Salisbury Fox

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.

It’s inevitable that an agreement of some sort will happen, but we need it to not lead to further conflict down the line which giving Russia everything it demands would do in my opinion.

Personally I would say that the best outcome from a Ukrainian perspective would be see the battle lines frozen as they are now. The only way to achieve this is to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as they want to be. This is what I think last night’s deal does.

I think that view oversimplifies the situation. while I agree it may not be realistic for Ukraine to regain land already lost, what’s being proposed goes much further than that. It would require Ukraine to hand over territory it currently controls, much of which forms a critical defensive barrier against further Russian advances. This article explains the military implications in more detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6yd4d5zj6o. I feel on a more broader basis, rewarding territorial aggression undermines the credibility of any future security guarantees. If borders become negotiable under military pressure, then those guarantees become inherently unreliable. There are also strong reasons to be sceptical about Russian intentions after any agreement, given its previous violations of the Budapest memorandum and the Minsk accords. It feels unfair to suggest European leaders are prolonging the conflict, I would suggest that they’re trying to deter a precedent where borders in Europe can be changed by force, which would have far wider consequences than Ukraine alone.

You’re right, how dare Ukraine think it has the right to defend itself.

Perhaps you would feel differently if you were anywhere near the South China Sea. China hasn’t had any reason to use their military extensively as it’s easier to use Russia as a proxy and watch the US become ever more isolationist. I don’t see heeding warnings of our security institutions as swallowing propaganda either btw.

I haven’t said they don’t. Whilst I do hope that the US will come to their senses next time around, I would prefer a closer relationship with Europe than simply replacing them wholesale with a relationship with China. You seem to be prepared to ignore the risks that our security services are clearly highlighting just because of the economic convenience in doing so.

You won’t find me disagreeing with you there.

Well that’s certainly a leap of faith and I am not convinced that their ambition is limited to being equals. Their military build up, economic leverage and political influence campaigns appear to go beyond have a seat.

That’s totally fair and I’m not questioning anyone’s positive experiences of working with Chinese people. My point is more about the actions of the Chinese state.

The concern isn’t that China will invade or attack us directly, the issue is that China’s leverage comes through economic coercion, strategic dependence and control over key technologies and supply chains. The fear therefore is not a militaristic one, but one that sees them reshape rules and norms that limit our autonomy through a different means than the US uses. There’s a reason why our security services are becoming more vocal about the threats posed and only a fool would ignore this. It essentially requires a very cautious approach rather than jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Isn’t it a case of being less aware of China’s coercive practices than the American’s? China’s activities in the South China Sea should represent a more overt warning, but when you consider the political and strategic infrastructure concessions from belt and road financing it appears to me that they pose a significant risk. The spying and influence campaign they are also conducting is of an industrial scale too. Whilst I share your views about the current US administration, at least with them there is hope of political change, the same can’t be said for China.

I would put that down to the incompetence of the Home Office.