Ukraine. | Frenchman's Cowshed | Page 70 | HibeesBounce
  • Guest, The HibeesBounce invites you to enter our Monthly Draw...

    Enter our Monthly Draw Here

    GGTTH

  • hibeesbounce

Ukraine.

OK direct question needing a straight answer. What specific legislation did Blair's government pass to support your assertion that they were the most sinister government?
Here's a quicky from the Indescribably boring as Private Eye used to call it.....

Bruce Anderson:

Blair must face the full force of the law.

The 'cash for peerages' affair involves a perversion of the law and threatens our institutions.

 
OK direct question needing a straight answer. What specific legislation did Blair's government pass to support your assertion that they were the most sinister government?
The point was more about their policing to death of the country, but one example of the flavour; they forced the closure of catholic adoption agencies who worked with the most difficult to place and troubled kids, because those agencies wanted to refer prospective gay adopters to other agencies as they couldn’t deal with them. A poster boy example of trampling some of the most vulnerable people in society under the heels of ideological fervour, and using the law as a battering ram to enforce that ideology.
 
The point was more about their policing to death of the country, but one example of the flavour; they forced the closure of catholic adoption agencies who worked with the most difficult to place and troubled kids, because those agencies wanted to refer prospective gay adopters to other agencies as they couldn’t deal with them. A poster boy example of trampling some of the most vulnerable people in society under the heels of ideological fervour, and using the law as a battering ram to enforce that ideology.
I think you are referring to legislation that outlawed discrimination against gay people?
 
Here's a quicky from the Indescribably boring as Private Eye used to call it.....

Bruce Anderson:

Blair must face the full force of the law.

The 'cash for peerages' affair involves a perversion of the law and threatens our institutions.

Firstly, I would scrap the HoL. Secondly no charges were brought (read into that what you will). Thirdly, Bruce Anderson is a noted right wing Tory. It doesn't make him wrong, but it's important context.
 
I would scrap the HoL as well. I wouldn't let anyone stand for election (a general election) who has not worked in a job for at least 10 years.

Its time to stop dafties using being elected as a career. If a sitting daftie gets booted out they should not receive money for life.

Get another job like everyone else has to. And no golden handshake. They got binned because they were crap.
 
I would scrap the HoL as well. I wouldn't let anyone stand for election (a general election) who has not worked in a job for at least 10 years.

Its time to stop dafties using being elected as a career. If a sitting daftie gets booted out they should not receive money for life.

Get another job like everyone else has to. And no golden handshake. They got binned because they were crap.
Being a politician is an aspirational career these days. Young folk are leaving school and going to universities to study politics as a career choice. To be trained up to become the civic leaders of the future. Like Sandhurst for aspiring military officers. Long gone are the ‘reluctant’ politicians who came into politics by accident or default having previously made their way in the real world who were a counter to the elitist Eton wankers who were handed everything on a silver plate and born to govern.

Is it any wonder that governments can’t relate to the lives of the population?
 
I would scrap the HoL as well. I wouldn't let anyone stand for election (a general election) who has not worked in a job for at least 10 years.

Its time to stop dafties using being elected as a career. If a sitting daftie gets booted out they should not receive money for life.

Get another job like everyone else has to. And no golden handshake. They got binned because they were crap.
I kind of see where you are coming from, but a couple of thoughts. If you had a ten year work rule, it could knock out otherwise legitimate candidates. What if someone hadn't worked for 10 years but had brought up kids or fought their way out of unemployment? I do think there's some merit in having redundancy payments as sometimes you lose because of other factors such as the party collapsing. But why would you give up a career if you risked losing your job with no compo?
 
Archie that's the real world mate. The firm you work for goes bust you lose your job.

Eventually you will get money but in the mean time you need to find another job.

I'd love to see folk going from unemployed then being elected. Because they have experienced the lives of millions.

Tell you what can we agree that no lawyers or estate agents can stand for election? 🙄
 
Being a politician is an aspirational career these days. Young folk are leaving school and going to universities to study politics as a career choice. To be trained up to become the civic leaders of the future. Like Sandhurst for aspiring military officers. Long gone are the ‘reluctant’ politicians who came into politics by accident or default having previously made their way in the real world who were a counter to the elitist Eton wankers who were handed everything on a silver plate and born to govern.

Is it any wonder that governments can’t relate to the lives of the population?
It's good money if you haven’t worked enough to have a decent career. I think it's partly due to to parties having sweeping success from a low base. The SNP overwhelmed Labour and all of a sudden you have over 100 MPs and MSPs. Some of these were old lags, but a lot were new, young and inexperienced. In the old days you had well off Tories and Labour MPs supported by unions. That wasn't right either.
 
Archie that's the real world mate. The firm you work for goes bust you lose your job.

Eventually you will get money but in the mean time you need to find another job.

I'd love to see folk going from unemployed then being elected. Because they have experienced the lives of millions.

Tell you what can we agree that no lawyers or estate agents can stand for election? 🙄
Again I see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid democracy means I can't agree:lauff:
 
I think you are referring to legislation that outlawed discrimination against gay people?
No I’m not. I described what I’m talking about and it’s not that whatsoever. Your response is telling of the overall point I’m making though ; it smacks of the way that doctrinaire thinking and ideological zealotry has been mainstreamed in the UK. A lot of that goes back to the new labour reign.

Anyway if you don’t like that example, here’s a wee anthology collected from a left wing perspective. The left wing press were at the time, and are today, full of critiques of new Labour’s authoritarianism:



New Labour introduced new laws at a demented rate; more than 50% more per year under Blair than Thatcher, they made Britain one of the most surveilled countries in the world. Basically they established the template that is now amok; imposition of an extremist ideological agenda and controlling the imposed upon society with legalism and surveillance. They were fckn choirboys compared to some of the mentalists now abroad, but they did help set the tone in the UK.
 
Last edited:
I would scrap the HoL as well. I wouldn't let anyone stand for election (a general election) who has not worked in a job for at least 10 years.

Its time to stop dafties using being elected as a career. If a sitting daftie gets booted out they should not receive money for life.

Get another job like everyone else has to. And no golden handshake. They got binned because they were crap.
I agree but disagree....

I don't like these 'never had a real job university graduate/work for an MP/get a constituency' types. However, I don't think having young MP's is a bad thing. A Parliament needs to be representative of the people. And young people need representation.

On the HOL I have always been pro abolish. However, I think a revising chamber is essential. I think it's a flaw to the Scottish Parliament. And I don't think it should be elected as it then becomes more than a revising chamber. I'm very much pro a People's Parliament to be part of that process.
 
I agree but disagree....

I don't like these 'never had a real job university graduate/work for an MP/get a constituency' types. However, I don't think having young MP's is a bad thing. A Parliament needs to be representative of the people. And young people need representation.

On the HOL I have always been pro abolish. However, I think a revising chamber is essential. I think it's a flaw to the Scottish Parliament. And I don't think it should be elected as it then becomes more than a revising chamber. I'm very much pro a People's Parliament to be part of that process.
But youngsters who leave school at 16. Get an apprenticeship for 4 years. Then 6 years on the tools.

They then stand for an election and they are only 26.

So a nice balance there. AND they will have an idea of what it's like to have to work for a living.
 
I agree but disagree....

I don't like these 'never had a real job university graduate/work for an MP/get a constituency' types. However, I don't think having young MP's is a bad thing. A Parliament needs to be representative of the people. And young people need representation.

On the HOL I have always been pro abolish. However, I think a revising chamber is essential. I think it's a flaw to the Scottish Parliament. And I don't think it should be elected as it then becomes more than a revising chamber. I'm very much pro a People's Parliament to be part of that process.
A complete blunt instrument but would prohibiting becoming an MP if you're already a millionaire be worthwhile? Logic being they'd be so out of touch with the man on the street and the issues they face. Obviously there'd be exceptions but I'm talking about old money and avoiding scenarios like a few years back where the entire Tory cabinet were millionaires (maybe they still are?)
 
I agree but disagree....

I don't like these 'never had a real job university graduate/work for an MP/get a constituency' types. However, I don't think having young MP's is a bad thing. A Parliament needs to be representative of the people. And young people need representation.

On the HOL I have always been pro abolish. However, I think a revising chamber is essential. I think it's a flaw to the Scottish Parliament. And I don't think it should be elected as it then becomes more than a revising chamber. I'm very much pro a People's Parliament to be part of that process.
I think too young MPs are ridiculous. Through no fault of their own they can’t possibly do the job. The representation point I think - sorry - is dogmatism over sense. We wouldn’t have toddlers in their representing the toddler community, it doesn’t work like that.

I think 35yo should be the absolute minimum age threshold, and you should have to have worked outside the party (and NGO) system for a defined period. Difficult to implement for sure, but that should be the principle.

It’s quite bizarre in a way, that people who wouldn’t be put in charge of a call centre team in real life, can be plonked into a safe seat through patronage or identity ideology, and end up in such a powerful position.
 
No I’m not. I described what I’m talking about and it’s not that whatsoever. Your response is telling of the overall point I’m making though ; it smacks of the way that doctrinaire thinking and ideological zealotry has been mainstreamed in the UK. A lot of that goes back to the new labour reign.

Anyway if you don’t like that example, here’s a wee anthology collected from a left wing perspective. The left wing press were at the time, and are today, full of critiques of new Labour’s authoritarianism:



New Labour introduced new laws at a demented rate; more than 50% more per year under Blair than Thatcher, they made Britain one of the most surveilled countries in the world. Basically they established the template that is now amok; imposition of an extremist ideological agenda and controlling the imposed upon society with legalism and surveillance. They were fckn choirboys compared to some of the mentalists now abroad, but they did help set the tone in the UK.

OK. I'm interested in specifics. The Catholic Adoption agencies, so far as I can see, closed down because of their opposition to considering gay couples as potential adopters.(in addition, some agencies would only consider married couples). As I understand it, there concern was that they couldn't operate as they wished without breaching anti discrimination legislation.

You're suggesting that wasn't the case. So what was it that Blair's government did that caused it if not the anti-discrimination legislation?
 
OK. I'm interested in specifics. The Catholic Adoption agencies, so far as I can see, closed down because of their opposition to considering gay couples as potential adopters.(in addition, some agencies would only consider married couples). As I understand it, there concern was that they couldn't operate as they wished without breaching anti discrimination legislation.

You're suggesting that wasn't the case. So what was it that Blair's government did that caused it if not the anti-discrimination legislation?
I don’t know what you mean? They were forced to close because they wouldn’t comply with the sharia type legislating of new lab.

The fact you can’t see this is, I repeat, evidence of my overarching point. In times gone by, if a government decided to go down this kind of route, they’d probably be happy to let a pluralist adoption apparatus play their respective parts; let the catholic agencies refer people to other agencies as they were suggesting they do, and leave them to get on with the really difficult work in which they led the field.

But new labour injected a new intolerance into British public life, where you have to submit to their faith articles, or you’re done for. If that means fucking over the most vulnerable children - who incidentally are probably not the best candidates for social experimentation, but that’s another thread - then they were happy to do that. That’s because they were zealots in a way then not typical of western mainstream politics.

Can’t you see how that mentality has germinated and is now the rule rather than the exception ? Can you not step outside yourself and separate something you agree with, versus the authoritarian imposition of something you agree with? That’s the boundary I think the new lab era helped to break down in Britain. As I say though, they were kittens compared to the moonhowlers romping around today.

The catholic agencies were supported by Muslims by the way, although needless to say I am unaware of the latter being imposed upon in the same way.

Finally, this is just an example from a long long time ago that sticks in my head from previous debates on here back in the day. The list is long and may even cover things you disagree with, although as above, that’s not really the point.
 
A complete blunt instrument but would prohibiting becoming an MP if you're already a millionaire be worthwhile? Logic being they'd be so out of touch with the man on the street and the issues they face. Obviously there'd be exceptions but I'm talking about old money and avoiding scenarios like a few years back where the entire Tory cabinet were millionaires (maybe they still are?)
There’s some paradoxes in that too. Perhaps millionaires are more independent in respect of money grubbing temptations?

There’s also a huge difference between, for example, a self made millionaire who has grown a business, employed people, managed budgets etc, and some trustafarian who has inherited a wodge. The former are probably among the best candidates for politics there are. The latter, not so much.
 
I don’t know what you mean? They were forced to close because they wouldn’t comply with the sharia type legislating of new lab.

The fact you can’t see this is, I repeat, evidence of my overarching point. In times gone by, if a government decided to go down this kind of route, they’d probably be happy to let a pluralist adoption apparatus play their respective parts; let the catholic agencies refer people to other agencies as they were suggesting they do, and leave them to get on with the really difficult work in which they led the field.

But new labour injected a new intolerance into British public life, where you have to submit to their faith articles, or you’re done for. If that means fucking over the most vulnerable children - who incidentally are probably not the best candidates for social experimentation, but that’s another thread - then they were happy to do that. That’s because they were zealots in a way then not typical of western mainstream politics.

Can’t you see how that mentality has germinated and is now the rule rather than the exception ? Can you not step outside yourself and separate something you agree with, versus the authoritarian imposition of something you agree with? That’s the boundary I think the new lab era helped to break down in Britain. As I say though, they were kittens compared to the moonhowlers romping around today.

The catholic agencies were supported by Muslims by the way, although needless to say I am unaware of the latter being imposed upon in the same way.

Finally, this is just an example from a long long time ago that sticks in my head from previous debates on here back in the day. The list is long and may even cover things you disagree with, although as above, that’s not really the point.
I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about how to manage clashes of rights, particularly around social policy and legislation. How much does the state constrain individual beliefs in pursuit of what they see as a wider civic good. I think there are lessons from then and I think it is particularly aposite now.

How do you think it should be moderated?

PS You keep asking 'why can't I see it'. Maybe if you didn't surround the central point in so much fog it would be easier for a simple soul like me!
 
I think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about how to manage clashes of rights, particularly around social policy and legislation. How much does the state constrain individual beliefs in pursuit of what they see as a wider civic good. I think there are lessons from then and I think it is particularly aposite now.

How do you think it should be moderated?

PS You keep asking 'why can't I see it'. Maybe if you didn't surround the central point in so much fog it would be easier for a simple soul like me!
Tell me where the fog is and I’ll try to dispel it.

On your moderation question, in this case I think leaving a pluralistic apparatus to carry on doing its thing without the heavy hand of an ideological state intervening, would have been fine.

On the wider question, it’s a doozy because it’s too late for that sort of thing now. Back to my boring old theme; the world new labour helped to birth (though they were only local midwives) is now upon us. There is no consensus, and more importantly no basis for consensus, as society has been demolished. There is increasingly little tolerance, with all sides now behaving as new lab did, and with far worse in extra governmental circles. I don’t think it’s salvageable at least until democracy fails somewhere which might give others an almighty wake up call.
 
There’s some paradoxes in that too. Perhaps millionaires are more independent in respect of money grubbing temptations?

There’s also a huge difference between, for example, a self made millionaire who has grown a business, employed people, managed budgets etc, and some trustafarian who has inherited a wodge. The former are probably among the best candidates for politics there are. The latter, not so much.
Yep totally, I did kind of allude to that in my post. Maybe some kind of “cap” would be better or a test that would permit the former but exclude the latter. Just pie in the sky thinking from me but would be a way of avoiding the silver spooned “millionaires row” of numpties scenario.
 
I agree they are not likely to regain all the territories they want, and it’s time for the US and others to help broker a settlement.
Ukraine will not accept a settlement that doesn’t involve them regaining control of their territories. And if the west starts to withdraw support then Russia will just start pushing back and taking more territory. War is good for the current Russian regime, if it stops they then have to deal with what is happening in Russia.

I agree though, Trump would be really bad for Ukraine and without a doubt he would sacrifice Ukraine for his own ego and the claim he ended the war in Ukraine. 🙄
 
Tell me where the fog is and I’ll try to dispel it.

On your moderation question, in this case I think leaving a pluralistic apparatus to carry on doing its thing without the heavy hand of an ideological state intervening, would have been fine.

On the wider question, it’s a doozy because it’s too late for that sort of thing now. Back to my boring old theme; the world new labour helped to birth (though they were only local midwives) is now upon us. There is no consensus, and more importantly no basis for consensus, as society has been demolished. There is increasingly little tolerance, with all sides now behaving as new lab did, and with far worse in extra governmental circles. I don’t think it’s salvageable at least until democracy fails somewhere which might give others an almighty wake up call.
But sometimes you can't just keep doing your thing. If a golf club continues to ban membership of women and Jews is it pluralistic to let that continue?
 
But sometimes you can't just keep doing your thing. If a golf club continues to ban membership of women and Jews is it pluralistic to let that continue?
Well that’s entirely different. Although actually I believe men only clubs should be allowed and ditto womens.

Refusing to understand that things are different is one of the hallmarks of our barmy age. Prospective parents of whatever kind have zero rights in the case of adoption is my view; only the children have rights.
 
Ukraine will not accept a settlement that doesn’t involve them regaining control of their territories. And if the west starts to withdraw support then Russia will just start pushing back and taking more territory. War is good for the current Russian regime, if it stops they then have to deal with what is happening in Russia.

I agree though, Trump would be really bad for Ukraine and without a doubt he would sacrifice Ukraine for his own ego and the claim he ended the war in Ukraine. 🙄
So what do you think should happen Stevie? I realise you wouldn’t claim to be a military or political authority, but on this board you are by far and away closest to the situation on the ground. What’s your view on the way out of this ?
 
Well that’s entirely different. Although actually I believe men only clubs should be allowed and ditto womens.

Refusing to understand that things are different is one of the hallmarks of our barmy age. Prospective parents of whatever kind have zero rights in the case of adoption is my view; only the children have rights.
Why is it entirely different?
 
Why is it entirely different?
Is it not obvious ? There are many reasons but let’s start with there being a difference between excluding someone arbitrarily from something like golf because of their race, and placing vulnerable children into a social experiment.

The (genuinely mad) insistence on refusing to see the difference between things, in being discriminating versus negative discrimination, has hurtled us from that point to today, where so called gay rights organisations are telling confused and vulnerable young lesbians they are bigots if they don’t consent to sex with old men who claim to be women. I have zero doubt you’d oppose the latter, or German progressive experiments of placing children requiring adoption with known pedophiles (and before you fckn start no I’m not comparing that with gay adoption, I’m talking about the psychopathology of ‘non discrimination’ as some kind of overriding priority) so the question becomes; where on the continuum does this become a rubbish way to adjudicate things, and instead we should do the hard work of actually evaluating each situation ?

Even discounting all that, is the question of whether we want to have a functioning pluralist society or a war of all against all. There are many things that I disagree with in the Muslim or progressive religions, but my preference is to let people rub along unless we hit on something really egregious. So for example, I’m happy for Muslims to practice polygamy but not for it to be enshrined in our legal system, I’m happy for progressives to deny evolution and objective reality but not for them to force it on others etc. And whatever my own opinions, I’m content that
de minimis, a substantially voluntary adoption sector can manage the overall requirements of children better, without the state religion’s edicts being forced into it.
 
Last edited:
So what do you think should happen Stevie? I realise you wouldn’t claim to be a military or political authority, but on this board you are by far and away closest to the situation on the ground. What’s your view on the way out of this ?
The west needs to keep providing funding and military support. The funding is already being used to increase the effective use of drones, but they need additional support around air defences and long range missiles.

They need to split the Russian held territories and link up with the Azov Sea. Only then will Russia accept defeat and start to consider withdrawing troops.

I can’t believe there are people talking about letting them keep what they’ve currently taken! Have they learnt nothing from 2014 🙄
 
The west needs to keep providing funding and military support. The funding is already being used to increase the effective use of drones, but they need additional support around air defences and long range missiles.

They need to split the Russian held territories and link up with the Azov Sea. Only then will Russia accept defeat and start to consider withdrawing troops.

I can’t believe there are people talking about letting them keep what they’ve currently taken! Have they learnt nothing from 2014 🙄
Do you think it’s winnable though ? Between ukraine and Israel - and the fact the fannies have offshored manufacturing - America is apparently literally running out of ammo (though they can’t be open about it for obvious reasons). While I’m with you in sentiment I’m not at all sure it’s actually doable.
 
So what do you think should happen Stevie? I realise you wouldn’t claim to be a military or political authority, but on this board you are by far and away closest to the situation on the ground. What’s your view on the way out of this ?
The west needs to keep providing funding and military support. The funding is already being used to increase the effective use of drones, but they need additional support around air defences and long range missiles.

They need to split the Russian held territories and link up with the Azov Sea. Only then will Russia accept defeat and start to consider withdrawing troops.

I can’t believe there are people talking about letting them keep what they’ve currently taken! Have they learnt nothing from 2014.
 
Do you think it’s winnable though ? Between ukraine and Israel - and the fact the fannies have offshored manufacturing - America is apparently literally running out of ammo (though they can’t be open about it for obvious reasons). While I’m with you in sentiment I’m not at all sure it’s actually doable.
Why not? They stopped Russia taking Kyiv when there was little/no military aid.

The will to regain their land is there amongst the Ukrainian people and that’s a huge military advantage over Russian soldiers who often question the reasons why they are there.

We are starting to see a seismic shift in military tactics here. Tanks and military equipment, costing millions, are being taken out by drones costing a tiny fraction of that. Grenades dropped from drones, often invisible to the eye, are causing devastation across front lines and soldier morale. Ukraine (and Russia) are fine tuning these skills and improving their tactics.
 
Ukraine will not accept a settlement that doesn’t involve them regaining control of their territories.
The reality though is Russia claims 'referendums' have taken place in these territories and they're now legitimate parts of Russia. Now obviously the referendums are an absolute nonsense....However, nobody *seriously* believes Russia will either be rejected militarily or through negotiations.
 
Not updated for a while. If reports and videos are to believed both sides are losing a heck of a lot of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles etc. Ukraine are hitting some very expensive items as well such as the two spy planes which Russia took a hit for near half billion dollars. They also lost some very expensive radar systems.
Russia have been continuing to hit targets inside Ukraine and whilst they are having success and I believe they hit a munitions factory, they are also continuing to smash up residential areas.
Ukraine have been increasing attacks inside Russia and targeted three oil depots, two they had success with those in Bryansk and St Peterburg. It should be noted Russia do not have spare capacity for holding oil, and these losses could be another step towards Russia having to reduce output of oil production and the danger is they may not be able to restart some pumps. Ukraine also hit a gunpowder factory and it looks like tonight they hit a huge factory in Tula producing man-pads and modernises military equipment . It looks like they also hit a gas terminal in Ust-Luz in the Leningrad area. I as successful as is being reported this will be costly to Russia and affect the ability to send fuel to the front.

On the front a big deal is being made by Russian propogandists of success across the front lines. The reality is small gains the size of a football field or two and Ukraine are building huge concrete reinforced trenches to make sure any advances are limited and costly to Russia. Ukraine are being forced to dig in due to the Republicans blocking further military aid.
There is also increased resistance to the war throughout Russia. In Ukraine many are war weary as well and many do not want to join the army but find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. There is discussion over recruiting prisoners on a voluntary basis, to which those who sign up will be pardoned. This does not extend to serious crimes and stops well short of how Russia conducted this.
 

Support The Bounce

Goal
£100.00
Earned
£48.75
Ends in......
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  48.8%
Back