Alph

Who's attention are they trying to draw then? 

The Government aren't going to change their actions because 25 people blocked the M6. 

Throwing paint at a painting isn't going to make anyone change their lives or mend their ways. It will just vandals arrested. 

So they're not even trying to draw attention to a situation. They're not trying to get everyone to switch on to what's happening in the world and then apply pressure to Government on a larger scale or through voting or through whatever means. They're thinking that they alone are going to force the Government to rethink? 

That seems a really awful strategy. Blue hair or not. Without a powerful tool as social media and they choose to go head to head with the Government and Corporations and not care about public opinion or perception. 

I guess "well we're talking about it so it worked" will be the argument. But that's all we'll do is argue about the rights and wrongs of vandalising stuff. What we going to do? Nothing. 

What will happen is they'll be painted as nuisance vandals and troublemakers and one time they block the M6 people will get hurt. 

Just because someone has good cause it doesn't give them reason to do whatever they feel like in the comfort that they're right. 

I don't think pouring out milk in Sainsbury effects anyone but shoppers and Staff cleaning it up. And those people are more likely to dismiss them as disruptive anti social vandals than lend an ear. 

As @Crewtonsaid. They'll say they're raising awareness. But they're going to alienate people with their rage against the machine vandalism. If people don't care now do they really think pouring milk out is going to inspire some kind of awakening? 

Well, I guess they do. But personally I think they make it easy for media to paint them as "woke" privileged students and unemployed internet warriors who watched Joker a few too many times. 

Same as during BLM. Saying if you're not anti racist then you're racist is just going to make people defensive. You can call them what you like but you've forced them into a defensive stance. As many like Terry Crews and Steven Bartlett pointed out to receive much abuse. 

You can't divide people up into ignorant and woke. Many folk just need to become aware of something and see what they're doing to decide to change. 

These morons blocking motorways raise division not awareness 

5 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Helpfully they’ll go and stop traffic in China this week 

If they do then they should be let off with it. 

It's about time we stopped trying to prevent small crimes. I hate it. Tiny bit of vandalism or anti social behaviour and you get arrested. Nanny state. 

Soon you won't even be able to mug someone in the name of Greta Thunberg without the police sticking their nose it. 

They should be arresting the government. And you should be sticking up for me, you planet killer!!

16 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Likewise - which is the bigger crime?

 

Bigger crime? Do we have to pick? 

28 minutes ago, David said:

I would be all over a channel like that. 

Sadly people are happy to lap up the low effort content where celebrities are prancing about on ice or in staged jungle.

When I see some of the TV shows trending on Twitter, like Love Island I realise I'm not in the intended audience for programme creators anymore.

I'm not against reality TV but that doesn't exist either. It's scripted "reality" which is surely just a soap with worse acting and even duller storylines. 

Ok, so you sit down at the kitchen table and then Fred will enter like he's just got out of bed and then you should maybe mention last night's dinner. And... Action!! 

It's really weird. 

What do we think about that Derek fella then who used to speak to people's loved ones "on the other side" 

Was he offering comfort to those who saw him? Did he actually believes he heard messages? Or was he parting grieving people from their monies?

5 minutes ago, David said:

When I went to the docs with anxiety, he said to me don't let anyone tell you the pain isn't real. It is real as you feel it. 

With this in my mind, I believe if your brain wants you to see ghosts, you will see them.

I haven't seen them myself, to be honest I'm glad as it would freak me out. 

Different experience to me!! I went with chest pains and chest tightening. They said physically I'm fine and it's likely down to a mental thing. 

Then sent me packing. 

About the 2nd time I've been to hospital in my adult life and I'm pretty much told to man up. ?

Felt like a right knobber wasting their time! If I had a heart attack now I'd try and walk it off ?

My mate believes in all this stuff. It seems like you only ever encounter paranormal activity if you believe in it. 

Bumps in the night happen in my house and not just in 18th century stately homes. 

Do you believe in them? Just enduring Yvette Fielding on the radio. Scientists aren't taking paranormal activity serious enough. 

How did we feel about old Derek and Sam channeling some poor widows husband?

Have you seen 'em on telly handing around old houses in the dark sensing evil spirits? 

Urgh, Haney and Shields with the win. I really thought Marshall would control that fight better. 

Er.... Wilder. Lasted like 90 seconds or something I think. Not even a shot he lined up just a straight right counter on the back foot. 

I don't know where he generates his power from. Genuinely stands a chance Vs anyone. 

So tonight it's Marshall v Shields, Wilder v Helenius at God knows what time along with Haney v Kambosos?

Wish I weren't working tomorrow. 

Hoping for Marshall, Wilder and Kambosos wins. 

14 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

If Extinction Rebellion was a real movement to improve the environment and wanted to create a popular wave of public opinion to take on the big corporations who pollute our lands for profit, they should concentrate on sewage being pumped into our rivers and seas. There's not many who would argue with them over that, (other than the swivel eyed Rees-Mogg profit making at all costs gang). Most working people would support them if they glued themselves to effluent outlets!

 

Yes!! Now let's gain support by throwing faeces at Nelson's Column and chaining ourselves to train tracks

1 hour ago, Stive Pesley said:

Something troubles me about all of this though

And I'm not lover of the Tories, as you know

Whether I agreed with their mini-budget or not, you can't argue that it wasn't a bold move, aimed at trying to do things differently

And the financial markets moved to crush it

Same with Corbyn - he wanted to do things differently and the media did a hatchet job on him, to ensure he got nowhere near power

I suppose it boils down to  this - who is actually in charge? Because it sure isn't the politicians. The illusion of democracy is powerful!

The oligarchs

Oh now I understand the trickle down effect.

1 minute ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Easy take the 13amp fuse out of the plug ?

Sergei and Sacha exchanging a smile as Putin's evil laugh echoes in the room. He's about to turn the utility room light on. Russian Boycie has played an absolute belter here. 

6 minutes ago, David said:

Realistically, how do you see this war end, how will the fighting finish and who walks away with what?

 

Probably a winter stalemate leading to de-escalation. Leaving war torn East Ukraine to wipe off your holiday plans for the next 50 years. 

Disputed territory full of organised crime, sporadic fighting, human rights abuses and poverty? A drain on Russia and Ukraine's resources for decades. 

But I guess the depends how aggressive Ukraine will be from this point. 

I'm interested in what you and others think too. Where does it go long term? 

18 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

Without sticking my ore in too much in this debate, I do like John Sweeney’s war reports on Twitter and I think a largely agree with the points he makes here.

Some quite reassuring points. I'm not sure about a disconnected Nuclear button though! 

56 minutes ago, David said:

You don’t believe NATO will respond in any military way at all if Putin drops a tactical nuke on Ukraine?

Just can’t see it, whilst I don’t believe it will be nuke for nuke, Macron has even said France won’t get involved in that, bombs will fly as the US will want to protect their “World Police” image.

Right now Putin is the one looking weak and a wally, if he sets a nuke off and the US do nothing with the NATO sheep, it’s them that will look weak to the rest of the world.

They all want to portray this image of power and strength.

China will be looking on and thinking, we may as well take Taiwan.

 

I just don't see what they can do. In the 60's I think America was much more aggressive and still avoided direct war with Russia over the Cuban Missile crisis. And it was much closer to home. According to recorded conversations many in the USA military wanted to deal with it by heavy handed force. Thankfully leaders of America and Russia saw some sense

Let's say Putin drops a WMD on Ukraine. I truly believe he would only do it at utter desperation. But let's say he does. What's America's response? 

They're surely not going to attack Russia. They're war mongering power hungry global thought police. But their strategy is very Roman Republic in the way they only ever "defend". So I can't see them targeting any Russian territory with anything similar. 

They could send military forces into Ukraine but I'm not sure how that would be seen and done. If they didn't take Putin's threats about intervention seriously then I think they would have already done it? 

I just think Putin has them by the knackers. 

It just becomes Russia's Vietnam. Or Russia's Hiroshima. Whichever way it goes I can only see NATO and USA sending equipment, containing the war to Ukraine, trying to get suitable peace terms and encouraging more NATO expansion so that Russia can go no further. 

I just can't for the life of me see how they can get involved without escalating it further. 

This assuming Putin is desperate enough or in power long enough to do such a thing. 

I've never thought of him as Bond villain exactly but it's no good continuing on the "he has some valid concerns" route. 

What we do know from history is Russian attitude to war. 

I guess the only difference between Russia and China being able to take what they want is China might fear sanctions more? 

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

Given Poland's history with Russia, particularly in the 20th century, it's hardly surprising that they mostly seem to have a very negative view of the Russian government. I think you are probably right in that Putin has surrounded himself with like minded people as much as he possibly could.  But what they say to Putin and what they think themselves could actually quite different.  Remember before the war when Putin humiliated his own head of foreign intelligence in public for not being as pro war as Putin thought he should be.  It was clear that Naryshkin was eager to avoid war at the time...maybe there are more like minded people in the Russian government.  Who knows? 

And also it's clear to everyone, including those Russians in government, that Putin has, as you say, ducked up monumentally.  This is his war, his doing and it's very hard for him to back down.  But if he was removed, the new president could very plausibly blame Putin for all the mistakes that went before and take Russia on a different path, without much embarrassment to themselves. I think given how badly the war is going that this is a very real possibility.  Of course, it all depends on who the successor is.

At least twice before, individual Russians have by their actions, saved the world from a nuclear war.  Maybe there is another Vasily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov waiting for their moment to shine!  If only Putin could wander near some of those famously treacherous Russian windows, things may have a chance of getting a lot better in the near future.  

Wasn't Khrushchev also a leader that understood war must be avoided? An enemy of America no doubt but also during the Cuban Missile crisis I think he played a role in calming things. I might be wrong. 

But it wouldn't be right to assume everyone in power in Russia is an ex KGB Soviet Union dreamer stuck in the 60's. There must be many who above all else care about Russia more than NATO, border disputes, oil prices etc etc. They must care about the condition Russia will be in by the time Putin is done. Those who would applaud Putin if he delivered Ukraine but now see him as an incompetent strategist. 

I don't think same as @Davidthat we are headed for a wider conflict. It's not a daft thing to think though. 

I do think if Ukraine keep pushing, winter comes, Russians can't get supplies and they become cold and hungry then start deserting or dying to well fed and rested Ukrainians... That Putin if in power will drop the big bombs on them. I really do. 

And he'll say "America did it in Japan and set the precedent." as soon as the last echos fade. 

Then I think the West will do absolutely nothing. Not with military. Because to do so takes us to what David rightly worries about. 

I mean there's a part of me that wants Ukraine to seek peace talks and kind of appease Putin. It's wrong but their war can go 2 ways as I see it. Putin is removed from within or Ukraine loses. That's always how it's seemed to me. Even if they win they'll lose because Putin will go as far as it takes and The West won't. 

54 minutes ago, Archied said:

The simple fact is that to all intents and purpose the war is Russia v nato/ the west , we are arming them not only to defend themselves but to take crimea , now whether you think we should be arming them or not it’s a very dangerous situation and who can say where that leads on a world scale

I think that's where the thread has had some tension. Because to avoid the situation we are in I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame or talk about other nations actions in antagonising Russia.

And the not so secret war between Russia and America has been going on for decades all across the globe. Opposing each other in every possible way using all kinds of sabotage and proxy wars etc etc on and on. 

I think the point up to the war The West particularly America has a lot to answer for (not claiming Russia has been a victim). I know some won't agree. 

But trying to have that debate has been tough because it crosses over into what Russia are doing now. 

I do think we're actually right to support Ukraine and we shouldn't have to apologise for that. They have no rightful claim to Ukraine and whatever threat they see coming from there is no reason for them to go full scale assault like they have. 

The world can't allow a nation like Russia (or America) to start empire building. 

But then we're back at the pre war again with who exactly has covertly empire building and whether that's a threat to Russia and other opposing countries. 

But in this specific war. In this very specific war, then I think we have to make sure Ukraine has a future. They might be a new nation but they exist for real and those in Russia that refuse to see it belong in the bin with the those American war mongers that surrounded JFK. 

Even his allies must be thinking that all he's doing now is making Russia look weak and they'll be second guessing everything I would have thought. 

Even those who would claim all the lands of the USSR would surely be thinking he's done more harm than good. 

Problem is, Putin will be aware and I'm sure he will have surrounded himself with those that will go to the grave with him. His paranoia even for a Russian must be on a whole new level. 

If you're Putin you must be thinking that using nuclear weapons on Ukraine is an option. Will the West get involved if he does that? The first answer I think is "yes" 

But would we? If you weigh it up, would we? I don't think The West would respond in a similar way. 

It's utterly a last resort for Putin but if Ukraine continue pushing back and humiliating Russia and if Putin really sees no way out where he can leave Russia in a better position than it was pre war... I don't see what he has to lose. 

He's pointed to Hiroshima and Nagasaki too many times for it to not be a "look, I'm not setting a new bar for chaos here" kind of prelude

On 11/10/2022 at 22:40, 86 Hair Islands said:

Marshall vs Shields this weekend. Not gonna lie, looking forward to this a lot. Biggest fight in women's boxing for me right now and it should be a decent contest. There's real animosity between these two and I'd expect it to get pretty lively inside the O2.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/63208126

I want Marshall to giver Shields a thrashing. I like Marshall and Peter Fury. Shields is annoying and I think Marshall will dominate the fight. I've only seen both a couple of times and I know Shields is good. I just think Marshall has the style to dominate.

Derby lad Parker v Ryder then. Tough tough fight that. Would be a mahoosive win

French energy bills aren't too bad either are they?

It's paid for by his commercial value. So they'll pay up. 

And he has commercial value because everybody has to watch this absolutely essential individual to the world of football who will never be matched. An icon both on and off the pitch. A vital cog in humanity. His genius is a wonder to behold. 

They watch him in China. They watch him in Iraq. They buy his shirts in Africa. They pretend to be him in school playgrounds. And they pay monthly subscriptions just to witness the magic he conjures up from the other side of the world. 

I mean I could happily trip over the geezer in Asda and not give a feck. Same for Haaland. But that's me. A weirdo who can make do without these super duper leagues and players because their harmful for the sport both in pricing out fans and creating ridiculous gaps in competition and aiding clubs into oblivion. 

But everyone else needs Mbappe and Haaland. Imagine a game without these guys. It would be like the 70's or something when everyone was untalented and bad. 

1 minute ago, I am Ram said:

I'm team Lando myself,  i guess i prefer Merc, than whinger spice, he boils my p#$$. I was a massive fan of Lewis and he is the goat, but when he dumped Nicole. Hell no !!!!!!! ❤️

I bet he saw that annoying yoghurt advert when she gets some on her nose.

On 08/09/2022 at 13:08, JoetheRam said:

Would you do it on your driving test? No. 

Not sure why people feel the need to "help" other drivers out of junctions - we're capable of getting out of junctions by making our own decision on when there is a suitable gap.

It's people thinking they know better than the rules of the road.

Rather than random signals that mean different things to different people at different times, maybe we could help each other out by  following the rules that we were supposed to learn.

Plus it's an absolute classic crash for cash technique.

Gotta disagree here. As with many things the 'rules' are sometimes less suitable than common sense. 

There are junctions that are a nightmare to get out of. And you can let people out without slowing traffic so you flash and ease off the accelerator. Let one out and it creates less rage on the roads, less chance of someone forcing a gap. 

If I flash someone out, I do a lot, then I'm in control of the distance. I prefer that then someone rushing out unexpected because they're late for work and been sat there 5 minutes. 

And I remember the speech from my instructor saying it's not something they can support because a flash doesn't mean "you go". But it kind of does. So say millions of motorists. 

I've never seen it misunderstood. I flash and people go. People flash me and I go. Never done any harm.

In fact I live on a road off Raynesway. People approach my junction at 40mph. And there's another road a few yards away. So many cars will indicate too early as if coming into my road. Then they take the next turn. If you trust their indicator then they'd wipe you out. But many put the indicator on and flash you out to show they have indeed indicated correctly. Sitting there obeying the HC seems daft when we all know exactly what it means. 

Interesting about the rule that when turning into a junction you must give way to any pedestrians crossing. 

So turning from a 50mph road into a junction and what happens is the pedestrians don't cross because not enough people are following this rule. So the car comes to a complete stop. A stop that the cars behind aren't expecting because not enough people follow the rule. So we get a nice pile up. I think it's actually more dangerous to follow this rule. And I try to do it but pedestrians have waved me on!!