RayC

Presumably you missed this bit in the article: "Hungary, which relies heavily on Russian energy, has been pressing for the pipeline to be restored. Budapest has blocked both new European Union sanctions against Russia and a proposed €90bn loan package for Ukraine while the issue remains unresolved". Basically, your mate Orban - the cuckoo in the EU nest - is effectively blackmailing the EU into doing his bidding on this issue. But never let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to have a dig at the EU, eh?

Unfortunately you are wasting your time in posting such truths. The old proverb, "None so blind as those who will not see", could have coined for some of the more extreme Brexiters.

Don't be surprised if you are charged with 'Involuntary Manslaughter'. Your last sentence has led to the demise of over half of AN's readership.

There was an old saying about Norwich: "A church for every Sunday and a pub for every day" although I doubt that there are 365 pubs or 52 churches still in operation in Norwich nowadays.

But if you weren't there, your company would simply find someone else to spend THEIR money in London on THEIR behalf, so actually there wouldn't be any loss of revenue to London unless, of course, the only reason your company uses a London-based organisation is because of your deep affection for our fair city, and/or you are so indispensable that your company couldn't survive without you. (This also assumes that your company's spending in London is significant enough to be noticed). Even by your standards of avoidance, introducing a completely unrelated, illogical argument about the value of an individual vote within the aggregated whole is desperate. Personally I welcome any spending that benefits London's economy, but I very much doubt that the withdrawal of your personal expenditure would cause us any problem although, as I say, every little helps.

Norwich: Best place to live in the UK? Maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly 'A Fine City'.

My dear Jonny, I am genuinely concerned for your welfare. You seem to be awfully forgetful nowadays. Don't you remember writing this: "Actually it would be (a loss to London) given MY spending habits when there". (My caps and parentheses). MY is not usually interchangable with OUR. In this case, the former implies individual personal spending, not collective spending on behalf of the company (OUR). It is ambiguous at best: I do hope that you are more precise when drawing up contracts. Given that we have known each other - albeit remotely - for a number of years now, I'd be grateful for a heads-up (which I'll pass on to the Mayor) if you ever decide to withdraw your largesse from London: OUR great city will obviously need to make provisions to ensure that our £618bn economy - 2023 estimated value of London's economy - can survive the shock.

UK traders are based in other places than London and hospitality is available throughout the UK so the question remains, "Why do you spend so much money and time in a place (London) that you so clearly abhor?"

You state that, "The IAEA confirmed compliance with the narrow technical rules of the JCPOA" To state the obvious, that was the IAEA's mandate: No more, no less. Why expect either the IAEA and/or Iran to go over and beyond the terms of the Agreement? The JCPOA had the support of the UN PS plus Germany and the EU, and had the effect of halting Iran's progress towards attaining nuclear weapons. I'd call that success and far from flawed. Moreover, although the Agreement was time-stamped, there was nothing to prevent negotiations continuing - or strengthening - the Agreement. Nothing that is until Trump's withdrawal of the US. The idea that Iran would effectively leave itself at the mercy of Israel and Saudi Arabia by agreeing to voluntarily giving up any military deterrent (it's missile systems, etc) as you suggest was - and is - a complete non-starter. No other nation would be expected to agree to such terms so why expect Iran to do so? Although sanctions make things more financially difficult for Iran, it still continues to fund Hezbollah. The presence or absence of a JCPOA type deal does not prevent it. Indeed, how exactly could Iran be preventing from sending funds to Lebanon and Palestine unless their budget was managed by, and, from a third party (presumably the US). In reality, we had a deal. While it couldn't be claimed to have been perfect or to have permanently solved any major problems, it did at least prevent existing problems from getting worse which was a lot better than the situation since 2018. The irresponsible behaviour of Trump by withdrawing from the Agreement and his behaviour now - without seemingly having any idea of what the final outcome either should look like or is likely to be - is unfortunately proof of that.

I saw him and the Glitter band in 1981. For sheer entertainment, It remains one of the best gigs I've ever been to. The Glitter band were excellent musicians and a very tight backing band.

Public protection is not the only reason for jailing individuals, although who's to know whether Glitter no longer presents a danger to young children in some perverted way; there are also the elements of rehabilitation, deterrence and punishment to consider. Glitter reoffended when released and looks past rehabilitation. Unfortunately, there are others like him at large and imo a strong deterrent message needs to be sent. Wrt punishment, I find it difficult to have much sympathy for Glitter and to use the old saying, 'He's got what he deserved'. I agree with @Effective altruism ; he should spend the rest of his days in a cell.

Why do you spend so much money (and time?) in a place that you so clearly abhor?

Did you lose your old one? For that price, I'd expect it to last a lifetime.

The mixed messaging continues. Will those ar Labour's central office never learn?

Shhh. We don't 'The Don' thinking that he has competition. Who knows, who - or what - he might appoint next!

Presumably Carly Simon will be invited to sing at the unveiling of this coin?

And you are even further off offering a coherent counter argument to my original post.

The UK-backed coup brought Rezi Pahlavi to power in Iran in 1953: The European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951 and has been recognised as being instrumental in shaping the development of modern Europe. By your logic, something must have happened in 1952 which meant that the return to power of the Shah had no effect on the future of Iran. Care to share with us all what that event(s) might have been?

And who originally set the whole chaotic show in motion in Iran? That's right, step forward the UK and US (No need to be coy, Russia/ Soviet Union; you played your part as well). I'm preempt the cries of, 'You hate your own country', by stating that, 'No, I don't' but I also do not ignore historical fact.

The analysis may be largely correct but it rests on what appears to be one faulty assumption and overlooks one pertinent fact. The faulty assumption is that Iran was two weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb. This claim seems to have about as much veracity as Blair's claim that Iraq possessed WMDs which could reach the UK in 15 minutes: From an embedded link in the article which you posted: "Open-source intelligence and analysis suggests that Iran is unlikely to have made substantial progress in rebuilding their key nuclear sites since June 2025 and that the programme seems to be even more “in limbo” without clear political guidance about how to move forward. Before the strikes, US intelligence suggested that Iran’s “breakout time” (the time needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb) was estimated at less than two weeks. In the aftermath of last summer’s military campaign, IAEA estimates suggest, however, that that Tehran’s nuclear program was “very slow … perhaps we could say frozen, if not, almost stopped.”" The pertinent fact which is overlooked is that all this could have been avoided if Trump had not pulled the US out of the JCPOA during his first term. The independent monitor, the IAEA, was satisfied that Iran was complying with the terms of the deal. This war is of the US's making and the fault largely rests with one man.

Nice story. Well done to the motorcycle rider.

Iran might be difficult to negotiate with - the same could be said for many other states - but it is simply not true to state that, "No country, and there has been many, has successfully negotiated with Iran". The JCPOA was signed, sealed, delivered, implemented and - according to the independent international overseer, the IAEA - being complied with by Iran right up until the time that the US withdrew from the Agreement during Trump's first term. The fault for this current crisis rests with the US and largely with one man.

I stand corrected but would suggest that 'careful what you wish for' might be an apt phase. Unless this neutralisation is accompanied by regime change, imo in the medium term it is difficult to see how greater instability in the region can be avoided. In the short term, if the bombardment intensifies there must be the possibility that Iranians will start to leave the country and that yet another refugee crisis ensues. What will the US's and Gulf States' reaction be if that happens?

Trump was obviously convinced that this war was a good thing otherwise why start it in the first place? That appears to be something beyond your comprehension. You have already been challenged to produce evidence to support your proposition that the other Gulf States want Iran "neutralised" (whatever that means?) before ending the war but have, so far, failed to produce anything.

Saudi Arabia would probably wish away Iran but I doubt that any of the Gulf States were in favour of this war. The next step should be for the US to call off the bombers and restart negotiations with Iran.