leicsmac

She clearly thinks it's still the 1980's and attempting to channel Thatcher and Gordon Gekko simultaneously appeals.

To elaborate on this, the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of around 12 and 20 kilotons of TNT, respectively. Most modern nuclear weapons have yields of around 200-500 kilotons. So yes, it would be bonkers, especially considering in almost all situations where one is used escalation would be inevitable, but I just hope that a nuclear armed nation doesn't get to the point where they figure they have to use them or perish.

I've no doubt that a lot of people both in the UK and around the world use open fires or stoves as a matter of necessity. However, there are those that don't and unfortunately the necessity of use has no effect on the short and long term consequences of use. It's clearly an issue that requires intervention and help for those users to solve.

Absolutely right. However, it is enough people that possess that xenophobic sentiment to have effects on policy that then affect many more people.

I wouldn't disregard India/Pakistan there either, especially if water resources in that region start to become strained.

That's the bad way it could end up going. For everyone's sake, here's hoping it goes a better way, instead.

Another case of marketing and selling moving faster than legislation, I think. Unless you're using proper grade filters, no smoke created from burning anything other than gas is clean in terms of particulate matter. And that's saying nothing of carbon monoxide/dioxide.

I honestly don't think that traditional borders and nations as they are now can survive the next few decades with the way both the earth and humans are advancing. Darwin had it right; those most adaptable to change survive, and that goes for institutions, nations and species, as well as individuals.

Reform have shown rather clearly that they're incapable of preparing for or even acknowledging the situation that will result in migration levels vastly higher than we've ever seen, so I'm not sure what meaning other aspects of their immigration policy has anyway unless they intend for a blanket ban no matter what with all the consequences that entails.

I can. All too well.

The warning signs are clearly there, but it's difficult to say what they should do that will negate the problem while maintaining even a hint of the ethical humanity that might separate them from those who would replace them. The wheel appears to be spinning out of control except for those who are perfectly happy to be amoral power mongers.

And though the next election is some time away, they're advancing in polling data too. I said at the election itself that next time Reform would either get zero seats, or enough seats to affect policymaking in a serious fashion. It seems to be playing out towards the latter so far. It's like every eighty to one hundred years, a large part of humanity needs to be convinced that other people aren't subhuman things at the barrel of a gun, rather than through ethical discussion. Unfortunately this time, not only is the potential for devastation so much higher than any other point in human history, the Earth itself will be putting massive resource-based pressure on billions of people, further pushing the needle. I suppose the rather dark comfort is that in the current time, those who believe in "Us and Them", even if they win, will not get the world they desire for long. The laws of physics and their own self interested nature will see to that, even if they disregard it, and may they serve as a cautionary tale to the next "advanced" species that might arise.

Presenting the legit bolded supposition as fact and extrapolating it to a headline in order to, yes, satisfy an agenda, is entirely unreasonable, IMO, and I'm not sure why it wouldn't be. And while headlines are indeed headlines, I would hypothesise (as opposed to state as fact) that the current bias from media both print and social is in no way even handed either, and that has an effect.

This like of reasoning is entirely fair, except for the bit where they blatantly fail to qualify their remarks and state such supposition as fact in the headline, knowing people will read and believe that first.

Standard. Those folks are very, very good at leveraging the power they have, both on standard and social media. It at least partly explains their continued success at world ballot boxes.

And with respect to the immigration debate, I'm inclined to think if a person has an issue with migration levels without considering a factor that will, if unchecked, make that issue an order of magnitude (or several) worse rather soon, then they're either not fully acquainted with the matter...or they are and their solution either way is to simply pull up the drawbridge and abandon a gargantuan number of human beings to their fate.

Perhaps he was motivated by more than just self interest.

...but it did highlight the point that a lot of the problems men face are the responsibility of other men.

Either it is a patsy, or the guy simply wanted to be caught for whatever reason.

"That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind." - JRR Tolkien, Lord of the Rings, on Sauron and the limitations of his darkness.

Money launderers gonna launder.

And in transatlantic science news, more than 75 Nobel laureates in the hard sciences have taken the unprecedented step of writing a letter to Congress urging them not to confirm RFK Jr. as the DoH head. The Trump team response? “Americans are sick and tired of the elites telling them what to do and how to do it. Our health care system in this country is broken, Mr. Kennedy will enact President Trump's agenda to restore the integrity of our health care and Make America Healthy Again.” Nothing says owning the "elites" like the freedom to choose suffering and death (and crushing medical debt because, you know, this is the US) in spite of the most exacting scientific evidence and expertise, not only for yourself but for everyone else, right?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdne9ke0m1o Burning wood at home produces more pollution than road traffic, according to new research. The findings, from the University of Birmingham, show a quarter of harmful particles in the air, known as PM2.5s, come from domestic fires while traffic is responsible for 22%. Wood-burning stoves have risen in popularity in the UK with an estimated 1.9m homes now having one, according to the Stove Industry Alliance. One campaigner from Birmingham said she was worried the effect they were having on children and others with health issues. Rather dark props to the guys who managed to market these as "clean" or whatever; a truly majestic falsehood to sell.

While this is 100% true, it might be added that there are human rights that are a matter of (pretty much) universal agreement and binding international treaty, rather than varying by place.