FlyTheNest

Morning all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 74511.html
I believe he lives in France.

Morning.

Did anyone catch the professor, think it was Michael Clarke, on Today this morning talking about the nuclear issue ?

I only heard the last snippet, and it seems he was taking a calm approach, quite different from the media.

If anyone did hear the whole thing and has time, please can you summarise it.
Thanks !

frightful_oik wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 74511.html
I believe he lives in France.

Lawson ?
I still have nightmares about the massive mortgage rates that nearly bankrupted us when he was Chancellor. Hopefully so will a lot of other people, and decide his judgement should be ignored.

''Cancer patients are being forced to sell their homes and even eat less due to 'dire financial situation', poll reveals''

''A UK-wide YouGov poll commissioned by Macmillan Cancer Support questioned 2,011 adults with cancer – 122 from Wales – and asked about their financial situation over a 12-month period.

It found that more than a million people with cancer (42%) are struggling to keep up with their household bills and credit commitments.

Macmillan say the “dire financial situation” is caused because cancer treatment leaves many patients unable to work.

The charity is warning that potential upcoming changes to welfare provisions could leave many without the support they need.''
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/healt ... l-10168332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Any chance the media could focus as much on serious issues like this as 'old lefty won't nuke millions' headlines ?

We've heard a lot about needing to be patriotic and singing and bowing to the Queen.
It's hard to feel love for a wealthy country that allows sick people to endure this sort of stress.

yahyah wrote:

frightful_oik wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 74511.html
I believe he lives in France.

Lawson ?
I still have nightmares about the massive mortgage rates that nearly bankrupted us when he was Chancellor. Hopefully so will a lot of other people, and decide his judgement should be ignored.

Yep, the Tories have chosen a discredited muppet to lead the out campaign. Almost as though they don't want to win.

Flat earth society member and paid up climate change lobbyist.

Well, at least the sentence containing discredited muppet, and don't want to win, doesn't also contain the words Jeremy Corbyn.

Do I detect a little mellowing TE ?

Morning All,
Went to bed convinced that scrapping Trident was the right thing to do because no sane person would launch nuclear attack.
Woke up thinking ah, but what about Hiroshima?
Military logic during war would basically be use nuclear weapons, if you can get away with it.
So now not sure on whether to scrap it or not, possibly may be best decided by referendum, but could see difficulty in forming initial question, and further problems deciding action if decision taken to keep nuclear option.

TechnicalEmphera was in theory right, J.C shouldn't
have ruled out use of nuclear weapons,
the deterrent depends on not knowing contents of the 'letter'. It could instruct launching missiles, it could authorise using 'the finger' (giant rocket with extended middle figure, fly's over target & releases millions of parachutes carrying pictures of Jarvis, Cocker's backside), it's the uncertainty that's important.
In practice it would be fairly obvious which way J.C would be likely go (Corbyn, not Cocker) so he's right to say so.

Question now is what would Labour do in office,
If the deterrent is to be kept & if not, until it's decommissioned, then could decision on contents of letter be down to someone else in cabinet?

An interesting analysis of Russia in Syria.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 74271.html

If they are prepared to send in actual troops, if they can afford to, then they could end up the dominant power in the region, especially given their close relationship with Iran. While arguably Syria has little value they will probably get some benefit from helping Iran stabilise the region.

For the first time in years America isn't the only game in town.

Ed Miliband (before he was really well known) vs Nigel Lawson

[youtube]iX3fgW1f7Wk[/youtube]

Lawson's delivery nowadays reminds me of Rowley Birkin QC

[youtube]rh8CQRerBVA[/youtube]

TechnicalEphemera wrote:An interesting analysis of Russia in Syria.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 74271.html

If they are prepared to send in actual troops, if they can afford to, then they could end up the dominant power in the region, especially given their close relationship with Iran. While arguably Syria has little value they will probably get some benefit from helping Iran stabilise the region.

For the first time in years America isn't the only game in town.

Cameron's obsession with removing Assad has never made much sense to me, in the context of his being happy to condone other repressive regimes. Putin has always made sense, at least, by supporting Assad, because it is the most obvious way to stabilise the region. I believe before Assad senior took power, Syria had experienced decades of civil war. As the insurgents Assad is fighting appear to be as brutal as Assad himself, stability seems preferable to chaos. Given the attempt at regime change in Libya has been such a failure, it's actually quite staggering that Cameron is openly proposing to deliberately try to create another such power vacuum in Syria by removing yet another functioning government and hoping a small group of the right kind of insurgents will benefit rather than Isis.

Morfters...as ever, hoping to be back later....but for now, it seems the Rochdale MP might be in a bit of bother....

Former Rochdale Borough Council leader, Councillor Colin Lambert has confirmed that he has instructed his lawyers to commence legal action against Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk and his former spin doctor, Matt Baker for what he describes as a "concerted campaign to damage him". He says he expects court papers will be lodged early next week.
Last week, Rochdale Online published an email authored by Matt Baker in which very serious allegations were made that Councillor Lambert had conspired to cover up child sex abuse, allegations Councillor Lambert described as "vile" and part of a "smear campaign" designed to force him from the office of council leader.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-fe ... cil-leader

ttfn

Maybe Corbyn should be invoking national security and keep his decision to himself.

Are we allowed to know what Cameron and previous PMs have instructed ?

But it allows the media to froth, Corbyn's haters inside and outside of the party to wail and doom monger.
All the while, the issues that really face people here, not doomsday scenarios, are ignored.

Why are some Labour people so keen to play the media game of side tracking away from real issues?
It's like the Beano. 'Corbyn Cat dodges Biffo the Bear'.

If he took a different stance the Sun would be wailing 'Don't Let the Loony Lefty Get His Finger On the Nuclear Button'.

Good morning all.
Today's laugh out loud moment:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... id-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah wrote:Well, at least the sentence containing discredited muppet, and don't want to win, doesn't also contain the words Jeremy Corbyn.

Do I detect a little mellowing TE ?

Nice picture of Corbyn as a Muppet:-



Edited, read posting info on how to embed images

danesclose wrote:Good morning all.
Today's laugh out loud moment:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... id-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat wrote:Morning All,
Went to bed convinced that scrapping Trident was the right thing to do because no sane person would launch nuclear attack.
Woke up thinking ah, but what about Hiroshima?
Military logic during war would basically be use nuclear weapons, if you can get away with it.
So now not sure on whether to scrap it or not, possibly may be best decided by referendum, but could see difficulty in forming initial question, and further problems deciding action if decision taken to keep nuclear option.

TechnicalEmphera was in theory right, J.C shouldn't
have ruled out use of nuclear weapons,
the deterrent depends on not knowing contents of the 'letter'. It could instruct launching missiles, it could authorise using 'the finger' (giant rocket with extended middle figure, fly's over target & releases millions of parachutes carrying pictures of Jarvis, Cocker's backside), it's the uncertainty that's important.
In practice it would be fairly obvious which way J.C would be likely go (Corbyn, not Cocker) so he's right to say so.

Question now is what would Labour do in office,
If the deterrent is to be kept & if not, until it's decommissioned, then could decision on contents of letter be down to someone else in cabinet?

Good summation of all the angles, very much in line with my own thoughts on the subject. I inadvertently upset GetYou last night with a poorly put comment where I wondered how much Corbyn is thinking like someone with the ambition to become PM versus thinking like a person in an unprecedented position to challenge conventional thinking. If you have a lifelong commitment to nuclear disarmament, the opportunity to make the point that the person using such a weapon would be responsible for murdering many innocent people and making the public really stop and consider what a nuclear deterrent really means, is possibly one that really can't passed up, especially if you have no real desire to be PM anyway. There is concern his comments could make Corbyn unelectable, but I wonder if having this debate will actually do Labour in general any harm. Public attitudes to nuclear weapons hasn't been tested of late. I'm pretty positive about Corbyn's comments, generally. As you say, Corbyn's stance on this is so well known he hasn't really tipped off any theoretical enemies, the furore is mostly manufactured, but he has brought to the entire country's attention the strange and mystical roll played by the UK PM in this deadly game of mutually assured destruction.

Good-morning, everyone.

yahyah wrote:Morning.

Did anyone catch the professor, think it was Michael Clarke, on Today this morning talking about the nuclear issue ?

I only heard the last snippet, and it seems he was taking a calm approach, quite different from the media.

If anyone did hear the whole thing and has time, please can you summarise it.
Thanks !

Taught me in his Newcastle Uni days many moons ago - sound bloke who knows what he is on about.

Good morning. Thank you to all contributors for a very interesting discussion yesterday about the nuclear deterrent. I sincerely hope that such a discussion is being held across the nation because it's long overdue especially in today's world. Well done again Jeremy Corbyn for getting this subject up front in the public domain maybe slightly overshadowed today by Russia's bombing in Syria but still obviously an important part of any defence debate. Do you think that he may have been so outspoken yesterday because of his due visit to Scotland where the SNP are opposed to Trident? If any issues are suitable as a subject for a referendum, as suggested as an option by TechnicalEphemera, could this be one? We used to vote for political parties more out of instinct and loyalty and almost delegated difficult decisions to the politicians trusting that they understood complex issues much better than we did. That's not so much the case these days with much more information available at our fingertips.
Lovely day here again in the North West.

David Cameron says not enough is being done to tackle tax evasion (http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... erritories).

Over the past few years, Cameron has repeatedly urged territories such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands to introduce central public registers of company ownership, thereby allowing law enforcement agencies to trace criminals behind firms that are currently anonymous.

This has met fierce resistance among some territories and Grant Shapps, a Foreign Office minister, appeared to backtrack on the UK’s requests for a central register during a trip to the Cayman Islands over the summer.

However, Cameron told the Jamaican parliament that he was still not happy with the way some territories were resisting financial transparency, without naming any.

My bold with no pun intended, just demonstrating how little weight his words carry. Anyway no need to add my voice btl, nobody else believes him either. Bet you wish you'd stuck to pasties in Leeds Station now eh, Dave?

Willow904 wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:An interesting analysis of Russia in Syria.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 74271.html

If they are prepared to send in actual troops, if they can afford to, then they could end up the dominant power in the region, especially given their close relationship with Iran. While arguably Syria has little value they will probably get some benefit from helping Iran stabilise the region.

For the first time in years America isn't the only game in town.

Cameron's obsession with removing Assad has never made much sense to me, in the context of his being happy to condone other repressive regimes. Putin has always made sense, at least, by supporting Assad, because it is the most obvious way to stabilise the region. I believe before Assad senior took power, Syria had experienced decades of civil war. As the insurgents Assad is fighting appear to be as brutal as Assad himself, stability seems preferable to chaos. Given the attempt at regime change in Libya has been such a failure, it's actually quite staggering that Cameron is openly proposing to deliberately try to create another such power vacuum in Syria by removing yet another functioning government and hoping a small group of the right kind of insurgents will benefit rather than Isis.

Cameron's foreign policy is coloured by the fact that his favourite film is Where Eagles Dare, which he's apparently seen 17 times. In other words, he's a dangerous idiot, as implied by the military top brass in the Ashcroft/Oakshott book.

utopiandreams wrote:David Cameron says not enough is being done to tackle tax evasion (http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... erritories).

Over the past few years, Cameron has repeatedly urged territories such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands to introduce central public registers of company ownership, thereby allowing law enforcement agencies to trace criminals behind firms that are currently anonymous.

This has met fierce resistance among some territories and Grant Shapps, a Foreign Office minister, appeared to backtrack on the UK’s requests for a central register during a trip to the Cayman Islands over the summer.

However, Cameron told the Jamaican parliament that he was still not happy with the way some territories were resisting financial transparency, without naming any.

My bold with no pun intended, just demonstrating how little weight his words carry. Anyway no need to add my voice btl, nobody else believes him either. Bet you wish you'd stuck to pasties in Leeds Station now eh, Dave?

Yes - I saw that article yesterday where Grant Shapps' earlier "intervention" on the subject got a mention. I noticed that David Cameron didn't refer to it, or contradict him, in his speech.

Good morfternoon.

Arvomorn, all.

Looking forward to the game tonight - Show will be wearing his Ospreys shirt and his red woolly cap; I'll be trying out (for the first time!) the Welsh national anthem (having had to learn it phonetically); and we'll both be cheering our lovely boys on, and praying for no more injuries (both sides).

On nuclear weapons - interesting discussions here and elsewhere. I suspect that if any other leader of any party had been asked (as Corbyn has been) under what specific circumstances would you be prepared to press the button, they would not have been able to answer.
We are a very small group of islands. If we were struck, there is not much chance that the infrastructure would exist for us to retaliate. Would any leader strike any other country, as a first attack, even if they had the permission and/or power to do so? Personally, I doubt it.
It takes courage, both personal and political, to state categorically that there are no circumstances under which you would order a nuclear strike. Corbyn has demonstrated that courage, and whether you agree with him or not, he deserves respect for that.
It takes a bit more courage for a country to agree that unilateral nuclear disarmament is the right thing to do - and I think a referendum on it is the way forward. At least we are having a discussion on a subject which has been shelved for some time.

There are some who are concerned about jobs losses should we not renew/replace Trident. This is something the government talks about - yet the same government is apparently content to allow thousands of job losses in steel whilst lending tens of millions of our cash to a Russian oligarch who wants to invest in steel in Canada. But then those job losses are only in Wales and the North East, so presumably they don't matter.

Satirical website The Daily Mash on the media fuelled outrage about JC and nuclear war:

ANY future prime minister must be willing to guarantee the total destruction of the UK in a nuclear war.

As Jeremy Corbyn pledged never to use nuclear weapons, voters made it clear they will reject anyone who will not cause them to be vaporised.

Donna Sheridan, from Stevenage, said: “We should definitely kill millions of enemy civilians because it might cheer us up a bit before we die.

“Retaliation would ultimately be pointless because widespread destruction would be inevitable and they might just send more missiles to finish us off. So we need to be led by someone who isn’t very good at thinking logically.”

She added: “It would help if they had a total disregard for human life and a fixation with apocalyptic vengeance. It’s a shame they killed Bin Laden because he’d be perfect.”

Tom Booker, from Hatfield, said: “A few people would probably survive so fighting back would boost morale. And morale is vitally important when you’re scavenging in the ruins with your teeth falling out.”

Above on Nukes.

Corbyn should not have answered the question, you just don't our defence relies to a small extent on not answering it. PT in the Guardian has a decent analysis.

We absolutely would be able to retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe us out. The submarines would detect the loss of Radio 4 (bizarre but there you go) and launch. Trident is expensive because it is a second strike weapon. It has the benefit that you don't have a hair trigger looking to launch before you are hit (which is why in the Cold War the USA had B52s orbiting Thule ready to head off into the Soviet Union).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ns-cartoon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fans of Martin Rowson, don't forget he works for the Tribune magazine too.

http://tribunecartoons.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above on Nukes.

Corbyn should not have answered the question, you just don't our defence relies to a small extent on not answering it. PT in the Guardian has a decent analysis.

We absolutely would be able to retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe us out. The submarines would detect the loss of Radio 4 (bizarre but there you go) and launch. Trident is expensive because it is a second strike weapon. It has the benefit that you don't have a hair trigger looking to launch before you are hit (which is why in the Cold War the USA had B52s orbiting Thule ready to head off into the Soviet Union).

How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.

Interesting to see Chuka and Yvette Cooper snucking up to the Murdoch press last night.
Maybe the canapes and drinks were what attracted them.

danesclose wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above on Nukes.

Corbyn should not have answered the question, you just don't our defence relies to a small extent on not answering it. PT in the Guardian has a decent analysis.

We absolutely would be able to retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe us out. The submarines would detect the loss of Radio 4 (bizarre but there you go) and launch. Trident is expensive because it is a second strike weapon. It has the benefit that you don't have a hair trigger looking to launch before you are hit (which is why in the Cold War the USA had B52s orbiting Thule ready to head off into the Soviet Union).

How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.

Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?

yahyah wrote:Interesting to see Chuka and Yvette Cooper snucking up to the Murdoch press last night.
Maybe the canapes and drinks were what attracted them.

Chuka left the conference on Tuesday before Jez's speech, apparently without giving any reason. He is not to be trusted at all, a total slippery snake.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

yahyah wrote:Interesting to see Chuka and Yvette Cooper snucking up to the Murdoch press last night.
Maybe the canapes and drinks were what attracted them.

Chuka left the conference on Tuesday before Jez's speech, apparently without giving any reason. He is not to be trusted at all, a total slippery snake.

Just not sure what they think they may achieve other than keeping Murdoch journos prepped for their attempts to oust Corbyn.

Yvette should be particularly cautious.
If she were leader the Sun would likely headline 'Would you trust a feminist with PMT's finger on the nuclear button ?'.

yahyah wrote:''Cancer patients are being forced to sell their homes and even eat less due to 'dire financial situation', poll reveals''

''A UK-wide YouGov poll commissioned by Macmillan Cancer Support questioned 2,011 adults with cancer – 122 from Wales – and asked about their financial situation over a 12-month period.

It found that more than a million people with cancer (42%) are struggling to keep up with their household bills and credit commitments.

Macmillan say the “dire financial situation” is caused because cancer treatment leaves many patients unable to work.

The charity is warning that potential upcoming changes to welfare provisions could leave many without the support they need.''
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/healt ... l-10168332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Any chance the media could focus as much on serious issues like this as 'old lefty won't nuke millions' headlines ?

We've heard a lot about needing to be patriotic and singing and bowing to the Queen.
It's hard to feel love for a wealthy country that allows sick people to endure this sort of stress.

Always somebody (allegedly) ready to make a quick buck out of the situation:

In one of the deals, a business partner of Ms Thomson's bought a home in Stirling for £64,000 from a cancer sufferer desperate to move, before selling it to Ms Thomson for £95,000 the same day. Ms Thomson then received a 'cashback' payment of more than £28,000 from her business partner.
Neither the £28,000 payment, nor the fact that the business partner had owned the home for less than six months, was disclosed to the lender, which provided a mortgage based on a purchase price of £95,000. Under guidelines, the mortgage company should have been made aware of both details.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/137 ... urn false;

Suspicious that the northern rail electrification is back on just as Tory Conference comes up. It was actually a good decision to pause- I wonder it's been paused long enough to learn lessons from GWR experience.

Simon Jenkins and the "cancelled to pay for HS2" people have egg on their faces. Corbyn was nearly one of those, lest we forget. But to his credit he did step back.

Michelle Thomson got waved through to an SNP seat because they needed business support.

This is how we do politics, wasn't it? Lucas, Sturgeon and Wood.

I see the SNP are now pretending McDonnell has signed up to £30bn Tory cuts.

Even Lucas has worked out that is rubbish. Any word from Wood?

yahyah wrote:

danesclose wrote:

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above on Nukes.

Corbyn should not have answered the question, you just don't our defence relies to a small extent on not answering it. PT in the Guardian has a decent analysis.

We absolutely would be able to retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe us out. The submarines would detect the loss of Radio 4 (bizarre but there you go) and launch. Trident is expensive because it is a second strike weapon. It has the benefit that you don't have a hair trigger looking to launch before you are hit (which is why in the Cold War the USA had B52s orbiting Thule ready to head off into the Soviet Union).

How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.

Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?

TE's point- the first strike much less likely if the opponent thinks you might strike back.

Doesn't mean you should. Point is to leave open the possibility you would.

I am anti-nuke but I see TE's point. If you have them you don't rule out using them.

I hope JC isn't going to start using the SNP battlecry of "it's somebody else's fault":

New Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has blamed the Better Together campaign for his party’s woes in Scotland.
His comments come ahead of his first visit north of the Border as party leader today for a Labour gala dinner in Glasgow where he will pledge that Scottish leader Kez Dugdale will be the boss on Scottish matters.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/better- ... -1-3903826

Perhaps he should look a little closer to home - Ian Gray and Johan Lamont?

I'm not sure that Kezia Dugdale is helping matters either:

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has said she would not stop MPs and MSPs campaigning for independence if there was another referendum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

So what are the options in Scotland?
SNP - pro independence
Greens - pro independence
Labour - dunno
LibDems - dunno

Problem also a broader one- Labour had its second team in Holyrood.

Good afternoon peeps. Well I think it might be a good one for some but we Riots are currently in recovery mode. We've just come back from an intensive in the badger killing fields culminating in what I think we'd both describe as a hellish night. I've not slept for over 24 hours now so this probably won't make much sense. After a very unsettling and adrenaline filled start to the evening we realised we were going to have to stay for longer than intended - and be out on duty all night and then some in the morning. Mr Riots was already staggering from tiredness so I did the chivalrous (can a woman be chivalrous?) thing and took on the look out, stay awake stuff and he kipped down with the dogs in the back of the vehicle. We hadn't planned for this so no proper bedding etc. I gave him just about everything that could provide any kind of padding or cover. He was still cold - but not quite a cold as me. I am still frozen solid with three fleeces on despite today's sunshine. He slept fitfully and snored. The dogs snored and scratched. I watched an incredibly beautiful moonlit field with ancient badger set with as much focus as I could manage. My eyes and neck more or less froze into the alert position and my stomach growled away as the hours passed.

There was a period of complete mania when Mr Riots woke up needing to get outside immediately to answer a call of nature and found he couldn't unlock the doors. (Previous and frequent hassle means doors are generally locked). He couldn't find the keys and couldn't lift the window locks ... he was like a gibbering monkey beating at the windows with a toilet roll in one hand. Not funny then (more than my life would have been worth and far too cold) but one to belly laugh at later on.

In the first year of the culls I was answering a call of nature in the dark and inadvertently shuffled backwards into a river (as you do). I plunged to the bottom and came back up before I was aware what the hell had happened. Mr Riots heard this pathetic shouting and found me hanging on to a small stone bridge - unable to pull myself out because of the weight of my waterlogged trousers (very fetchingly dragged down below my knees by the plunge and rebound). Amazingly we were both pissing ourselves laughing as he tried to lift me out. Complete change of clothes required and drove home with a blanket around me and dripping wet hair.

We have to find some humour in all this - or it would just be too bleak.

@rr2 & Mr. Riots: Thank you for what you do - and for the reports from the field. to you both and to all those out there!

And a jolly Happy Birthday to @PaulRutherford8, should you look in today! ... Otherwise, we'll just eat all the cake ourselves

LadyCentauria wrote:And a jolly Happy Birthday to @PaulRutherford8, should you look in today! ... Otherwise, we'll just eat all the cake ourselves

Oh yes - I'll second that.Happy Birthday Pembs Paul.

Oh - and perhaps the best thing about being out in the fields is no wall to wall radio and media banging on about Corbyn splits, ties, kneeling, missiles, marrows and anything else that might just be a problem to anyone anywhere.

rebeccariots2 wrote:Good afternoon peeps. Well I think it might be a good one for some but we Riots are currently in recovery mode. We've just come back from an intensive in the badger killing fields culminating in what I think we'd both describe as a hellish night. I've not slept for over 24 hours now so this probably won't make much sense. After a very unsettling and adrenaline filled start to the evening we realised we were going to have to stay for longer than intended - and be out on duty all night and then some in the morning. Mr Riots was already staggering from tiredness so I did the chivalrous (can a woman be chivalrous?) thing and took on the look out, stay awake stuff and he kipped down with the dogs in the back of the vehicle. We hadn't planned for this so no proper bedding etc. I gave him just about everything that could provide any kind of padding or cover. He was still cold - but not quite a cold as me. I am still frozen solid with three fleeces on despite today's sunshine. He slept fitfully and snored. The dogs snored and scratched. I watched an incredibly beautiful moonlit field with ancient badger set with as much focus as I could manage. My eyes and neck more or less froze into the alert position and my stomach growled away as the hours passed.

There was a period of complete mania when Mr Riots woke up needing to get outside immediately to answer a call of nature and found he couldn't unlock the doors. (Previous and frequent hassle means doors are generally locked). He couldn't find the keys and couldn't lift the window locks ... he was like a gibbering monkey beating at the windows with a toilet roll in one hand. Not funny then (more than my life would have been worth and far too cold) but one to belly laugh at later on.

In the first year of the culls I was answering a call of nature in the dark and inadvertently shuffled backwards into a river (as you do). I plunged to the bottom and came back up before I was aware what the hell had happened. Mr Riots heard this pathetic shouting and found me hanging on to a small stone bridge - unable to pull myself out because of the weight of my waterlogged trousers (very fetchingly dragged down below my knees by the plunge and rebound). Amazingly we were both pissing ourselves laughing as he tried to lift me out. Complete change of clothes required and drove home with a blanket around me and dripping wet hair.

We have to find some humour in all this - or it would just be too bleak.

You are a good woman. You could have stood there and laughed at his desperation

I suspect it's what I'd have done...

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

yahyah wrote:

danesclose wrote: How would Germany or Sweden for example retaliate should a nuclear strike wipe them out?
We have to realise that we are not one of the "big boys" any more - we don't have an empire where the sun never sets any more.
We would be able to better protect the citizens of this country if we spent the money on conventional forces rather than give money to the Americans for a weapon system they control.
Were it to get to the stage where anyone would want to nuke us, then a nuclear war would almost certainly have already broken out.

Well said Danesclose.

The idea of nuclear retaliation in such circumstances is profoundly depressing.
Why murder thousands of innocent people more ? Out of hate or revenge, just because they are the 'enemy' ?

TE's point- the first strike much less likely if the opponent thinks you might strike back.

Doesn't mean you should. Point is to leave open the possibility you would.

I am anti-nuke but I see TE's point. If you have them you don't rule out using them.

Hi Tubby, I'm sorry to disagree, I can see that logic applying with conventional weapons, but I can't see that the logic follows with regards to nuclear weapons.
There are only 9 nations on earth with nuclear weapons. Does that mean the other 186 or so are subject to nuclear blackmail from the 9?
Given the dangers of the world today, it makes much more sense for us to spend our defence budget on a defence capability which would allow us to buy aeroplanes for our aircraft carriers for example, and to properly equip our armed forces.
Remember the Tories refused to confirm they would spend 2% of GDP on defence, as required by NATO.
In my opinion, any leader who says that they would use nuclear weapons is either a liar or a fanatic.

Harry Truman wasn't a loony fantasist. He used two atom bombs.