Recent posts

#31

Off the Record / Re: TV/Movies Megathread

Last post by Norgy - April 16, 2026, 04:38:27 PM

This was inevitable but the Up series of documentaries is coming to an end with 70 Up.

It's an extraordinary series ITV (then the main commercial broadcaster) started in 1964 and basically was about 14 kids aged seven. It's then returned every (more or less) 7 years with the director, Michael Apted, very involved in the documentary process, asking questions and following (most) of the participants through their lives.

Apted died in 2021, a couple of years after 63 Up but Asif Kapadia will direct the final series to be released in 2026.

I think it's arguably the greatest documentary British broadcasting has ever produced - but absolutely feels like it's from another age. I think it's impossible to imagine a broadcaster having the confidence and belief in that kind of long-term project now - and certainly not ITV.

This sounds like a very good project. Something I would watch with pleasure.

#32

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Norgy - April 16, 2026, 04:33:15 PM

Trump predicted it, there will be so much winning, you will be tired of winning. 

#33

Off the Record / Re: TV/Movies Megathread

Last post by Sheilbh - April 16, 2026, 03:04:57 PM

This was inevitable but the Up series of documentaries is coming to an end with 70 Up.

It's an extraordinary series ITV (then the main commercial broadcaster) started in 1964 and basically was about 14 kids aged seven. It's then returned every (more or less) 7 years with the director, Michael Apted, very involved in the documentary process, asking questions and following (most) of the participants through their lives.

Apted died in 2021, a couple of years after 63 Up but Asif Kapadia will direct the final series to be released in 2026.

I think it's arguably the greatest documentary British broadcasting has ever produced - but absolutely feels like it's from another age. I think it's impossible to imagine a broadcaster having the confidence and belief in that kind of long-term project now - and certainly not ITV.

#34

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by Jacob - April 16, 2026, 02:34:05 PM

I think the Atlantic Council have a running tracker on weapons systems etc being moved into the region.

Thanks!

They do, though they don't seem to track infantry deployed. Here it is: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/trackers-and-data-visualizations/tracking-us-military-assets-in-the-iran-war/

[Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls to resign after it was revealed that Lord Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the US despite failing security vetting.The prime minister was accused of misleading parliament after repeatedly insisting that due process was followed in the appointment of the disgraced peer and that he had been vetted in the normal way.]

#35

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - April 16, 2026, 02:23:39 PM

Starmer's response on this is yet again to blame the rest of his team and deny any responsibility. But I think this a resigning issue - his line, repeatedly, was that Mandelson was vetted and process was followed but it didn't work which wasn't his responsibility and just need more/better process. It seems that is untrue and he lied to the House. I do think - something David Runciman and Helen Thomson mentioned on a podcast reunion recently - that Starmer has presided over a spectacularly dishonest political project and government.

The arguments they've got, as far as I can see, are that Starmer's Number 10 is cripplingly incompetent or that they lie. It might not be immediate (same way as it took six months from Partygate for Johnson to fall) but I think this scandal will sink him - not least because it just goes to the core of his political persona/brand: integrity, honest, due process, Mr Propriety, forensic, "adult in the room" etc.

Starmer 'must resign' over revelation that Mandelson failed vetting
The prime minister has been accused of misleading parliament over his claim that due process was followed in the peer's appointment as ambassador to the US
Oliver Wright, Policy Editor
Thursday April 16 2026, 6.30pm, The Times

Sir Keir Starmer is facing calls to resign after it was revealed that Lord Mandelson was appointed ambassador to the US despite failing security vetting.

The prime minister was accused of misleading parliament after repeatedly insisting that due process was followed in the appointment of the disgraced peer and that he had been vetted in the normal way.

But today Downing Street admitted that Mandelson was denied clearance in late January last year after a confidential background check by security officials.

By that stage Mandelson's appointment had been publicly announced, and it was decided to overrule the vetting decision.

The prime minister's spokesman said Starmer had been made aware only this week that Foreign Office officials had "taken the decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting".

"Once the prime minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the developed vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons," he said.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said misleading parliament was a "resigning offence".

"If he has misled parliament, as it looks like he has, he should resign," she said. "If he has broken the ministerial code, as it looks like he has, he should resign. If he withheld documents by a cover-up from parliament, he should resign. I'm only holding him to the same standards to which he's held previous prime ministers — that if they mislead parliament, they should resign."

The Guardian, which first reported the claims, also said senior government officials had been considering whether there was a basis to withhold from parliament sensitive documents showing that Mandelson had failed vetting.

Any such decision could amount to defiance of a parliamentary vote that ordered the release of "all papers" relevant to Mandelson's appointment.

In a statement Downing Street said: "The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office]. The decision to grant developed vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO.

"Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week.

"Once the prime minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the developed vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.

"The government is committed to complying with the humble address [the release of the documents] in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the humble address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC [intelligence and security committee of parliament]. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting."

Mandelson was forced to resign as ambassador last year after new evidence emerged about his links with Jeffrey Epstein, the late paedophile financier, after he was jailed for child sex offences. Earlier this year, Mandelson was arrested on suspicion of sharing confidential government information with Epstein and is under investigation. He has denied any criminality.

Amid controversy about Mandelson's appointment, which was announced in December 2024, Starmer said there had been "security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post."

Starmer added: "Clearly both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again."

[bIn September last year, the prime minister assured the Commons that "full due process was followed during this appointment". In February he said: "As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services."[/b]

The revelation that Mandelson was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting, a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister's judgment in appointing him.

Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process. The Guardian said it was not known whether the prime minister was made aware that Mandelson had not been granted approval. Neither is it known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule the vetting failure.

Sir Olly Robbins, permanent secretary in the Foreign Office, was the department's top civil servant in when the decision was made, having taken up the role earlier that January. The foreign secretary was David Lammy, who is now the deputy prime minister. Sources close to Lammy said they were unaware of the claims.

Sir Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Keir Starmer had already made a catastrophic error of judgment. Now it looks as though he has also misled parliament and lied to the British public. If that is the case, he must go.

"Labour came into government on a promise to clean up politics. Instead we're seeing the same old sleaze, scandal and cover-ups as we did under the Conservatives."

The Green Party also called on Starmer to resign.

The best defence Starmer has as I can see it is that he is just utterly oblivious to literally everything going on around him - which is in fairness a defence he's run a few times while blaming more junior people on his team. I've said before but I think it's one of his least attractive traits and just regularly reminds me (and I suspect other people) of some really bad bosses who wilfully don't engage and then refuse to take responsibility for anything.

#36

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by Josephus - April 16, 2026, 02:08:23 PM

Here's one (of many) things I can't understand.

So why is the cost of building, for instance, a tool workshop different in two different provinces of mine, within the same market?

#37

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by Duque de Bragança - April 16, 2026, 01:33:43 PM

Aviation fuel is running short. Airline cancellations are going to increase, and especially flights to and from Europe.

RIP World Cup?

Fucking great. I have a family vacation planned mid-May.

Great indeed, I have a family trip to Portugal in the last third of May.
As for the World Cup, poetic justice?

#38

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Duque de Bragança - April 16, 2026, 01:22:17 PM

What? Your English is failing you?

I didn't read it at being directed at you. I read it as being directed at Vance.

Yep, I thought it was obvious.

#39

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by crazy canuck - April 16, 2026, 12:26:08 PM

Yeah, there haven't been any new deployment and the troops that were deployed are token at best.  I really wish Sheilbh hadn't posted Russian  suggest suggesting that there was a buildup of troops

When are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination.  Just fucking ridiculous to see otherwise intelligent people falling into this cesspool of misinformation.

I completely fail to understand your point. Sheilbh posted about a sourced fact and a third-party's interpretation of that fact. He didn't argue that they were true. Even if you don't like the fact or the interpretation, they exist and it's foolish to pretend that they don't.

It's foolish to pretend that anything coming from the Russians should be taken at face value by third parties or anyone else.  This is not the first time Sheilbh has taken misinformation and treated analyzed it as if it were more valid than it is.  It is foolish not to call these things out when them happen.

#40

Off the Record / Re: Iran War

Last post by Sheilbh - April 16, 2026, 11:55:46 AM

Tripoli and her amphibious group are operating in the Arabian Sea now.  That group's forces wouldn't even be enough to secure a beachhead in mainland Iran, though.  I suspect it's there mainly to support the blockade.  Otherwise, I haven't read anything about any sort of significant ground forces being in place.  Attacking anything on the ground that isn't an isolated island or a SpecOps raid would be suicidal with the troop numbers in-theater.

Agree with all of this. I think 2,500 arrived a couple of weeks ago and the Washington Post was reporting an extra 10,000 to be deployed by the end of the month. Equipment continues to be deployed to the region (though also necessary for a blockade or any attempt to break the Iranian blockade) - I think the Atlantic Council have a running tracker on weapons systems etc being moved into the region. It has continued to increase during the.

The other part of course could just be regional reassurance forces for the American allies hosting the bases in the Gulf - of course, as Russia is very well aware regional reassurace can pivot to other operations.

Yeah, there haven't been any new deployment and the troops that were deployed are token at best.  I really wish Sheilbh hadn't posted Russian  suggest suggesting that there was a buildup of troops

When are people going to learn that Russia and the Trumpists are acting in coordination.  Just fucking ridiculous to see otherwise intelligent people falling into this cesspool of misinformation.

I don't quite get the issue?

The Russians have said it and I've posted what an Iranian expert says is the way Tehran is interpreting it - obviously I think you'd be very justified in doubting what Russia's Security Council says or that the interpretation in Tehran is complete (he'll have sources, be reading news and they'll each have their own starting points). And you're fully entitled to doubt Azizi as well - though I've no reason to think what he's saying is not true (from his position).

And with that information obviously there are other interpretations possible. It seems to me that one of the Iranian concerns in even considering ceasefire negotiations was that it would just be used by the US to bring more weapons into the region and hit harder (having previously been bombed by Trump twice during negotiations). I'm not sure that's wrong, but their interpretation may just reflect that existing fear - alternately it could be Russia trying to bolster that faction within Iran. As I say, many other possibilities too. Not sure how that's a cesspool of misinformation.

But out of interest what's the coordination between the US and Russia on Iran? What's their plan?