


----------



## thetyreman (4 Jul 2022)

here's the thing with climate change, we need solutions that don't involve removal of basic rights, why not punish the plane manufacturers instead?


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth. We have enough home grown toe rags without taking on other countries. Many of these people I would suggest have hardly been productive members of society, rather parasites, who see our legal system as a soft touch. I recall that reports around the truly shameful Rwanda policy indicated that there were several thousand criminals in our prisons from Nigeria alone. All will no doubt be championed by some Cherie Blair type fighting tooth and mail for their right to remain here, despite having abused that privilege. This gives those who oppose immigration ammunition and undermines the vast majority of immigrants who make a very positive contribution to our country, in the NHS for example. So I don't see anything wrong with the legislation itself, we have just allowed its interpretation to become skewed too much in favour of the individual, with little regard to the rights of the general population to live their lives unmolested by these people, whether they be home grown or from elsewhere.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> here's the thing with climate change, we need solutions that don't involve removal of basic rights, why not punish the plane manufacturers instead?


Please tell me this is a joke. How is it the aircraft manufacturers fault. Yes they should be encouraged to make aircraft more economical, and strive to find cleaner fuels, which they are doing. But the bottom line is that if we all didn't want to fly so much then they wouldn't build so many planes. Likewise we are obsessed with our own convenience. I canter any reason why for example you shouldn't replace multiple flights from say Luton to Palma each day with less flights but using bigger aircraft, one big one using less fuel and other resources than two smaller ones. Same for cars, produced in ludicrous numbers mainly to cater for the vanity of those wanting a new one every couple of years.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. .....



That's a very old cliche which gets trotted out across the political spectrum.
It's close to the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. For a right winger "the deserving" is very tiny category. A good lefty would include everybody. The centrists e.g. "caring conservatives" are in between.
Just a thought - but if you found yourself in a lifeboat and arguing about who was entitled to be saved, you might find yourself the first one to be thrown overboard!


----------



## Keith Cocker (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> That is the BBC all over with many subjects and biased reporting but it is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident. Try watching the news on freesat 216 & 217 and some of the presenters just tell the news as it is without bias and using straight talking language
> 
> 
> Spectric said:
> ...


BBC biased? Hilarious. The BBC is one of the most respected news sources in the world.


----------



## Daniel2 (4 Jul 2022)

Keith Cocker said:


> BBC biased? Hilarious. The BBC was one of the most respected news sources in the world.


FTFY.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> That's a very old cliche which gets trotted out across the political spectrum.
> It's close to the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. For a right winger "the deserving" is very tiny category. A good lefty would include everybody. The centrists e.g. "caring conservatives" are in between.
> Just a thought - but if you found yourself in a lifeboat and arguing about who was entitled to be saved, you might find yourself the first one to be thrown overboard!


So you think people who come here then rape or swindle or rob should be allowed to remain, why? We have enough of our own criminals to contend with, without providing homes for other peoples. We cant deport our own so have to put up with them, shouldnt be the case for those from overseas. I am all for immigration, anyone who wants to come here and be a productive member of society is most welcome as far as I am concerned. Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from. And yes I agree its hardly an original argument, that doesnt mean its not valid. I have little doubt if you invited the public to say whether a given thief, swindler, robber or worse should remain or be deported they would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.


----------



## AlanY (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> So do you not think that people should have human rights?
> 
> Are you opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights?
> 
> ...


I am against the ECHR all the time it is used to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals or illegal immigrants. We have enough of our own scumbags on the street that we should not have to tolerate foreign parasites - who contribute nothing to society - breaking our Laws, raping our children, murdering our citizens, rioting in our streets in full confidence that they will never be removed because some foreign 'judge' says so. Time that changed.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> So you think people who come here then rape or swindle or rob should be allowed to remain, why? We have enough of our own criminals to contend with, without providing homes for other peoples. We cant deport our own so have to put up with them, shouldnt be the case for those from overseas. I am all for immigration, anyone who wants to come here and be a productive member of society is most welcome as far as I am concerned. Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from. And yes I agree its hardly an original argument, that doesnt mean its not valid. I have little doubt if you invited the public to say whether a given thief, swindler, robber or worse should remain or be deported they would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.


Oh I see it's about immigrants for you! You should have said.  I wasn't thinking of them at all.
People who "rape or swindle or rob" should be subject to the law and fair trial. It's their human right.
I don't think there's any evidence to show that immigrants are more likely to "rape or swindle or rob" than anybody else.
If anything the opposite - they are looking for a better quality of life and escaping from places where "rape or swindle or rob" or other forms of violence/deprivation are just too common.
They also tend to have a lot to offer and show amazing determination and strength of character just to get here! More the better IMHO and we need them for the work they do and the skills/talent they bring with them.


----------



## Spectric (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from.


Fully agree but there is also the issue of a conflict between what is normal / acceptable behavior in their place of origin to what we expect in the UK.


----------



## johna.clements (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth. We have enough home grown toe rags without taking on other countries.



What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.


----------



## Spectric (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Your gamble is that if we show Putin that we are too weak or scared to stop him taking Ukraine he will go back to Moscow


Weakness can also be a strength, knowing when to compromise and when to stand your ground are very important traits when it comes to diplomacy and in this case survival.

Putin is NOT going to back down, he will split Ukraine because he knows that he cannot lose face and tell the russian people that NATO has won, so putting more pressure on them will just force his hand. Borris knows he is treading a thin line by his actions of supplying military hardware to Ukraine and is aware that Russia could retaliate, this is why he has already issued letters of last resort in the event he and the government are wiped out in a nuclear strike. 

I think it is the people who cannot face or accept the reality of just how serious this situation is getting who have their heads in the sand, and would suggest this is a large percentage of the snowflake generation. Maybe once you have read these articles you will realise this is no game, there are no buttons to get another go and it is horribly all to real and it is the younger generations who have the most years to lose!









Vladimir Putin ‘will soon have no way back’ but to ‘unleash' nuclear weapons which will ‘be fast and cheaper for Russia’ - London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com


Vladimir Putin ‘will soon have no way back’ but to ‘unleash' nuclear weapons which will ‘be fast and cheaper for Russia’ ...




londonlovesbusiness.com




Vladimir Putin ‘will soon have no way back’ but to ‘unleash’ nuclear weapons which will ‘be fast and cheaper for Russia’​








Russia simulates 'Poseidon nuclear underwater missile' being set off the coast of Ireland turning British Isles into a ‘radioactive desert’ - London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com


Russia has simulated an unstoppable “thermonuclear torpedo” being fired from an underwater drone of the coast of Ireland causing ....




londonlovesbusiness.com




Russia simulates ‘Poseidon nuclear underwater missile’ being set off the coast of Ireland turning British Isles into a ‘radioactive desert’​








British Foreign Secretary warned by Russian MP that one nuclear ‘Sarmat missile is enough to wipe out the islands of Britain’ - London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com


British Foreign Secretary warned by Russian MP that one nuclear ‘Sarmat missile is enough to wipe out the islands of Britain’ ...




londonlovesbusiness.com




British Foreign Secretary warned by Russian MP that one nuclear ‘Sarmat missile is enough to wipe out the islands of Britain’​


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Oh I see it's about immigrants for you! You should have said.  I wasn't thinking of them at all.
> People who "rape or swindle or rob" should be subject to the law and fair trial. It's their human right.
> I don't think there's any evidence to show that immigrants are more likely to "rape or swindle or rob" than anybody else.
> If anything the opposite - they are looking for a better quality of life and escaping from places where "rape or swindle or rob" or other forms of violence/deprivation are just too common.
> They also tend to have a lot to offer and show amazing determination and strength of character just to get here! More the better IMHO and we need them for the work they do and the skills/talent they bring with them.


Why dont you try actually reading my post before replying to it. I have nothing against immigration, quite the opposite. I merely cite this as one example where very noble legislation is, in my view, being abused.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

johna.clements said:


> What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
> What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.


In both cases I would suggest they would be fully fledged British citizens, so your point is irrelevant. And as I said to Jacob this is not about immigration, that is simply one example where i believe the ECHR is being abused.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Why dont you try actually reading my post before replying to it. I have nothing against immigration, quite the opposite. I merely cite this as one example where very noble legislation is, in my view, being abused.


Not true. Immigrants are subject to UK laws and punishments just the same as everybody else, and have equal human rights. They aren't getting away with anything.
Sending them somewhere else seems pretty irrelevant, just an arbitrary extra punishment.
Are there any particular examples of this abuse of ECHR? We know that ECHR has been against sending perfectly innocent people to Rwanda, and the Windrush figures to Jamaica. Who are the ones who "rape or swindle or rob" and get special treatment?


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The UK is fortunate in having a temperate climate - changes are unlikely to be quickly catastrophic.


Unless a tipping point which materially affects the North Atlantic Current is passed.



Terry - Somerset said:


> It is also relatively wealthy - adaptation is a plausible response to moderate speed of change.


We can't cope with the smll snowfalls we get now. Have you seen what winters are like at our latitude where the Gulf Stream has no effect?



Terry - Somerset said:


> Those making sweeping generalisations based on very selective data - not just the UK but globally should understand that many events are cyclical, perhaps related to El Nino. Simple interpretation of short term trends (eg: drought in Africa, heatwaves in Asia etc) is flawed.


Not sure if this will work - it is a very tall image:


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Jonm said:


> The lies go back at least to when he was a journalist


And many of those were about the EU.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

AlanY said:


> I haven't read any newspaper or watched any so-called 'mainstream' TV news or political programme since 2016 when the bias from all of them became intolerable.


You mean when the gulf between the truth and the rabid fantasies you wish were the truth became too great for you to cope with.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> now you're completely mispresenting what I originally said, it's completely out of context and you're bringing in about 10 subjects, I'm actually *against* banning air travel thanks.


No - it's not out of context.

You were the one who took the topic of a ban on air travel and expanded it into freedom of speech, unions, human rights...


thetyreman said:


> what next shall we ban freedom of speech? and also whilst were at it lets ban all unions, all human rights, all working rights and label anybody who's left leaning as a marxist shall we? if we allow anybody to ban air travel I will be out on the streets protesting, once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power, this is how fascism started in the 20s and 30s, people need to stand against it in huge numbers.


I'm pointing out that some bans are good things.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Unless a tipping point which materially affects the North Atlantic Current is passed.
> 
> 
> We can't cope with the smll snowfalls we get now. Have you seen what winters are like at our latitude where the Gulf Stream has no effect?
> ...


Interesting. The holocene begins about 9000bce and you see it in the graph as the modern era relatively stable until very recently. Thought to be anthropogenic itself, due to the effects of agriculture


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Weakness can also be a strength, knowing when to compromise and when to stand your ground are very important traits when it comes to diplomacy and in this case survival.
> 
> Putin is NOT going to back down, he will split Ukraine because he knows that he cannot lose face and tell the russian people that NATO has won, so putting more pressure on them will just force his hand. Borris knows he is treading a thin line by his actions of supplying military hardware to Ukraine and is aware that Russia could retaliate, this is why he has already issued letters of last resort in the event he and the government are wiped out in a nuclear strike.
> 
> ...


Two things.
1 If Russia carried out a first strike, Putin and his cronies would all die a few minutes later in the inevitable counter attack. Many millions of Russians would also die and their country renedered uninhabitable for possibly hundreds of years. Putin is allegedly dying anyway so may not give a ****, but it wont be him actually firing the missiles. It may be that those responsible might take a different view. This has happened in the past in the 1980s when Soviet systems indicated an attack launched by the US. Those responsible did not initiate a counter strike, in direct contradiction with their orders, because they were not convinced the information was real. They were correct, it was a compute
malfunction apparently caused by freak weather conditions. In the current circumstances one would hope saner heafs would prevail if Putin ordered a strike when there is and never has been any direct threat to the Russian homeland.
2. Since when did Putin explain anything truthfully to the Russian people. If they were entirely defeated he would probably claim they had withdrawn for humanitarian reasons, to avoid further blooshed or some such bo*****s. Dont forget that initially he was telling them there had been no casualties, not one. Then it crept up to the mysterious figure of 498, where it remained for some time. In reality they had already lost thousands. He still claims that the maternity hospital in.Mariupol was a military base, and the supermarket hit last week was apparently an ammunition facility of some kind. He has clomplete contempt for the Russian people so certainly isnt remotely interested in telling them the truth. 
This is hardly a new approach over there. Many Soviet POW returned to them at the end of the war were either shot or imprisoned for no better reason than that they had seen the west and knew that what they had always been told about the Soviet Socialist utopia was total c**p. ALL of them were marked as being potentially ideologically unsound and found it impossible to get a decent job or anything else, a situation which lasted for decades.
Russia is a great country but has had the misfortune to be ruled by more than its fair share of despots since Joe Stalin, who makes Putin look about as scary as the Easter Bunny by comparison. Gorbachev briefly showed how things could have been very different, unfortunately I think the old ways are too deeply ingrained to change easily. 
My hope is that Putin will have sown the seeds of his own downfall in invading Ukraine, and that whoever takes over will embrace a more open approach in order to rehabilitate themselves with the rest of the world.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> Not true. Immigrants are subject to UK laws and punishments just the same as everybody else, and have equal human rights. They aren't getting away with anything.
> Sending them somewhere else seems pretty irrelevant, just an arbitrary extra punishment.
> Are there any particular examples of this abuse of ECHR? We know that ECHR has been against sending perfectly innocent people to Rwanda, and the Windrush figures to Jamaica. Who are the ones who "rape or swindle or rob" and get special treatment?


Again Jacob, try actually reading my post, rather than assuming you know what I am going to say from reading the first line. You are quite right about Rwanda, a disgraceful idea. But thats what you get if you put someone in charge of the Home Office who couldnt run a bath.


----------



## thetyreman (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> No - it's not out of context.
> 
> You were the one who took the topic of a ban on air travel and expanded it into freedom of speech, unions, human rights...
> 
> I'm pointing out that some bans are good things.



you clearly missed my point then, that's not my problem, I'll just ignore you, if you aren't willing to listen to what I have to say then I won't listen to you either, it works both ways.


----------



## thetyreman (4 Jul 2022)

anyway I need to get back to work now, I'm making some furniture and just had a quick break, what an absolute waste of my valuable time!


----------



## johna.clements (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> In both cases I would suggest they would be fully fledged British citizens, so your point is irrelevant. And as I said to Jacob this is not about immigration, that is simply one example where i believe the ECHR is being abused.



Why do you assume that they are UK citizens (they could live in Northern Ireland). Many people who arrived as children never applied for nationalisation because they wrongly assume like you that they already are. You may wish to google the Windrush scandle.

So I again ask
What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Limey Lurker said:


> I'd first check to see if he'd sold the window!


Would that be the window with the ornate gold frame bought for him by a Tory party donor with laundered Russian money?


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> This fact (and George Monbiot) enrage climate change sceptics but seems inescapable!


Climate change "sceptics" intersect with facts in much the same way as Round Earth "sceptics" and Holocaust "sceptics" do.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ​ I shall leave you to your agreed upon narrative, while I keep rummaging for reality.


You won't find any where you are rummaging.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> since the break up of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, many ex-union countries have been welcomed into EU and NATO with little regard for Russian sensitivities.


Here's the way that "Russian sensitivity" should work.

Russia - you used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now you don't. It's what happens.

Great Britain used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Spain used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Austria-Hungary used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Mongolia used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Rome used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.
Greece used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now it doesn't. It's what happens.

Get over it.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The UN does not have a mandate to stop wars, but (IMHO) they could do far more to stop them starting.


They can't even unload a dangerously decaying oil tanker.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> This was actually in breach of at least two treaties between eu/NATO and the Russian Federation.


Spoken like a true Putin fanboi, pantingly eager to repeat Russian lies.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Blackswanwood said:


> Your post reminds me that until recently you described yourself as Putin Apologist (or similar).


You mean he isn't still?


----------



## Jameshow (4 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> That's a very old cliche which gets trotted out across the political spectrum.
> It's close to the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. For a right winger "the deserving" is very tiny category. A good lefty would include everybody. The centrists e.g. "caring conservatives" are in between.
> Just a thought - but if you found yourself in a lifeboat and arguing about who was entitled to be saved, you might find yourself the first one to be thrown overboard!


Probably most of us on here would be last to get on the lifeboat and first to be thrown overboard!


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> But that does not mean that the Soviets were entirely motivated out of a desire to protect the poor little Cubans from their nasty neighbours.


Indeed. You'd have to be as mad as a putin to think that the USSR would have nuked the USA if they'd tried to invade Cuba again.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> How you can be an apologist for this is quite beyond me,


He is in Greece, where there's a significant number of people who think like him. Plus it's not inconcievable that he is part of some Russian psy-ops operation.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

AlanY said:


> How about that shining star of socialism that was Blair's Labour government? You know the one, it bankrupted the UK


How did it do that?



AlanY said:


> uncontrolled immigration).


Got any verifiable data to show that such a thing exists?





AlanY said:


> Or, perhaps, the Tory Government of John 'Curry [email protected]' Major? The one that took us into the EU without a Referendum and paved the way for Brexit.


So you would have had a referendum over the Maastricht treaty? That would have been ironic, as at that time there was no mechanism for member states to leave the EU. It was a later treaty that introduced Article 50. Presumably you were opposed to that, too?






AlanY said:


> Or you might just have had a Labour Government led by a career protestor whose biggest achievement was to go for a beer with his IRA mates and to stand on a platform in support of Hamas terrorists


Would you like to see some photos of people smiling with and glad-handing terrorists? I can give you UK Prime Ministers (Lab & Con), a US Secretary of Defense, HRH Prince of Wales and HM QE II. 

Please let me know which you'd prefer.

And BTW - Hamas was legitimately elected as the ruling party of Palestine.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Your narrative must be true, because?


Because it's not promulgated by a demonstrable liar who makes the truth illegal, locks up people who speak it, and murders his political opponents?


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> It is neither illegal nor unprovoked,


So what Russian forces have been doing in Ukraine is not illegal.

Deranged is utterly inadequate to describe your position.


Trainee neophyte said:


> So many things are 180 degrees from reality.


There's certainly one person here who is.

Actually - more than that, in a qualitative way - we could really do with a superstring theorist to come up with an expansion of "180 degrees from reality" to describe someone so turned away from it that he's actually translated himself to a completely different dimension.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Trainee neophyte said:


> what else have they lied about? Covid? Climate change?


Don't tell me - you don't believe in those, either.

I've got a new Avatar for you.







You can thank me later.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> it is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident


You accidentally missed out a few words there.

I'll fix it for you.

_It is only when you watch other news channels where they are not constrained by the legacy of the BBC that it becomes so obvious or evident just how unbiased and factual the BBC really is._

You're welcome.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> And to compare what is going on in Ukraine now with the sacrifice made by the Soviet Union fighting Hitler is frankly insulting to those involved, shame on you for that remark.


Trainee neophyte feeling shame for his support for Putin?

Are you serious?


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> When it became apparent that the US were not prepared to back down the Soviets did so. In the background the agreement was reached, and just as well. So diplomacy worked but only because the Soviets came to the view that the US were prepared to stop them by force if necessary, and that was what arguably brought them to the table.





Richard_C said:


> They were very worrying times. I read an account of a V Bomber squadron leader during the Cuba crisis. On the day that it all came to a head he was having breakfast when a jeep arrived and he was told that he was wanted on base immediately. He told his wife to listen and of she heard the squadron take off she was to collect the childern from school and drive to her sisters house in Scotland. He and the crew then sat in the fully armed aircraft on 5 minute ready for 13 hours. Imagine, knowing that if you are ordered to take off there will be no coming back. As we know, K and K compromised and we all lived.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

johna.clements said:


> Why do you assume that they are UK citizens (they could live in Northern Ireland). Many people who arrived as children never applied for nationalisation because they wrongly assume like you that they already are. You may wish to google the Windrush scandle.
> 
> So I again ask
> What about people who came here when when they were five then commit a crime when they are twenty.
> What about someone who comes here when they are fifteen gets married has kids and grand kids and commits a crime when they are fifty.


Each case should be considered on its merits obviously, but I think you know very well that is not what I am talking about. And I wholly agree the Windrush affair is a sadly on going national disgrace, likewise the utterly immoral idea of packing people off to Rwanda who haven't been convicted of anything. But this is not what I am talking about. Take the case in Luton some years ago where a large gang of Jamaicans were running a 24/7 drugs operation from a block of flats. All young men, all here illegally. I think they got something approaching 100 years between them. Would you have them remain here after serving their sentences? Every group will contain a minority who have no respect for their fellows and cause misery for the rest of us. We have little choice but to put up with the home grown variety, but those from elsewhere we can and should remove. I am not suggesting that immigrants are more likely to commit crime that is blatantly nonsense. The vast majority come here to escape persecution or simply to make a better life for themselves, and are most welcome as far as I'm concerned. But I cannot see why we should want to subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda. As I said earlier a recent report stated that, for example, there are several thousand Nigerian nationals in our prison system, how true that figure is I don't know, but there probably are a substantial number of foreign nationals from all over the world. Why are they there? What crimes have they committed? Some of them are no doubt serious offenders, so why on earth would you want them to remain here once their sentence is completed.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

Indeed, scary stuff, terrifying to think what could have happened if just one commander of a ship or submarine had lost their cool and launched.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Here's the way that "Russian sensitivity" should work.
> 
> Russia - you used to have an empire and huge geopolitical influence. Now you don't. It's what happens.
> 
> ...


Very true, but sadly not without precedent. Look at the way we refused to allow the Poles to participate in the victory parade at the end of the second world war, all because it might offend comrade Stalin.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Each case should be considered on its merits obviously, but I think you know very well that is not what I am talking about. And I wholly agree the Windrush affair is a sadly on going national disgrace, likewise the utterly immoral idea of packing people off to Rwanda who haven't been convicted of anything. But this is not what I am talking about. Take the case in Luton some years ago where a large gang of Jamaicans were running a 24/7 drugs operation from a block of flats. All young men, all here illegally. I think they got something approaching 100 years between them. Would you have them remain here after serving their sentences? Every group will contain a minority who have no respect for their fellows and cause misery for the rest of us. We have little choice but to put up with the home grown variety, but those from elsewhere we can and should remove. I am not suggesting that immigrants are more likely to commit crime that is blatantly nonsense. The vast majority come here to escape persecution or simply to make a better life for themselves, and are most welcome as far as I'm concerned. But I cannot see why we should want to subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda. As I said earlier a recent report stated that, for example, there are several thousand Nigerian nationals in our prison system, how true that figure is I don't know, but there probably are a substantial number of foreign nationals from all over the world. Why are they there? What crimes have they committed? Some of them are no doubt serious offenders, so why on earth would you want them to remain here once their sentence is completed.


There were 270 Nigerian prisoners out of a total of 9,349 foreign nationals in UK jails at the end of 2017, according to the latest statistics that I could see on line. The total prison population at that time was 84,373.
They were in prison serving their sentences. Why do you think they should serve an additional punishment by being sent back to Nigeria? It seems to worry you a lot, even though the numbers are tiny and for all you know they will be rehabilitated and lead normal lives, and /or if applying for citizenship will be refused anyway.
We don't "subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda" we put them in prison!!
More stats here: 320 Nigerian prisoners in British jails at the end of 2016
I don't know whether or not this came off UK to pay for £700,000 prison wing in Nigeria but it seems that some may be spending their sentences in Nigeria anyway. Would that make you happier?
Seems to be largely a non issue.
More on the topic Carceral Colonialism: Britain's plan to build a prison wing in Nigeria - Corporate Watch "carceral colonialism" is a new one for me! 
Would you send Scottish or Welsh offenders back to Scotland and Wales? Just wondered.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities.


There is a problem though that our institutionally racist Home Office does not accept the corollary of that, namely that demonstrably responsible behaviour should confer rights.





Fergie 307 said:


> If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth.


Ah - I wondered how long before you'd burble out that deluded term.

Please tell us how many deportations have been successfully appealed under the provisions of Article 8 of the ECHR.

It might take you a while to find figures which please you, so you can take a break now and then from your search and read these:









Does the Human Rights Act prevent us deporting serious criminals? - Free Movement


It is very widely believed that the Human Rights Act stops the UK from deporting foreign criminals whence they came. To a limited extent, there is some truth in this. Some appeals against deportation decisions do succeed on human rights grounds. Not many, though, and none succeed because of the...



freemovement.org.uk













Has The Human Rights Act Stopped Criminals Being Deported? - EachOther


One of the common criticisms levelled against the Human Rights Act is that it restricts our ability to deport dangerous foreign criminals who are a risk to public safety. In particular, the media have fixated on cases where deportation appeals have succeeded because of Article 8, the right to a...




eachother.org.uk













‘Foreign criminals’ are just an excuse: the Tories are trying to take away rights from all of us | Daniel Trilling


The idea that the UK is not deporting enough people is a convenient justification for overhauling the Human Rights Act, says author Daniel Trilling




www.theguardian.com





When a barrister says

_My direct experience is that judges are highly sceptical when a foreign criminal asserts that he or she has a close relationship with his or her family in the UK. Strong evidence is needed to prove this and it only cases where the foreign criminal can establish a genuine and subsisting family life and genuine harm to the family that might potentially succeed._

_If the foreign criminal is particularly vulnerable in some way then deportation might also potentially be a breach of a person’s human rights, but such situations are very rare indeed and the evidence would need to be very strong._

Do you think he is lying?



Fergie 307 said:


> I recall that reports around the truly shameful Rwanda policy indicated that there were several thousand criminals in our prisons from Nigeria alone.


How certain can we be of the veracity of those reports?




Fergie 307 said:


> All will no doubt be championed by some Cherie Blair type fighting tooth and mail for their right to remain here, despite having abused that privilege.


Is that "no doubt" based on provable, factual history, or on blind, unreasoning, prejudice?



Fergie 307 said:


> This gives those who oppose immigration ammunition and undermines the vast majority of immigrants who make a very positive contribution to our country, in the NHS for example.


So why do you contribute to that supply of ammunition by banging on about nonsensically false problems?

Where do you prioritise the importance of facts vs prejudiced beliefs?




Fergie 307 said:


> So I don't see anything wrong with the legislation itself, we have just allowed its interpretation to become skewed too much in favour of the individual, with little regard to the rights of the general population to live their lives unmolested by these people, whether they be home grown or from elsewhere.


Who is the "we"? By what means have "we" "allowed" an interpretation which you don't like?

How would you suggest "we" change interpretations which you don't like? Should "we", for example, put an end to having an independent judiciary?





Fergie 307 said:


> So you think people who come here then rape or swindle or rob should be allowed to remain, why?


Where did he say that, or even suggest it?




Fergie 307 said:


> We have enough of our own criminals to contend with, without providing homes for other peoples. We cant deport our own so have to put up with them, shouldnt be the case for those from overseas.


How do *you *define "from overseas"?




Fergie 307 said:


> Those who abuse the privilige should be sent back to wherever they came from.


Do you think there should be any time timit on how long ago, or at what age, someone "came from" somewhere?

Again - how many people do not get deported because of the HRA?



Fergie 307 said:


> And yes I agree its hardly an original argument, that doesnt mean its not valid. I have little doubt if you invited the public to say whether a given thief, swindler, robber or worse should remain or be deported they would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.


Some people would vote for the death penalty. Some people would vote to ban Islam. Some people would vote for the forced deportation of everyone who isn't white.


----------



## Daniel2 (4 Jul 2022)

Deary me.
You are all far too comfortable and secure, and you have
far too much time on your hands.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

AlanY said:


> I am against the ECHR all the time it is used to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals or illegal immigrants.


I really am going to insist that you produce evidence showing the size of that problem. If you can't then you aren't so much objecting to something real as just spouting racist prejudice.





AlanY said:


> We have enough of our own scumbags on the street that we should not have to tolerate foreign parasites - who contribute nothing to society - breaking our Laws, raping our children, murdering our citizens, rioting in our streets in full confidence that they will never be removed because some foreign 'judge' says so. Time that changed.


You do seem to be labouring under a huge weight of staggering ignorance.

The HRA is a* UK *law. Matters concerning it are adjudicated in* UK *courts by* UK *judges.

And if the fact that you put the word _judge _in quotes like that when it immediately follows _foreign _does not prove your racist tendencies, I don't know what does. For you, a foreigner can't possibly validly be a *real *judge, can he.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Fully agree but there is also the issue of a conflict between what is normal / acceptable behavior in their place of origin to what we expect in the UK.


A conflict happily viewed in a completely opposite way by tens of thousands of people when it comes to behaviour of UK citizens transgressing what's expected in other countries.









More than 75,000 sign petition calling for release of Karl Andree


Karl Andree was arrested in Jeddah in August last year for breaching Saudi Arabia's strict anti-alcohol laws. David Cameron is personally intervening in the 'extremely concerning' case, Downing Street said.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> you clearly missed my point then, that's not my problem, I'll just ignore you, if you aren't willing to listen to what I have to say then I won't listen to you either, it works both ways.


The problem from your POV is that I am very much listening to what you have to say.

You said, in an unambiguous claim of the dangerous things that could flow from a ban on air travel:


thetyreman said:


> what next shall we ban freedom of speech? and also whilst were at it lets ban all unions, all human rights, all working rights and label anybody who's left leaning as a marxist shall we?


So,"first they came for my air miles and then they took away all my basic rights"?

Really?


You said:


thetyreman said:


> if we allow anybody to ban air travel I will be out on the streets protesting, once we allow them to ban one thing it will lead to other abuses of power, this is how fascism started in the 20s and 30s, people need to stand against it in huge numbers.


So banning air travel would set us on the slippery slope to a fascist state?

*Really*?

Tip: If you want people to listen to what you say, say things worth listening to, not nonsense.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

Jacob said:


> There were 270 Nigerian prisoners out of a total of 9,349 foreign nationals in UK jails at the end of 2017, according to the latest statistics that I could see on line. The total prison population at that time was 84,373.
> They were in prison serving their sentences. Why do you think they should serve an additional punishment by being sent back to Nigeria? It seems to worry you a lot, even though the numbers are tiny and for all you know they will be rehabilitated and lead normal lives, and /or if applying for citizenship will be refused anyway.
> We don't "subject ourselves to the continued depredations of the minority who have a different agenda" we put them in prison!!
> More stats here: 320 Nigerian prisoners in British jails at the end of 2016
> ...


Thanks for the figure. The suggestion of thousands from Nigeria did seem a bit unlikely, which is exactly why I said I had no idea of its accuracy.
But, if I read you correctly, you seem to be content that after serving their sentences foreign criminals should be allowed to remain here illegally indefinitely. If that is your view then you are perfectly entitled to it and we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
I think this issue goes way beyond immigration, or how we approach dealing with foreign nationals who commit crime. Mentioned we have seen horrible crimes committed by people who it turns out had a history of similar offences, this seems particularly true of sex crimes. Maybe if those making sentencing or parole decisions were made to explain recreational behind their decisions to victims, they might think.more carefully. You are of course correct that some people memorable prison fully rehabilitated, but how to you tell which ones? If they are home grown we have to accept that risk. If they can be returned whence they came then we dont.
I am not really sure why you see sending them home as being necessarily an additional punishment, as I say each case on its individual merits. I simply suggest that this should be the default position.
And the practice of transferring people to serve out sentences in their home country is nothing new, often done at the request of the prisoner themselves.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Each case should be considered on its merits obviously, but I think you know very well that is not what I am talking about.


You are spot on. I think we all (well, most of us) do indeed now know very well exactly what it is you are talking about.




Fergie 307 said:


> Take the case in Luton some years ago where a large gang of Jamaicans were running a 24/7 drugs operation from a block of flats. All young men, all here illegally. I think they got something approaching 100 years between them. Would you have them remain here after serving their sentences?


So - that's either a reasonable concern, based on verifiable examples of that happening before.

Or it's racist dog-whistle.

Which?





Fergie 307 said:


> As I said earlier a recent report stated that, for example, there are several thousand Nigerian nationals in our prison system, how true that figure is I don't know,


That doesn't stop you quoting it though, does it.

It doesn't stop you then embellishing it with completely fabricated nonsense that the HRA will prevent us from deporting them when they are released, something you do because, basically, you don't want people you don't like to have rights.






Fergie 307 said:


> but there probably are a substantial number of foreign nationals from all over the world. Why are they there? What crimes have they committed? Some of them are no doubt serious offenders, so why on earth would you want them to remain here once their sentence is completed.


Any point asking you for evidence which justifies the fear that they might have to remain?


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> The suggestion of thousands from Nigeria did seem a bit unlikely, which is exactly why I said I had no idea of its accuracy.


No, you didn't, not until *after *you were questioned about its accuracy. Your initial use of it included no such caveats.



Fergie 307 said:


> I have no problem with the ECHR. The problem as I see it is that rights should come with responsibilities. If you don't honour your responsibilities, by committing a serious crime for example, then you should not enjoy the same rights as others. So for example your rapist, murderer, drug dealer or whatever who has come here from overseas should not be able to avoid deportation at the end of their sentence on the basis of their right to family life and so forth. We have enough home grown toe rags without taking on other countries. Many of these people I would suggest have hardly been productive members of society, rather parasites, who see our legal system as a soft touch. *I recall that reports around the truly shameful Rwanda policy indicated that there were several thousand criminals in our prisons from Nigeria alone. All will no doubt be championed by some Cherie Blair type fighting tooth and mail for their right to remain here, despite having abused that privilege.* This gives those who oppose immigration ammunition and undermines the vast majority of immigrants who make a very positive contribution to our country, in the NHS for example. So I don't see anything wrong with the legislation itself, we have just allowed its interpretation to become skewed too much in favour of the individual, with little regard to the rights of the general population to live their lives unmolested by these people, whether they be home grown or from elsewhere.





Fergie 307 said:


> But, if I read you correctly, you seem to be content that after serving their sentences foreign criminals should be allowed to remain here illegally indefinitely.


Your reading skills could do with some improvement.




Fergie 307 said:


> I am not really sure why you see sending them home as being necessarily an additional punishment, as I say each case on its individual merits. I simply suggest that this should be the default position.


Do you have any evidence that it is *not *the default position?


----------



## Spectric (4 Jul 2022)

If we are all totally honest then it is bad the way russia is targeting civilians but then the days where two armies would meet and face off on the battlefield have gone and conflicts now get dragged into civilian areas so some leeway whereas the only country to deliberately target and decimate civilian populations has been America so who is really any better or worse than russia if the wrong synario arises? At the end of the day humans just cannot live in peace because eventually someone ends up getting offended, takes offence and things spiral out of control, we just cannot learn from our past.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> It that could happen in the USA then in comparison we are nothing more than a canoe, so is doing the right thing really doing the right thing knowing what could happen, are a million lives worth several billion, this is not a decision about what is right or wrong, about doing the moral thing but a simple question of survival, prevention of a possible extinction event.


OK - so we throw millions of Ukranian lives under Putin's bus.

To which of the millions of Moldovans, Georgians, Bosnians, Kosovans, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Montenegrans, Poles, Finns, Swedes do we do the same, bearing in mind that each and every time we do we will be more easily trampled on than the time before?


----------



## thetyreman (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> Trainee neophyte feeling shame for his support for Putin?
> 
> Are you serious?


it's called freedom of speech, neophyte has the right to his opinions, and you're twisting what he said to suit your agenda just like you've done with me too. 


morqthana said:


> The problem from your POV is that I am very much listening to what you have to say.
> 
> You said, in an unambiguous claim of the dangerous things that could flow from a ban on air travel:
> 
> ...


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> it's called freedom of speech, neophyte has the right to his opinions, and you're twisting what he said to suit your agenda just like you've done with me too.


My agenda is one of truth, evidence, fairness, humanity, reason...

Far from twisting what you say I focus on it and highlight where it conflicts with those principles.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> whereas the only country to deliberately target and decimate civilian populations has been America


You do us a disservice









Herbicidal warfare - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

morqthana said:


> You are spot on. I think we all (well, most of us) do indeed now know very well exactly what it is you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry I thought you liked facts. You can substitute anything you like for Jamaican doesn't matter to me, and certainly not racist in any way.
You are right I don't like criminals in whatever shape or form. And yes, where there s a balance to be struck between their rights, and the rights the rest of us should have to be protected from them, then I think our rights should take precedence. How far you take that depends on the nature of the crime. 
So I make no apology for saying that paedophiles and rapists for example, should in many cases never be released, purely on the basis that I could not face the parents of a murdered child and say that in the interests of his human rights I had released him, despite the risk that he might 're offend.
Which takes us back to where we started. If the person has stolen a pair of jeans from a supermarket then no I would not be jumping up and down demanding they be deported. Because the risk associated with a repetition is insignificant. But at the other extreme in the case of a rapist for example you might argue that the risk of them 're offending may be small, but the consequences of they do are life changing for somebody. So why take the risk at all.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> Borris knows he is treading a thin line by his actions of supplying military hardware to Ukraine and is aware that Russia could retaliate, this is why he has already issued letters of last resort in the event he and the government are wiped out in a nuclear strike.


No - he issued LOLR the moment he took office, just like every PM does.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Fergie 307 said:


> Sorry I thought you liked facts. You can substitute anything you like for Jamaican doesn't matter to me,


OK - so you're not picky about which foreigners you are prejudiced against.




Fergie 307 said:


> and certainly not racist in any way.

















Fergie 307 said:


> You are right I don't like criminals in whatever shape or form. And yes, where there s a balance to be struck between their rights, and the rights the rest of us should have to be protected from them, then I think our rights should take precedence. How far you take that depends on the nature of the crime.
> So I make no apology for saying that paedophiles and rapists for example, should in many cases never be released, purely on the basis that I could not face the parents of a murdered child and say that in the interests of his human rights I had released him, despite the risk that he might 're offend.
> Which takes us back to where we started. If the person has stolen a pair of jeans from a supermarket then no I would not be jumping up and down demanding they be deported. Because the risk associated with a repetition is insignificant. But at the other extreme in the case of a rapist for example you might argue that the risk of them 're offending may be small, but the consequences of they do are life changing for somebody. So why take the risk at all.


And yet again you bang on about this, thinking you can sideslip the question I keep asking, which is not about whether certain people should or should not be deported but about whether the HRA prevents us deporting ones who we think should be.


----------



## Fergie 307 (4 Jul 2022)

thetyreman said:


> it's called freedom of speech, neophyte has the right to his opinions, and you're twisting what he said to suit your agenda just like you've done with me too.


And I would have to point out that what I thought shameful is that he sought to compare the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union fighting Hitler with what is going on now in Ukraine.
As you say he has every right to air his views, including his support for Putin, and however much I may disagree with him I would hate to live in a world where he wasn't free to speak his mind.


----------



## Spectric (4 Jul 2022)

That's life, people do it every day to get ahead on the career ladder or to make progress at someone elses expense, if you don't want to be eaten by the bear then let him have the food and live to see another day because life is all about trade offs and making hard and bad decisions. Trying to wrap everything in cotton wool whilst wearing rose tinted specs is not going to change anything, life is hard and can be cruel so hiding behind some stupid pronoun is not going to solve anything.


----------



## morqthana (4 Jul 2022)

Spectric said:


> That's life, people do it every day to get ahead on the career ladder or to make progress at someone elses expense,


What?



Spectric said:


> if you don't want to be eaten by the bear then let him have the food and live to see another day because life is all about trade offs and making hard and bad decisions.


What?



Spectric said:


> Trying to wrap everything in cotton wool whilst wearing rose tinted specs is not going to change anything,


Err... what?



Spectric said:


> life is hard and can be cruel so hiding behind some stupid pronoun is not going to solve anything.


*What??*


----------



## MikeK (4 Jul 2022)

Too many complaints about the thread content, so now this is closed.


----------

