horsefly

In prison on fraud charges

Sadly I don't think it's going to the standards committee, it's being investigated by Sunak's appointed ethics advisor.

Nah! Blyth Jex turned me down. Do you think she had much say in the choice of her son's (private) education?

You're right that Germany has taken measures to "stifle the bloodthirstiness" of terrorists, for it has indeed supplied very large amounts of weaponry and ammunition to Ukraine to fight the Russian invaders. Germany has also said other countries can supply its tanks, while it considers how it might supply them in the near future too. The "clever answer I have "with regards to PEACE" is, don't fu*cking well invade another country's sovereign territory and start a war. As a method of maintaining peace it seems to work rather well for every country that observes it.

Not the first time Zahawi has been somewhat careless in withholding crucial information. Poor old Nadhim, gets more than his share of misfortune doesn't he! https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/nadhim-zahawi-misled-officials-over-david-cameron-s-greensill-messages/ar-AA16DvtE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=53e0e296410e4a2d9dd7533736f1caa1 Nadhim Zahawi ‘misled officials over David Cameron’s Greensill messages’

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "Russian paranoia". Are you claiming that all Russians are paranoid about being invaded? What evidence do you have this, and how long has this been widespread through the nation? Certainly Putin enjoys spouting this narrative to justify his invasion, but I remain to be convinced that widespread paranoia is real. Secondly, the idea that a NATO peace force should be sent in to separate the combatants would be one sure way of guaranteeing a massive escalation of the war. Putin hates NATO and indeed blames it for the war in the first place. Indeed, his current narrative stresses time and again that Ukraine's resistance is nothing more than a proxy resistance on behalf of NATO. The idea he would contemplate accepting the presence of a NATO peace force is a total non-starter. Thirdly, not only did Russia cede Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s, it confirmed that decision in 1991 in a deal that saw Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons in return for a legally binding guarantee of the integrity of its borders (including its ownership of Crimea). Crimea remains Ukrainian territory irrespective of the presence of Russian invaders. You don't gain legal possession of a house by breaking in, violently ejecting the owners, and declaring "this is my house now". Ditto for another nations legally recognised territory.

Yet, very obviously, the expert analysts and strategists of every country opposing Russia will indeed have engaged precisely in a continuing extensive and rigorous process of modelling/predicting all the various responses that are likely to result from Putin's defeat. I described Hitchins' banal claim, "who knows what Putin might do " as silly because it conflates the fact that no one can guarantee a particular outcome with the denial that there can be any kind of rational prediction based on expert knowledge and evidence. A statement like "Who knows what Putin might do" is entirely vacuous to a government considering how it should respond to his invasion. All areas of government policy and decision making depend on the analysis of experts and the evidence they provide for the predictions they make about the likely outcomes of a particular policy or decision. "Who knows what Putin might do" is vacuous because it provides no substantive evidence of any kind that can feed into the decision making processes involved in forming a response. To think otherwise would be to believe that there can be no response to any invasion or military threat from a nuclear power other than to acquiesce immediately to their demands, because, after all, "who knows what they might do" if they were defeated. The remarkable consensus of the multiple nations supporting Ukraine with increasing amounts of armaments of an increasing power required to drive Russian troops from Ukrainian land, is clear evidence that the expert advice of all those countries is that they they predict escalation to a nuclear war to be extremely unlikely. Hitchin's talk of nuclear Armageddon is little more than disingenuous scaremongering designed to lure the gullible into supporting his specious "arguments".

Wrong again! The blood is bursting from my ears not through my eyes, eye sockets, or temporal veins. Attention to detail is important.

Christ! you really are strangely lacking in self-awareness. You just made up the following viewpoint and ascribed it to me despite the fact that it is YOUR words not mine : "I take it you believe Ukraine will win it, recover all its previous territories, and that Putin (and those behind him) will just retreat quietly with their tails between their legs? The outcome of war is as predictable as that? How naive. That's the only reason to feed Ukraine with weaponry, surely?" There's only one person struggling here and it ain't me. It's the guy refusing to answer a single question and having to make things up to distract from that failure.

Oh dear! It would take you seconds to research the facts about the complex processes and individuals involved in launching a nuclear war (In Russia and elsewhere). They do not involve a single individual with a red button. There is no button that Putin alone can press that would launch a weapon into the air; not conjecture, simple fact. Hitchin's is frequently derided precisely because he has made a career out of saying things that are deliberately extreme. He is standardly more concerned to promote his controversial profile than display any interest in the truth. Anyone with an ounce of nous would recognise the tripe he was likely to spout by reading his opening line, ""So it is left to me to tell you ...". As if all the thousands of experts and strategists engaged in assessing the right course of action in this war should be ignored in the face of his divine wisdom. Last attempt: when you answer my question, ""Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?", then I will happily say how I think the war is likely to pan out.

Indeed! Although it would probably have been the same royal family with the Na*zi sympathiser Eddy VIII returned to his "rightful" place.

Wow! and you accuse me of having an ego. So you speak for all of Russia do you? For someone who has just been spouting how it is impossible to predict the outcome of the war you seem bizarrely certain that you can predict the outcome for Crimea. Perhaps you need to do a bit of reading (try this for a bit more nuance https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago; here's just one relevant little snippet from a very good article, "Moreover, regardless of how the transfer was carried out, the Russian Federation expressly accepted Ukraine’s 1991 borders both in the December 1991 Belovezhskaya Pushcha accords (the agreements that precipitated and codified the dissolution of the Soviet Union) and in the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum that finalized Ukraine’s status as a non-nuclear weapons state.")

Hahahaha!!! You couldn't make it up! Except of course that is precisely what you have done. And you have the nerve to complain about me mixing up your views with Hitchins'.

And there you go again. Pure ad hominem distraction as a way out of addressing the points I raised. So here again are the points I made, feel free to go back and check: "Using tanks to drive an invader from your territory is precisely to use them to defend what is legally yours." was my point made in response to the claim that tanks are not a form of defensive weaponry. "The very idea that Britain and any other part of Europe would be made safe by acquiescing to Putin's nuclear blackmail is about as preposterous as it gets" was my point made in response to the claim that Britain would be made safer by not getting involved. "pumping out Putin propaganda" was my response to the claim that "Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens." Which is precisely the stuff Putin has been spouting to justify his invasion of Ukraine throughout the conflict. "There are many fingers required to push the red button, and you have to assume that they would all happily invite the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city in order to preserve Putin's vanity. All for the sake of failing to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory." was my point made in response to the superficial claims that, "I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button." So feel free to explain how those points don't constitute genuine substantive responses. Explain, one by one how they represent what you call "childish insults". Alas! insults and distraction seems all you have to offer.

Repeat: I just said it matters not whether they are your views or Hitchins', the points I made are in reponse to the merits of the substantive claims being made. So yet again you fail to address a single point I made in response to your original post. You answer my question about predictions in the last post and I'll happily answer the question you just posted. It's about time you stopped the tactic of trying to distract from giving an answer to questions by simply asking further questions. My question was, "Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?"

He doesn't seem to have matured beyond the naïve sixth former from a privileged background with no grasp of how the rest of us live:

No surprise that you don't understand it, but not a problem for it matters not whether you or Hitchins made them, my points in response remain the same. So, how about you address the substantive points I have made instead of your standard ad hominem jibes seeking to distract from the issues. Re "You called it a "silly view" that nobody could predict". Are you seriously suggesting that the response of Ukraine's allies in vastly increasing the amount of weaponry they are providing, and increasing the power of that weaponry, is not based upon rational evidence based predictions from their expert analysts and strategists about how those policies and decisions will effect the resulting course of the war?

If you post the words of another and fail to follow the normal conventions of quotation then you invite the view that they represent your views (and you have certainly posted very much the same sort of views on this thread before on several occasions). As for: "Nobody can possibly predict the outcome of this war escalating." that's simply a silly comment. Predicting the possible courses of the war is precisely what thousands of expert strategists do on a daily basis. The idea that governments could even begin to formulate policy without such expert predictions is patently ludicrous. To conflate the fact that no predictions can be guaranteed to turn out true with the idea that nobody can "predict the outcome of the war escalating" is a childish level of analysis. So no, of course I don't agree with a ridiculous statement, the logical conclusion of which would mean that no government should ever engage in reacting to an act of aggression by another nation.

Indeed I don't have personal knowledge, which is precisely why I rely on the views of actual genuine experts, people like Fiona Hill, a famed Russian expert who gave a recent Reith lecture for which I provided a link not long ago (try listening to it if you genuinely want to hear an informed view of what is happening inside Russia, rather than the views of a self-serving controversy monger like Hitchins). Or try Anne Applebaum etc, etc. If you truly believe that there is literally a red button that Putin alone could push to launch a nuclear war then you truly don't deserve to be taken seriously. It is also self-evident from the willingness of all the Ukrainian allies to supply them with hugely more armaments of increasing power and effectiveness that the advice they are receiving from their experts is that the threat of nuclear war is simply the bluff of a failing dictator. "I think he is probably capable of authorising the use of battlefield nuclear weapons if cornered. But it could be worse. If he is overthrown in a midnight putsch, he will not be replaced by some jolly, liberal-minded chap. He will be replaced by someone who might view it as a positive pleasure to press the red button." Your posted words, not mine. "What we have just decided to do is to prolong and deepen the war. Maybe Ukraine's new tanks will sweep all before them. Maybe they will bog down. Maybe they will try to take Crimea. Maybe they will soon be taking part in a Victory Parade in Red Square. I don't know. But if they cross into what Russia regards as its own territory, then do not be surprised by anything which happens." Your words not mine. Also the very same claims spouted out by Putin's regime on a regular basis as justification for his invasion. Try following the conventions of quotation if you want to disentangle yourself from having to take responsibility for posting such views.

What a pile of tripe. The very first line you quote is such obvious rubbish that it doesn't deserve any kind of serious discussion. The only thing it gets right is that he is not a military expert. You predicted Ukraine would be overrun within days from the very beginning of the war, and you were proved wrong. And now you try to push the same call for Ukrainian surrender by making up utter nonsense that they might want tanks in order to "take part in a victory parade in Red Square". Using tanks to drive an invader from your territory is precisely to use them to defend what is legally yours. You should be ashamed to find yourself pumping out Putin's propaganda. The very idea that Britain and any other part of Europe would be made safe by acquiescing to Putin's nuclear blackmail is about as preposterous as it gets. There are many fingers required to push the red button, and you have to assume that they would all happily invite the nuclear destruction of every major Russian city in order to preserve Putin's vanity. All for the sake of failing to steal a bit of Ukrainian territory. Frankly, I think I trust the common opinion of all the strategists advising the Western coalition, rather than your hyperbolic prediction of nuclear Armageddon.

When Sunak was appointed by the Tory Party to be our 3rd PM within a year he promised that he would run a government marked by the "highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and accountability". He then appointed to his cabinet; Gavin Williamson, Nadim Zahawi, and Dominic Raab. So what has changed?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/dominic-raab-says-he-makes-no-apologies-for-having-high-standards-as-he-denies-bullying-allegations/ar-AA16AIOX?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ee0051d71da444f2924d7f6dd8666dcc Dominic Raab says he makes ‘no apologies for having high standards’ as he denies bullying allegations What a strange response to the question, "Did you bully or harass the people who worked for you?". Why would one need to apologise for having high standards? It looks like a very lawyerly construction from the trained lawyer that really says, "yes I did bully and harass my staff but was right to do so in order to achieve high standards in my department(s)". It seems Raab missed the point that having "high standards" at work also includes the behaviour of the person running the the department, and that includes motivating one's staff to perform well rather than bullying them into doing so. Bye, bye Dom! You won't be missed. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/12/dominic-raab-facing-more-bullying-claims-from-time-as-brexit-secretary https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1697067/Dominic-Raab-bullying-updates-Civil-servants-scared-tory-MP-foreign-office

I heard that both Johnson and Berlusconi "tried it on" with her.

So, the multi-millionaire businessman wants us to believe that he and his team of accountants were merely careless in purposely funnelling huge amounts of his cash through a tax avoiding off-shore haven in ways that breached the regulations of which they will have been well aware. Well who could possibly be dissatisfied with that explanation!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/it-s-a-farce-the-giant-brexit-border-control-site-now-used-to-inspect-ukrainian-pets/ar-AA16AYZp?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a362a1524ef0412fa7273e7ae590c488 ‘It’s a farce’: the giant Brexit border control site now used to inspect Ukrainian pets It is built on a vast 230-acre site, with a total cost put at more than £100m, and has space for 1,700 heavy goods vehicles. Security staff are on patrol at several checkpoints around its 12-foot-high perimeter fence. Inside are new state-of-the-art buildings and equipment for inspecting imports from Europe. But more than six months after completion, this heavily guarded supposed showpiece of a newly independent Britain lies all but deserted. It is labelled by people who live nearby as the great white elephant of Brexit, spanking new but largely redundant. The only imports being inspected are a few pets from Ukraine. Talk to local people about the Sevington inland border facility (IBF) in Kent, and they are beyond despair. No one knows when, or even if, this giant testament to the UK’s increasingly costly and chaotic exit from the EU will ever be used for its intended purpose. Locally, the word is that the IBF will soon be turned over for development into warehouses or housing. Rachel Brown, who lives a stone’s throw from the perimeter, said what had happened was “horrendous”: “If they are not using it what is the point? It will be a housing estate in a few years. It is a complete disgrace.” Another Sevington resident, Terry, who did not want to give his surname, added: “It is a farce, a white elephant. It is quite obvious no one knew how Brexit was going to turn out or what to do. The result is we are left with this on the doorstep.” IBFs at Ebbsfleet and Warrington have already been closed.