Salisbury Fox

I’m inclined to agree, particularly if there’s a shift left or rightwards of the manifesto they were elected on.

Apologies, my bad. The person who is ultimately responsible has to be the person making the decision on whether to appoint them in the first place. The grey area that Starmer is obviously using is that his decision wasn’t an informed one, but given everything that is in the public domain it shows an appalling lack of judgement anyway. I agree with Kenny that it was likely that the appointment was being pushed by McSweeney with Starmer signing it off.

The vetting process isn’t black and white as it requires flexibility. In some cases an individual may be appointed with mitigations in place, such as restrictions on access to classified materials as part of a management plan.

I do hope that whatever regime is in place when this is over is less inclined to be a supporter of terror groups around the region otherwise I don’t see the point of starting this in the first place. I don’t doubt that the CIA has operatives in country but I am far less optimistic than you based upon the mixed messaging and lack of a coherent plan so far. I also don’t believe that the US has much time left to get this finished as there is going to be a world of economic pain coming which is likely to be felt much more in 6-12 months.

I’m not suggesting they couldn’t do it, rather I don’t see why it’s necessary. They would become a static and very visible target for a lot of incoming missiles with a very short notice warning given the short distance as you indicate. They could achieve the same results of denying Iran of the income by stopping all their tankers

Desalination plants most certainly, energy infrastructure like those at Kharg island ‘could’ be considered a military objective if it effectively support Iran’s war effort. It will depend on intent, targeting and civilian impact.

Kharg island seems a bit of an unnecessary risk to me given that firstly an approach will be expected and secondly they will be a clear static target. If they want to control the oil, a safer option would surely be to blockade Iranian tankers. I agree that they would make short work of opposition, but I don’t think they have enough troops in the region for this to be a serious consideration as I would expect some high casualties. He is also struggling to find an off ramp now, this would be even harder with boots on the ground. Who knows with Trump though.

They were certainly supporting armed groups in Iraq to attack British troops

Apologies for the delay in responding. My comment was more about the growing demand on the system, rising use of services, poor population health lifestyles and an ever increasing technological advances rather than suggesting any better alternatives. I do however suspect that if we continue to struggle to achieve meaningful growth then our hand will be forced to implement alternative funding arrangements.

Agreed, I believe that you could say that about the NHS too

Just to be clear, what happened was obviously tragic and the loss of so many children is horrific. It’s right that this should be investigated fully and, if necessary, justice served. The point I was making was about the deliberate targeting of the school that I have yet to see proof of. Simply saying that precision munitions were used doesn’t mean the school was itself was deliberately targeted. There could be several reasons why it was hit in error such as misleading intelligence from assets on the ground, outdated targeting data or even munition or targeting failure, none of which support claims that the act was intentional. I don’t see how asking for proof of intent constitutes trolling, that said I am happy to leave it there and not respond further.

Not in my first response to her I didn’t. Perhaps I was frustrated that she was unable to accept a possibility of a different interpretation and so I apologise if that’s the case.

That you cannot say an attack is deliberate without proof. I figured that was obvious as I spelt it out whilst trying to be friendly with Debs. I am in no way supportive of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, I do however understand the targeting process more than I would care to mind

We’ll show me proof then and I will accept that this was a deliberately targeted attack. I will also add add that any civilian casualty in war is not something that I would accept blindly, rather I want to see proof of incompetence or of a deliberate attack

That’s not the point of my post but whatever gets you likes I suppose

So again no proof then

It feels like you have a bit of an agenda or are ignorant of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack in compliance with the law of armed conflict. I am not disagreeing with the sentiment of your posts, rather I am trying to add some context for why it may not be deliberate.

I don’t think it’s as simple as a military just deciding to bomb a school. Modern strikes are typically based on several layers of intelligence, satellite imagery, signals intelligence, pattern-of-life analysis, and target validation. when tragedies like this happen, the explanations are often things like faulty intelligence, misidentification, or a strike aimed at a nearby military target that went wrong. None of that makes the civilian deaths any less regrettable of course. But assuming it was simply “they decided to bomb a school” can overlook how complex (and sometimes flawed) the intelligence and targeting process actually is.

The bit that it was deliberately targeted

Has this been proven?

To be fair, there were 107k receiving asylum support in Dec 2025 with 28k of these spread across 6000 HMOs.The use of hotels is certainly going down, but that’s because they are being housed elsewhere.

I’ve not seen the video but it’s not common practice to shoot tyres out as it’s generally not as easy as it appears in the movies. Also there’s a high risk of ricochets which could lead to bystanders getting injured.

I’m pretty sure welfare provision for asylum seekers in France and the UK is broadly similar. The French allow them to work when they are pending a decision after 6 months via a temporary permit, whereas in the UK they can work after 12 months if a decision is still pending, provided the delay in the decision is not due to the asylum seeker.

Yes it appears you are correct, thanks. Google does however indicate that character checks are required as part of the application process which does suggest a failing.

It’s quite concerning how poor our vetting processes are.