kevinjohnsonmbe

Some times feels like it!! ?

Correct - appointed AFTER selection by those that are members of UK electorate AND members of this/that party have VOTED to nominate the leader. Some are hereditary, others are nominated by someone who is also a member of UK electorate Because it’s likely the French are involved and that’s just wrong on so many levels....

It's a bit of a nonsense really. I replaced the entire roof about 5 years ago under building regs - no bat survey I now want a change of use for the building and to add a dorma but that needs a planning app and planning app needs a bat survey. It's a crazy system....

Don't get me wrong mucker, bats, schmats, that 'king survey has cost me monkey!

It's exactly how Momentum got Corbyn as leader of Labour ??s!

Statistics and damned lies Ed: The Queen, head of state, was voted for by 0% of the UK electorate. - True/accurate (but kinda irrelevant) The PM is voted for by 0% of the UK electorate. - Not true/not accurate (the leader of the Conservative party becomes PM when a Conservative party is in government. The person is voted into the leadership position by the membership of the Conservative party - who are, what for it, also part of the UK electorate) The upper house of parliament is voted for by 0% of the UK electorate. - similarly, not entirely true/accurate. Nominations and confirmations into the HoL are made by members of the UK electorate (just not very many of them) What does that tell you about UK democracy. - that it can be misrepresented to support a personal opinion?

Get a grip mate, I just want to cut a dorma into the roof. I only had the survey because planning wanted it ?

That was 2nd ‘emergent’ survey. Indications are 1 pipistrelle from under the hanging slates at the gable end and lots of noctules foraging above canopy nearby but not roosting within the development site. Thankfully pip is not roosting in an area that presents a stopper for proposed roof alteration works. Was as nice to sit out for a pair of hours at sunset and listen to the world putting itself to bed.

What do you mean by ‘secure?’ If you asked a Royal Marine to ‘secure’ a building he’d put a flash-bang through the window, kick the door in and kill everyone inside. If you asked a Matelot to ‘secure’ a building he’d check all the windows are closed, turn the computer and lights off and lock the door on his way out. If you asked a Crabfat to ‘secure’ a building he’d check the land registry, make an offer to purchase the lease with the option to extend. Secure Iranain oil stock? The US won’t trade with Iran: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/iran.aspx Tell me how the US military aircraft were 10 minutes away from takeoff before all this was decided. Its entirely possible that both options (and probably others) were on the table - Id suggest / guess he choose wisely...

Well it's in the public domain now so the answer is more apparent ??s The kinetic strike was binned in favour of a cyber strike at Iranian military capability. A smart move it might be said - no civilian casualties, no opportunity for the Iranian regime to reignite the 'great Western Satan' tag line... It's been a long journey since WWII (and before) where bombs and bullets have been the ultimate fall back for failed diplomacy and there have been some truly horrific situations since the Manhattan Project - napalm and carpet bombing in Vietnam right through to depleted uranium in Iraq (and that's just the (so called) 'conventional' weapons deployed by Western powers - there is a whole other can of unpleasantness when you consider the 'non conventional' weapons of 'lesser' (?) states and regimes. In a rather perverse interpretation, I suppose one could refer to the 'progression' to smart munitions, drones and cruise missiles, and greater appreciation and consideration of the law of armed conflict (as relates to the potential for civilian casualties) as a step forward from the past. As has been highlighted in this and the other thread, it can in hindsight (and yes, it is hindsight) be recognised that previous foreign policy which may have reverted to kinetic warfare has had a detrimental outcome - especially when juxtaposed with poorly considered immigration policies which have facilitated hostile communities within the initiating nation state. For all those that see Trump as a fool, I'd suggest his latest operational strike demonstrates an awareness of previous failures and a willingness to embrace, what might well be considered, the future of military intervention after failed diplomacy. The tradition spheres of military operations Land, Air and Maritime have new play mates - Space, Cyber and PsyOps. It would appear that the West has been playing catch-up in these new realms - consider, the recent NHS cyber attack, Russian interference in overseas political processes, Anonymous cyber attack on ISIS to name but a few. So that provides (at least) 2 fundamental changes of attitude the start of which, it might be seen as being delivered by Trump (the fool?) - 1 recognising and implementing the change from kinetic to cyber ops by nation states and 2, recognising that non nation state players can be just (or more) effective than nation states in the delivery of effect. The PsyOps element is also interesting. Do you go public and state what you've done to hurt your 'enemy' or do you just keep it on the QT so that only 'they' and 'you' know what has been done. Trump - maybe personality driven, but I think not in the Iranian case, has now gone public. Contrast, the (suspected) Russian interference with other nation state political / democratic processes, no overt admission of involvement. Interesting times ahead - It's my view that the US response to the Iranian situation may prove to be a lot cleverererer than a lot of people give Trump credit for - right enough it's not all down to him, but he is the Commander in Chief and it IS his decision which path to take once the smart guys have presented the options to him. Maybe not such as dumb ass as some would have you think...

Right then - show yourselves!

Knife, gun & acid! https://londonstreets.org/two-men-wearing-burkas-throw-acid-at-london-market-trader/

Not this call sign Mull.... I'm inclined to agree - what a state to have gotten ourselves into. I did start a reply to Mr B's earlier post about having the press all over everything you do as a politician, and (perhaps even worse) every swinging dick with an ill informed opinion picking holes in every thing they do, or don't, do. It has to take a certain type of person to even want to subject themselves to that level of dissection - no wonder Westminster is full to the gunnels with weirdoes..

Who knows, but my guess would be no - because he'd still be what he was before the 2003 war - a colonel in the Iraqi army, but not a Ba'ath party member nor and Sunni and from the historically despised (by Saddam) SE region of the country. Depends who you ask I guess... One of the dinner guests that was fed to the lions by Uday (if they weren't already dead) (I visited his palace, saw those cages and walked those passageways - put a reet chill into your soul) might have a similar view as someone that was starving to death in the South who, conversely, might have an entirely different view to someone from within the privileged inner circle of the Ba'ath party in Baghdad... Like Mick said earlier, depends who you ask I guess.

Noooo... That would have been the war on drugs, which they 'forgot about' when the war for oil started... ? Then when they remembered again (a bit too late) it had a entirely different imperative... Hey ho, things change - so long as the pals in Halliburton et al keep a steady stream of government contracts etc etc...

North Korea - has the resident regime caught up or exceeded the US inflicted death toll yet? Vietnam - haven’t got a reply to hand for that one Iraq - I stay in contact with the deputy major of Basra and I am in no doubt that the majority of that region are eternally grateful for the removal of Saddam. Afghanistan - I wasn’t there long enough to benefit from the type of personal relationships established in Iraq but I can make an educated guess that there is considerable relief at the demise of ISIS (maybe a ½ decent example of the medieval chaos which inevitably follows in the absence of a bad ass?)

Now that’s just plain Saturday night, 2nd bottle, completely unthinkable nonsense! There’s NO WAY I’m going across the river to Devon! ????

Interested to hear why you think Balfour declaration is central to US foreign policy (if I’ve understood what you meant?) and perhaps where in the equation global oil dependency sits as an influence. Maybe, just maybe, nations declaring zero carbon by 20XX will fundamentally change the dynamic?

I’m not for a second suggesting it’s an ideal situation Mick, and neither am I blind to the flaws. There’s no eagerness on my part for subjugation but there’s even less for the sort of chaos which is inevitable in the void which invariably ensues.

Whadayamean ??

Sooooooo..... Who would you rather see in the big chair then? China? Russia? India?

If that’s the way you see it Mick - and I can certainly understand some of the apparent contradictions which might be presented in support of such a mindset. Human nature being what it is, things do tend to go to shit pretty quickly when there ISN’T a dominant bad ass. If we accept that the US is the current dominant bad ass, and that some actions can, in hindsight, be viewed as counter productive, it still leaves the question, if not the US, which would be your preferred dominant bad ass? (and you can’t answer “we don’t need one” because there are more than enough historical references to demonstrate that that kind of utopia is not coming anytime soon)

You didn’t specifically say it was a US black op, but you did highlight the tanker attacks and said “America is ramping things up “ - as if to suggest the attacks were US initiated to achieve the aim of going to war, a theory you then supported with a video supposedly to illustrate the point. Fair play, I’d certainly agree that there are some really peculiar world events being directly influenced by illuminati style non governmental players, and I’m not averse to considering the odd conspiracy theory, but I’m really not convinced on this one. Just maybe it IS as simple as the Iranian regime are screaming nut jobs with responsibilities for financing, facilitating and directing global terrorism, a stated desire for the destruction of Israel, a history of regional conflict with global impact and a known aspiration to achieve nuclear weapons. I guess you could say (excluding the Israel bit) similar parallels could be drawn from recent US (& UK) foreign policy - but seriously, if I had to choose 1 over the other - as a place to live for example - I’d choose the US every time. I’m coming down on the side of it not being a conspiracy at the moment, but I’ll keep an open mind

I must be part Scot... ?

Cornish foreplay: ”...awake are ‘ee...”