Also in the news

[Guest MattP]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-deal-damage-would-be-less-than-we-feared-says-mark-carney-60pg3snrh&ved=2ahUKEwiJ1JSClO3gAhXFQxUIHa0gBtAQxfQBMAR6BAgIEAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DTlFcXzIn7ZclInB6nh5T

 

A disorderly no-deal Brexit would be only half as damaging as the Bank of England warned three months ago, Mark Carney has said.

 

In November the Bank said that after three years the economy would be between 4.75 per cent and 7.75 per cent smaller than under the prime minister’s plan if there was a hard Brexit.

 

Mr Carney, the Bank’s governor, told peers yesterday that contingency plans put in place would reduce the damage by 2 percentage points in the “disruptive” model or 3.5 percentage points in the worse “disorderly” one. Both scenarios assumed that there would be significant border frictions, a market crash and a sterling collapse on March 29.

 

The new estimates mean that the cost of no deal might be as low as 2.75 per cent of GDP compared with the government’s proposed deal. That represents the lasting damage after three years and equates to about £55 billion.

Edited 6 March 2019 by MattP

[Strokes]

No deal is better than a bad deal. 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

No deal is better than a bad deal. 

 

But binning the whole thing is better than both.

[Strokes]

21 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

But binning the whole thing is better than both.

Welcome back @Buce,

Poor old @Izzy was worried sick about you.

[Buce]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Welcome back @Buce,

Poor old @Izzy was worried sick about you.

 

Thanks, bro.

 

I'll let you all know next time, you bunch of girls. 

[Strokes]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Thanks, bro.

 

I'll let you all know next time, you bunch of girls. 

Not me pal,

My words were......He will be fine, he is as tough as old boots (but not as handsome). He has just found something better to do, than chat shit with us bunch of twats.

 

 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Not me pal,

My words were......He will be fine, he is as tough as old boots (but not as handsome). He has just found something better to do, than chat shit with us bunch of twats.

 

 

 

Really?

 

If only there was a way of seeing someone's historical posts...

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Really?

 

If only there was a way of seeing someone's historical posts...

Well it’s not word for word pal but the gist is about right

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47468749

 

Thoughts?

 

The "existential threat posed by xenophobia" (or specifically acts of it) is spot on IMO.

[Countryfox]

Who's back ??? ...

 

[Guest MattP]

 

That's Laura Murray (currently being sued by Rachel Riley for libel) - daughter of Andrew Murray - who works for Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Completely independent viewpoint.

Edited 6 March 2019 by MattP

[Lionator]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/killings-by-british-soldiers-during-troubles-were-not-crimes-karen-bradley-1.3816483

 

Every time one Tory minister does something absurd, the next one comes along with something even absurder. 

 

This take is just awful.

[Salisbury Fox]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/killings-by-british-soldiers-during-troubles-were-not-crimes-karen-bradley-1.3816483

 

Every time one Tory minister does something absurd, the next one comes along with something even absurder. 

 

This take is just awful.

What do you find awful about it?  I think the point she is trying to make is that British soldiers were following very tight rules of engagement meaning that those engaged were done so in a lawful manner unlike those actions taken by other paramilitary groups. Whilst it cannot be said that there were never any unlawful actions taken by service personnel, these occasions on the whole were few and far between, even though I accept that once is too much.

 

Of course to make this assertation prior to next week's decision by the PPP is very poor timing, but given her lack of knowledge about NI prior to taking post it is sadly unsurprising.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

What do you find awful about it?  I think the point she is trying to make is that British soldiers were following very tight rules of engagement meaning that those engaged were done so in a lawful manner unlike those actions taken by other paramilitary groups. Whilst it cannot be said that there were never any unlawful actions taken by service personnel, these occasions on the whole were few and far between, even though I accept that once is too much.

 

Of course to make this assertation prior to next week's decision by the PPP is very poor timing, but given her lack of knowledge about NI prior to taking post it is sadly unsurprising.

To be honest the whole idea of "rules" and "laws" in war (whether it's full scale or slightly less intense like the Troubles were) and that parties actually stick to them is pretty ridiculous IMO anyway.

[Salisbury Fox]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

To be honest the whole idea of "rules" and "laws" in war (whether it's full scale or slightly less intense like the Troubles were) and that parties actually stick to them is pretty ridiculous IMO anyway.

Disagree, without rules we are talking about total war and so they are vital to retain moral legitimacy and public support.  The vast majority of British soldiers do stick to the rules and spend a great deal of time undertaking judgemental training annually.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Disagree, without rules we are talking about total war and so they are vital to retain moral legitimacy and public support.  The vast majority of British soldiers do stick to the rules and spend a great deal of time undertaking judgemental training annually.

Perhaps when the warfare is asymmetrical and so one side has the ability to restrain itself through a code of "laws" to make itself look better, maybe.

 

However, IMO at the end of the day, the majority of the time there is only one rule to war, and that is "WIN". Afterwards, the winning side has all the time in the world to let people know that they were of course morally legitimate no matter how they executed whatever actions they required.

[Salisbury Fox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

However, IMO at the end of the day, the majority of the time there is only one rule to war, and that is "WIN". Afterwards, the winning side has all the time in the world to let people know that they were of course morally legitimate no matter how they executed whatever actions they required.

In the NI context, which was the point originally referred to, it was a peacekeeping operation rather than a war fighting one.    

[urban.spaceman]

On 05/03/2019 at 13:19, Innovindil said:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/04/birmingham-school-stops-lgbt-lessons-after-parent-protests

 

Disappointing, but not surprising. "our kids are too young to learn about this", yet not too young to be bombarded with religious teachings. 

 

Sigh. 

 

On 05/03/2019 at 13:33, leicsmac said:

Very disappointing. Shouldn't be giving into religious fundies of any type.

 

[Guest MattP]

People were so naive to think this wouldn't happen, of course a deeply religious Islamic area was going to fight back against this sort of thing.

 

When Channel 4 did that massive research project a couple of years ago about what Muslims think about half thought homosexuality shouldn't even be legal - let alone taught to primary school children under the insistence it's normal.

[Strokes]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

People were so naive to think this wouldn't happen, of course a deeply religious Islamic area was going to fight back against this sort of thing.

 

When Channel 4 did that massive research project a couple of years ago about what Muslims think about half thought homosexuality shouldn't even be legal - let alone taught to primary school children under the insistence it's normal.

[Buce]

Only 43 out of 161 ‘essential treaties’ will be in place by March 29th. 

 

It’s ok, though, our treaty with the mighty Faroe Islands is sorted:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/07/most-treaties-not-ready-for-uk-being-outside-eu-admits-brexit-minister

Edited 7 March 2019 by Buce

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

Only 43 out of 161 ‘essential treaties’ will be in place by March 29th. 

 

It’s ok, though, our treaty with the mighty Faroe Islands is sorted:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/07/most-treaties-not-ready-for-uk-being-outside-eu-admits-brexit-minister

43 currently in place, 64 to be in place.

Things looking better already old chap 

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

43 currently in place, 64 to be in place.

Things looking better already old chap 

 

There I was thinking that essential meant absolutely necessary; crucial; vital; indespensible; critical; imperative... 

 

I guess only having 40% in place is ok after all. 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

In the NI context, which was the point originally referred to, it was a peacekeeping operation rather than a war fighting one.    

Evidently not everyone saw it that way and as they had a hand in what went on, their viewpoint mattered and matters too.

 

I totally agree that the British Army is more disciplined and professional than the average army, I guess my point is that I'm just not keen on the idea of killing and maiming another human being in anything but direct self-defence of your own homestead on your own homestead and nothing else, being made out to be somehow a lawfully good thing. (Barring cases where such a force has been sent to a place as peacekeepers with unanimous or near-unanimous and obvious international consent, of course, as the UN does from time to time).

 

Sometimes pacifism is suicidal and sometimes the gory stuff is called for but even though it's necessary I think making rules up about it is most time entirely subjective and based on the whims of the end user (again, barring a general global consensus, like banning various WMD for instance).

[Salisbury Fox]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I guess my point is that I'm just not keen on the idea of killing and maiming another human being in anything but direct self-defence of your own homestead on your own homestead and nothing else, being made out to be somehow a lawfully good thing. 

The rules of engagement in NI did mean that you could only open fire when you perceived that your life was in danger or the life of another. So each shot would be judged lawful or unlawful depending on the circumstances. E.g you could have shot someone in the act of throwing some explosives at me but after it had been thrown and the guy was running away you could not shoot him as the threat had gone.