Moronic millennarians have always been with us. Unfortunately they are now on social media and we can’t as easily ignore them, whilst burning them at the stake as heretics is frowned upon by most churches and almost all governments.
I think of there’s anything that can raise Starmer’s stock at this stage it’s him being perceived as the man keeping us out of Iran, which is why the Greens are trying to present him as the man who’ll drag us in.
I mean the PUMAs didn’t actually exist outside centrist magazines and Obama got the highest Democrat turnout in history but since then, yeah.
Can he start with his please?
Fair enough - I have had someone tell me in absolute seriousness they’re the same guy before and no she wasn’t joking.
Bizarre, because the whole argument for policy up to now was being able to have influence to stop the Americans doing hugely destructive things and it demonstrably hasn’t worked. Nor has it worked for anyone else except maybe Israel.
No it’s a different one, an SBS veteran and serial criminal who presented one of those reality shows about Special Forces training and nearly got a bunch of people killed trying very incompetently to recreate Bligh’s small-boat voyage after the Bounty mutiny.
The French far right are extreme French nationalists. The British far right appear to be extreme American nationalists.
“We will have a TV-friendly format and then not bother trying to get eyeballs on it outside the subcontinent.” OK so the rest of the member nations combined have far fewer eyeballs than India but that’s where the “actually new markets” bit comes in. And most of those markets have more money too.
Absolutely. Too many tournaments and too little desire to actually grow the game beyond “we will have more countries where a handful of people play”. And then people in cricket act like it’s the British government’s job to save the game from itself by mandating things be free to air.
“We cannot be trusted to control our numbers or admit qualified students, government please save us from ourselves”.
A legitimate way. But I do think it should be in a manifesto, otherwise the chances of securing losers’ consent are approximately sod all, especially when it’s obviously being done by a government that will otherwise lose the next election!
US behaviour was on a par with US or British or Soviet behaviour in WW2. None of the Allied powers would have hesitated to sink an enemy warship with no ammunition left. Would it be a war crime for the Iranians to shoot down an Israeli aircraft heading back to its base with no weapons left?
No it isn’t. The Laconia Order was forbidding something that was already incredibly rare. There are very very very few cases of submarines taking prisoners because they have nowhere to put them. Slightly more of chucking survivors a life raft but still extremely unusual.
The US Navy did the exact same thing. So did the RN, RM and Soviets. This war is illegal. This specific action is only illegal because the war is.
There is a persuasive argument in international law that submarine warfare is illegal. The contrary argument is “we’d have had to hang FDR”.
My relatives in the Merchant Navy would be pleased to hear U-boats checked whether they were armed before torpedoing them.
Sorry to hear that - hope you feel better soon
You it’s not surprising. The actual Foreign Secretary, if that is what he’s saying, is a bit more so!
This was the Left argument for why Thatcher was acting illegally allowing the Libyan strikes in the 80s to go from Fairford - use of UK bases is legally equivalent to use of UK forces. Government conceding that would be a major, major win for the anti-war Left.
What statement? That’s not what he said on Sunday.
So Starmer’s position is half way between the two options polled.
But UK planes aren’t doing them - US are, flying from UK bases, which is what Starmer allowed them to do from Sunday. So the extra risk is more Iranian attacks on those bases, which were already happening anyway.
Sinking unarmed enemy-flagged ships on the high seas with a submarine? There’s two whole world wars worth of that, by every combatant who owned a submarine.
I think it’s similar to McSweeney’s hold over Starmer. “I have no idea what to do. Trump has an idea. Trump won an election. Therefore do what Trump says.”
Definitely my experience of being in A Big University, the people without lanyards were upper management or senior academics.
You can have grammar schools when:
1) you can explain how secondary moderns are a good thing for their pupils
2) Teesside gets the same proportion of grammar places as Tunbridge Wells.
But these things will never happen.
It’s not like the rest of his career has shown any knowledge of or curiosity about the world prior to about 1970. Compared to how Buffy treated history Firefly’s positively sensitive.
He'd make any Test team, probably any ODI, I'm not totally sure he would in a T20.
Yeah. He's very, very good but modern T20 doesn't suit his game and no he is not the unquestioned best fast bowler in the world, Bumrah is.
