leicsmac

I'm talking about all forms of migration, because when this debate comes up all of those forms are most often conflated anyway. There are a great many reasons people decide to move from one nation to another, but almost all of them IMO arise out of some form of hardship experienced by them in the nation they inhabit - and that hardship most often has geopolitical reasons that stretch beyond its borders. And, once again, whatever those reasons are, as long as those hardships exist, movement will happen and the choice I talked about will be a key factor.

Appreciated. It's just unfortunate that the whole matter has become so polarised, but then if you look at history it's almost always been so.

Being targeted for not oppressing women? Tribal grudges? Seeking to better themselves in a way they can't do where they are? Recipe for fattoush isn't what they'd like? The point is, and this has again been made repeatedly, is that whatever people think about the movement of human beings from one place to another for whatever reason, it isn't going to stop just because people want it to. So the part of the world that has more power and therefore ability to do so can either seek to address the reasons why people are fleeing those nations, or accept it as "not their problem" and let those people end up with their own (almost certainly horrible) fate. Now, I don't actually mind if people choose the second of those two options - at least it is then known where they stand. What I do mind is people lying about, or pretending, that the big picture doesn't exist and that there are other choices than that in order to wash their hands of responsibility for a decision they've already made.

Oh, and on the migration topic, we now have RNLI members being doxxed and harassed/abused to the degree that the present government is asking the social media companies to help out. Such are the times we live in, apparently.

Whenever the immigration debate rocks up on here it just tends to get rehashed again and again with the same talking points. And until the geopolitical root causes behind such migration are addressed or the world population drops by a degree that such migration becomes by essence no longer a matter of consideration, I expect it will continue to do so.

I'm going to be honest, but I agree with Stokes regarding Brook here. Most of the criticism he gets is utterly absurd considering he has a Test average in the top 10 England cricketers of all time, and does pretty damn well at the shorter formats too. Yes, sometimes he lacks brain in certain situations, but a lot of the flak he's taking goes beyond that imo.

Funny how things turn out, isn't it? Tbh I have no idea why folks didn't think an CANZUK alliance with the European nations would be a good idea, to act as a bulwark in a world where neither the Americans, Russians or Chinese could be considered friendlies.

He has that right, but in this day and age, especially on an issue like this one, people also exercise their right to not take being apolitical as an answer and act accordingly. No disagreement there.

But, once again, what Sheeran and his promotion team should have done, rather than all this brouhaha, is to simply tell Kraft and his associates to kick dirt, cancel the tour and take the financial hit. It would likely cost him and them much less in the long run, and would put the blame for all of this solidly where it deserves, rather than Sheeran himself becoming a rather undeserved scapegoat.

I'm not entirely sure what's nuanced about that - he seems to be a man who deals very much in absolutes when it comes to that topic - but appreciate the extra information.

Fair enough - though that his legal eagle was able to get key video evidence deemed inadmissible in the case mentioned here rather stinks of being guilty but having a good enough lawyer to get by with it. Certainly no disagreement that the conspiracy theories exist. Putting that above aside, Kraft is clearly a person who uses his power and influence to get what he wants and evidently has no problem with and likely encourages the...questionable behaviour by the Israeli forces in the ME right now.

What would have added to him mentioning it would have been covering the costs and taking the hit of calling off the tour - I'm sure he could have afforded that. But Sheeran himself shouldn't be judged on this too harshly - it's the ones like Kraft that are, as you say, pro their cause at any cost, that are the real problem.

You would have thought that Sheeran would have some input on that particular process, though. In any case, agree with the general thrust of the post here. The venue owners (led by Kraft) are clearly engaged in either bribery or blackmail.

Proud visitor to Epstein Island at the height of its "glory", if the Internet is to be believed.

One wonders what Robert Kraft bribed and/or blackmailed him with in order to drop Macklemore or not call off the tour entirely.

I know, right? I mean, who could possibly have seen this coming?

Which they in turn learned from the US during WWII. Aren't cycles of violence wonderful?

There was never going to be a different response IMO. It was always going to be "five hundred of yours dead for every one of ours" retribution - which pretty much came to pass. The only way that could have been prevented is if the US had gone at least some way to addressing the geopolitical concerns that resulted in it before it happened.

Just the unbeaten 114 off 49 balls for Brook, then.

And she's happily playing both sides and making bank and notoriety from both. Good for her. In any case, she's hardly needed as a lodestone pulling women's rights in the US back 70 years, there's more than enough going on with others there demonstrating the attempts at that.

Wow, Brook engaging in total destruction there.

Certainly agree that the nature of the game has changed. But that's a reason to rewrite and redefine the treaty itself and stick to the new regs it may have, rather than engage in a race to the bottom that can only end badly. Same thing with AI development, come to that.

The way I read it, the US weaponry capability in space appears to go beyond targeting other satellites now, even though they have been coy about the capabilities of the weapon involved. Interfering with the satellites of other nations is, as you suggest, reasonably old hat, so this appears to be something new. Otherwise, why the announcement at all? In any case, it's bloody stupid, for a variety of reasons. NB. Targeting other satellites (as all the big players appear to do) is rather daft in of itself IMO, unless you really know what you're doing and/or you like the idea of Kessler Syndrome.

Once again, they did during the Cold War. That's not an acceptable excuse. And if this line of thinking is followed through to its logical outcome, we're all screwed anyway. Perhaps it might be nice if that were not to occur. So, sorry Jon, miss me with this "realpolitik realist" spiel, I've heard it so many times before and it's a much a busted flush now as it was each time before.

On the topic of the above stupidity: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck790xg41ygro Yeah, let's throw the Outer Space Treaty out the window now even though everyone stuck to it right at the height of the Cold War. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw980n0nd0qjo And somehow it's better that when there's almost inevitably a world-changing incident regarding AI, the words that herald it will be English, not Mandarin. Because that's the really important thing, here.