RayC

Never let it be said that you miss an opportunity to portray Putin and Russia as the victim. The EU (and its' member states) didn't much care for Trump or Johnson, and their respective attitudes towards the rest of Europe. However, the EU did not deem it necessary to freeze US and UK assets in the EU. Why? Well no end of justifiable reasons, one being that neither the US nor the UK had illegally invaded a neighbouring European sovereign state and threatened the stability of the region as a whole. In the unlikely event that the Kremlin is concerned about what is published on AN, I think they should give you a medal in recognition of your efforts re the promotion of pro-Putin and pro-Russian propaganda.

I'm not sure that there would be an outcry in the UK if ex-pat pensions were unfrozen, but equally there is no groundswell of public support for doing so and imo that is one reason why it is effectively a non-issue electionally. Secondly, for all the talk of there being 450,000 disgruntled ex-pat votes up for grabs for the party which promises to unfreeze pensions, this number is relatively insignificant as it equates to +/-700 votes per constituency. I realise that the potential ex-pat voters may not be spread completely equally across the UK but, unless they are concentrated in the most marginal seats, it's of little import.

It's possible that Corbyn will be re-elected. If so, I don't doubt that he will try to embarrass Starmer. However, imo the unfreezing of ex-pat pensions will be way down the list of issues about which he tries to attack Starmer.

If Corbyn gets re-elected I doubt that he will be very vocal in Parliament - or anywhere else for that matter - about the unfreezing of ex-pat pensions.

As if often I would agree that the Guardian's headline is sensationalist on the negative side. However, after reading the CPS account, one might be forgiven for thinking that the initiatives are progressing well. As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in-between as a reading of the summary report shows.

Very eloquently put. I can fully understand your discomfort with the Tories' lurch to the right. However, I am curious why you say that, as a natural 'centralist' Tory, you now think that you have no political home. Wouldn't the Lib Dems be an option or even Labour under Starmer? Both are very much centralist.

The blood of those who have died is on the hands of Putin. Shame on him for starting the war in the first place.

An alternative view re the source of the problem. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-putin-fears-most/

Turkish is very good. Prices are usually competitive. Change in Istanbul. Think that they might fly Man - Ist direct? Food excellent. Lounge in IST best that I've been in. Two disadvantages: (1) 2-2-2 configuration. If flying alone or odd number, suggest booking middle row as direct aisle access (2) on-board entertainment so-so. Agree with other poster: Oman very good also.

So are the rest of us 🙄😁

Aviation is one of the most competitive industries. Profit margins are low (2 - 3%). Fixed costs are high; variable costs e.g. fuel are volatile. The inflation adjusted cost of flying is a faction of what it was 20/30 years. Given all that, imo the cost of flying today is still relatively cheap.

Only tangential if you think that the media has no effect on people.

The problem of race hatred certainly exists and needs addressing but imo sensationalist headings - rather than convince people that the problem doesn't exist - only enflame the situation and place a wedge between differing groups.

Keep your head down. Snipers everywhere. You're right, of course. Most of these headlines are pure hyperbole.

You are confusing the UK with another country or, alternatively, have been misinformed: The UK is not governed by Arabs.

My suggestions: If the manager is not also the owner, don't waste any more time dealing with him/ her. Find out who the owner is and deal directly with him/ her: If it's a bigger company go straight to HQ. If you don't get any joy dealing with the owner/ company, write to the Australian Consumers Association (UK equivalent is 'Which') detailing your experience. They might be interested in highlighting your issue.

The behaviour of these 'gentlemen' would suggest that, perhaps, blown mountain air isn't as good for you as first thought😉

Why make that assumption? Perhaps UK universities have more independence? To summarise imo, it is possible that surveys are driven by bias but not inevitable. The US and UK systems are different. In the UK, two candidates may be given different offers based on the respective quality of their applications/ interviews (and different offers at different universities). For example, two candidates apply to read Economics at a university, candidate A submitted an excellent application and performed superbly at the interview. The university will give him/ her a place if s/he obtains 3 'A' levels with a minimum grade of 'B' in each. Candidate B was less impressive at interview, however s/he is also given a conditional offer, but must obtain 3 'As' to secure a place. It doesn't have to be that way. The example of allocating funding to schools in Harlem and the Bronx. We agree. Subjective viewpoint. More subjective views Indeed.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that your ongoing - and oft repeated - lament for "... Ukrainian widows and fatherless children" is anything other than heartfelt. Perish the thought that you are trying to paint those who support Ukraine in a negative light by using a form of emotional blackmail. However, I can't help wondering why you don't express a similar level of sympathy for the Russian widows and orphans? I'm sure that your undoubtedly sincere condolences would be of great comfort to them if they managed to read them.

An academic who is responsible for commissioning a survey will have their own opinion (bias). S/he will probably hope that the survey results confirm their opinion (bias). However, if s/he has applied 'best practice' principles to the survey design and has followed a statistically valid methodology, then imo the survey results will have validity and veracity. I really don't know. Here's one such study if you are interested. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8102179/#sec0002title Please don't ask me any questions about this survey. I have not - and will not - read it as I have no interest in the subject matter. I agree that public policy is difficult and that governments, by and large, try to avoid acting on contentious issues but I don't understand what is the point that you are trying to make? I also don't understand why you keep mentioning skin colour? I have not suggested anywhere that skin colour should be a criterion for allocating resources, etc. What I said previously was that there are times when public authorities - imo quite rightly - place equity above equality as in the example which I gave. At the risk of demonstrating my ignorance of New York's demography extending my previous example, if more resources were given to schools in Harlem compared to Manhattan in order to try to raise standards, then the fact that the beneficiaries are most likely going to be black is irrelevant. The objective is to raise standards. I could substituted 'The Bronx' for 'Harlem' and the beneficiaries would likely be predominantly Latino, Italian, etc. My point(s) remains the same: Equity before equality is justified sometimes and, in my example, race/ creed is not the driver behind the policy. A purely subjective opinion. A truism. Whether the UK's legacy in India is good or bad is a much more difficult question to answer. Impossible to produce a definite set of attributes but I would include such characteristics as being anti-democratic, authoritarian, favouring strong centralised government, racist, nationalistic, holding conservative (small 'c') views re social issues e.g. abortion, gay rights, etc, etc. I would stress that just because someone is, say, anti-abortion I would not label them, 'extreme right'. Imo one needs to look at the entirety of the individual's views.

I interpret that as meaning it is impossible for a (social) survey to be objective because bias will always be present in the question(s) being posed and survey design? If that is the case then it begs any number of questions, the main one being, why bother conducting any such surveys if the results are, by definition, bias? I agree. Wrt sub-standard schools, improvements might be found by adjusting their current operations, but it will almost certainly entail allocating relatively more resources (both human and capital) to such schools vis-a-vis the better performing schools. It must be more economically efficient as the potential marginal gains are greater. One of your 4 tests of being a leftie is placing equity above equality. I would suggest that this is an example where such a position is warranted. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that there are a wide range of public policies where such action is justified, and that one does not have to be a 'leftie' to support such decisions. You are proving my point: It is extremely difficult - if not impossible - to define a set of attributes which constitute culture. I would contend that it is therefore even more difficult to state that one culture is superior to another. I realise that it was a joke (as was my response). Yes, cricket on the sub-continent is something else. I would love to go to an India vs. Pakistan match. I have more hatred for the extreme right, but have little time for the hard left either.

Nail hit squarely on head. Air travel is not a public good. According to another poster, Thai Airways profit margin is 1.2%, so that hardly indicates profiteering.

I think that your link supports my contention: What alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West? As the article suggests, Putin is untrustworthy. Add in the fact that Putin does not recognise Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation, then it had no option but to look to the West. You suggest that Ukraine could have managed the situation by "... adeptly balancing (the pull of) east and west". I would argue that was (and is) an all but impossible task. Even if possible, it would have required the 'touch of an angel'. Was there anyone in the Ukrainian administration blessed with that gift?

Irrespective of whether its' trust was misplaced, what alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West? It is clear where putting its' trust in Russia would have led i.e. being subsumed into a 'Greater' Russia.

That's a shame, Trans. I'm afraid that I'm not to rehash the post, so I guess that we will both have to learn to live with our disappointment 😭😉