Today's discussion about the news

focuszing723

Yeah, this thread supposed to be about the news, not whiney bollox. We've got enough whiney bollox threads.

focuszing723

Climate change could make French wine taste better—for now
Bordeaux's grapes will benefit from warmer, drier summers. But if extreme heat leads to droughts, this top wine producer's future may be at risk.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/climate-change-french-wine-taste-better

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

We've got enough whiney bollox threads.

Have you only just noticed?

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Did someone get lucky with his timing:

I think the truth is much more mundane: Folk in their 90s convicted of white collar crime where they plead guilty don't often (never?) get sent to chokie. For someone of that age to get sent down there has to have been some pretty horrific crime involved e.g. long-term child abuse, no guilty plea and no sign of remorse.

You just need to survive and keep it away from the authorities for long enough then.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/15196448.man-who-swindled-18000-in-benefit-fraud-in-southfields-wandsworth-jailed-for-two-years-at-kingston-crown-court/

I'm not sure your link is particularly helpful. It's no great surprise that folk do get sent down for fraud. My point related to the specific circumstances in which a 90+ yo would get sent down. The guy in your example was (I assume, as no age is mentioned) to young to be an exception to my suggestion that really old folk only get sent down for particularly heinous crimes.

wallace_and_gromit

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why the UK Government is getting involved and sending ships to Israel. The Israeli’s have every right to defend themselves and take action against Hamas but it feels like they are going beyond that into taking revenge on Palestinians. Should we be supporting that? I doubt the Israeli military even need any support in any case. The argument that it is for our security seem far fetched and probably puts us at increased risk of terrorist attack.

Didn't the Falklands Get Thatcher another term?

That, and the Labour Manifesto which even one of its proponents described as the "Longest suicide note in history".

Big difference with the Falklands was that it was UK territory that was invaded. I don't think there are many votes to be had these days for actions in someone else's conflict. (Though politicians keep getting involved, so what do I know?)

veronese68

wallace_and_gromit said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Not sure why the UK Government is getting involved and sending ships to Israel. The Israeli’s have every right to defend themselves and take action against Hamas but it feels like they are going beyond that into taking revenge on Palestinians. Should we be supporting that? I doubt the Israeli military even need any support in any case. The argument that it is for our security seem far fetched and probably puts us at increased risk of terrorist attack.

Didn't the Falklands Get Thatcher another term?

Big difference with the Falklands was that it was UK territory that was invaded. I don't think there are many votes to be had these days for actions in someone else's conflict. (Though politicians keep getting involved, so what do I know?)

Agreed, but this lot aren't very bright so probably haven't worked that out.

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Did someone get lucky with his timing:

I think the truth is much more mundane: Folk in their 90s convicted of white collar crime where they plead guilty don't often (never?) get sent to chokie. For someone of that age to get sent down there has to have been some pretty horrific crime involved e.g. long-term child abuse, no guilty plea and no sign of remorse.

You just need to survive and keep it away from the authorities for long enough then.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/15196448.man-who-swindled-18000-in-benefit-fraud-in-southfields-wandsworth-jailed-for-two-years-at-kingston-crown-court/

I'm not sure your link is particularly helpful. It's no great surprise that folk do get sent down for fraud. My point related to the specific circumstances in which a 90+ yo would get sent down. The guy in your example was (I assume, as no age is mentioned) to young to be an exception to my suggestion that really old folk only get sent down for particularly heinous crimes.

Yes, so like I said, all he had to do was keep it hidden for long enough, and he doesn't really suffer any consequences. Probably thinks it was worth the risk.

webboo

focuszing723 said:

Climate change could make French wine taste better—for now
Bordeaux's grapes will benefit from warmer, drier summers. But if extreme heat leads to droughts, this top wine producer's future may be at risk.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/climate-change-french-wine-taste-better

Well it couldn’t make it taste any worse.

bikes_and_dogs

Imagine that you go to your local pub regularly. There are two grumpy blokes that sit in the corner playing cards. They often shout at each other and make the rest of the patrons feel uncomfortable with their aggressive nature but we leave them to it.
One day the table is flipped over - one of the grumpy men (it's always men) is holding a broken bottle and the other is swinging a pool cue.
How do you react?
Shouting encouragement at either or even joining the fray rarely helps.

briantrumpet

If you ignore that it's JoB (if you find him intolerable), it's hard to argue with his phoner-in...

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1712814684150042681

bikes_and_dogs

We should not accept that revenge is an acceptable consequence of conflict.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Climate change could make French wine taste better—for now
Bordeaux's grapes will benefit from warmer, drier summers. But if extreme heat leads to droughts, this top wine producer's future may be at risk.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/climate-change-french-wine-taste-better

It could also make the stuff that they produce in the vineyards near me a bit more drinkable.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Israel are probably about to do some things that will test international law and lose them a great deal of sympathy across the world.

The smart move is to sit on the fence somewhat, or encourage appropriate action like the UN is doing.

Given how extreme the current Israeli government is, supporting israel to do anything they might do next is foolish.

So, no, they aren't smart.

Israel doesn't care about committing war crimes. It is not part of the ICC; however, Palestine joined the ICC in 2015 which means that war crimes committed in Palestine could be prosecuted, and some (by both sides) are currently under investigation. The only real impact of this though is on the holiday plans of any war criminals.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-could-be-complicit-in-gaza-war-crimes-tory-mp-warns/ar-AA1icp2y

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Israel are probably about to do some things that will test international law and lose them a great deal of sympathy across the world.

The smart move is to sit on the fence somewhat, or encourage appropriate action like the UN is doing.

Given how extreme the current Israeli government is, supporting israel to do anything they might do next is foolish.

So, no, they aren't smart.

Israel doesn't care about committing war crimes. It is not part of the ICC; however, Palestine joined the ICC in 2015 which means that war crimes committed in Palestine could be prosecuted, and some (by both sides) are currently under investigation. The only real impact of this though is on the holiday plans of any war criminals.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-could-be-complicit-in-gaza-war-crimes-tory-mp-warns/ar-AA1icp2y

Perhaps they just shouldn’t meddle at all…

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Israel are probably about to do some things that will test international law and lose them a great deal of sympathy across the world.

The smart move is to sit on the fence somewhat, or encourage appropriate action like the UN is doing.

Given how extreme the current Israeli government is, supporting israel to do anything they might do next is foolish.

So, no, they aren't smart.

Israel doesn't care about committing war crimes. It is not part of the ICC; however, Palestine joined the ICC in 2015 which means that war crimes committed in Palestine could be prosecuted, and some (by both sides) are currently under investigation. The only real impact of this though is on the holiday plans of any war criminals.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-could-be-complicit-in-gaza-war-crimes-tory-mp-warns/ar-AA1icp2y

The UK settled a lot of civil claims relating to extraordinary rendition, but no criminal cases stuck which is a shame. It will be a much better world where leaders face prosecution and realise they are not above the law.

mrb123

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Israel are probably about to do some things that will test international law and lose them a great deal of sympathy across the world.

The smart move is to sit on the fence somewhat, or encourage appropriate action like the UN is doing.

Given how extreme the current Israeli government is, supporting israel to do anything they might do next is foolish.

So, no, they aren't smart.

Israel doesn't care about committing war crimes. It is not part of the ICC; however, Palestine joined the ICC in 2015 which means that war crimes committed in Palestine could be prosecuted, and some (by both sides) are currently under investigation. The only real impact of this though is on the holiday plans of any war criminals.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-could-be-complicit-in-gaza-war-crimes-tory-mp-warns/ar-AA1icp2y

The UK settled a lot of civil claims relating to extraordinary rendition, but no criminal cases stuck which is a shame. It will be a much better world where leaders face prosecution and realise they are not above the law.

That realisation doesn't seem to have set in for Trump...

TheBigBean

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

First.Aspect

Good times ahead for Iranian drone manufacturers.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.

I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.

briantrumpet

Yet again, I'm enjoying the respectful, intelligent-but-challenging perspectives being shared here, especially as I've got no opinions that I feel qualified to offer, born as they are out of ignorance and incomprehension. Better than pretty much any other forum I've seen.... though I've not seen many. Certainly a million times better than Xitter.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.

I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.

They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.

They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.

My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.

Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.

I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.

They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.

They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.

My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.

Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.

They seem to be leveraging nuclear technology, natural resources and food quite effectively at the moment.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.

I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.

They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.

They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.

My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.

Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.

Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

If Putin wanted to be relevant, it seems he would have had more success getting involved in the peace process in Israel than by invading Ukraine.

I'm sure he's got a finger in there somewhere, what with being mates with the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

He's certainly a beneficiary at the moment, but it's more concerning that he sounds like the sensible one. That said, bringing up the siege of Leningrad has lost him some friends.

Anyone with more than a 1 week memory should be able to see what he is up to.

All sides are up to something although I'm yet to work out what Sunak is doing - a statement that applies to quite a lot at the moment.

If there was ever a deal done for a Palestinian state, then it could do with some guarantors, and the US isn't a great one from a Palestinian perspective. There are probably better candidates (eg Turkey or even Iran) than Russia though.

Iran?! F*** it, why not get NK involved?

Negotiating a peace deal with your mates is easier, but less effective.

I'm curious why you think Russia would be less suitable. I mean I don't really understand your position at all.

They were guaranteeing Nagorno-Karabakh, but having shot themselves in the foot in Ukraine, they can't do it any more. Therefore, they don't have the capability to guarantee anything.

They also don't have much influence over anyone in the region.

My original point was that if they had left Ukraine alone, then they would still have a feared army capable of guaranteeing a peace deal. They could then have inserted themselves and won favour with lots of Arab states as well as other places in the world.

Whereas now they are glorified cheerleaders with no influence and no army.

Ah, much clearer (sorry, a bit slow today). Aren't guarantors supposed to be vaguely neutral in the conflict, which you could obviously hardly say of Iran.