Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Just to clear up a few bits of misinformation. The original ship in Gibraltar is Russian owned, based in Dubai, and carries the flag of Panama. The Iranians claim it is their oil in the tanker but it sailed from Khor Fakkan anchorage, in the UAE. The Spanish will not have been able to act because it will have gone through the straits in international waters and then anchored on the East side of Gibraltar. The first minister of Gibraltar made clear that they acted with UK help because the next port of call was to be the Baniyas Oil Refinery in Syria. Oil companies in Syria are subject to EU sanctions under Council Regulation 55/2012 which applies to Gibraltar. Now the refinery at Baniyas was reported to be under Russian control in 2016. So we have a Russian owned and crewed tanker carrying Iranian Oil to a Russian controlled refinery in Syria which chose to stop at a British Overseas Territory which is part of the EU and subject to EU sanctions and deliberately declare its destination as somewhere on the sanctions list. That seems less like the notion of hybrid warfare that the old proxy warfare of the cold-war era with Iran acting for Russia. That may explain why nobody wants to adopt the gung-ho posture you would like to see don't you think.
  3. Today
  4. Let's hope The Argies don't get any fresh ideas of invading the islands. Imagine todays MP's ???? They can't agree on whether they want sugar or saccharine in their coffee !!! Maybe they would negotiate with Argentina; provided the decision followed a "democratic process", in other words, if Parliament voted for it.With multiple amendments and votes... over several months and then would follow an online petition calling for The Task Force to be halted after it hopefully gained over half a million signatures.Oh and their Brothers in Espana decided maybe just maybe Gibraltar ???????(Naaaaaah ?????) Crazy far fetched ? History is littered with stories of Leaders putting their heads in the sand....
  5. The Falklands should have been the only lesson we ever needed .
  6. The irony in all this Latch; is that we're getting rid (hopefully) of one master (the EU) only to fall into the clutches of another (the US). The UK is no longer a world player, the only thing keeping us on the UN security council are our nukes. If we take Germany as an example, they've underpaid there contributions to NATO and sheltered under the US nuclear umbrella; whilst becoming the number one economic entity in Europe. So perhaps we need to decide precisely where our best interests lie and start putting the UK FIRST.
  7. Lets call a spade a spade The Iranians have timed this perfectly, we have no functioning parliament at the moment until the new Prime Minister is installed and has appointed his cabinet. Once we have had time to sort this domestic reshuffle then I reckon they will back off having had their fun at tweaking The Lions Tale. This situation should act as a wake up call and make us realise in no uncertain terms we need a major defence review/overhaul before any other Nations realise we are at this moment totally unprepared for any kind of serious conflict(if they haven't already) North Korea,China,Argentina as well as Iran must realise Maggie Thatcher is no longer around and neither are our superior Armed Forces. We must treat this as a priority as at the moment a few lightly armed speedboats and one helicopter have got us scuppered !!!! Sod all this Brexit lark and the obvious distractions it has created After 31 October... The silly games can finally come to a conclusion. And then we can get down to the serious business of running our own Nation and regaining our Pride. As Solid International defence is not and never will be negotiable.
  8. Yesterday
  9. So: Spain (also a member of the EU) failed to act on those EU sanctions, leaving the Brits holding the baby. Think you'd be surprised what the US can "cause us to do", especially with our current Gov. The sanctions are not against Iran, but I doubt the Iranians see it that way. OK, we'll just call it economic warfare then, where the strategy is to destabilise a Regime by impoverishing it's people into open revolt, which can include hybrid and cyber warfare. So ultimately tit for tat, until things escalate out of control.
  10. The sanctions were imposed by the EU because of the use of chemical weapons by Syria against its own people. The US cannot cause us to impose sanctions. Those EU sanctions were imposed by the Government of Gibraltar but they needed UK forces co-operation. The sanctions affecting the ship in Gibraltar are not against Iran. Iran's action against a UK flagged ship is unlawful and tantamount to piracy. Your comments about hybrid warfare are wrong, the use of disinformation and covert actions against a state as employed by Russia are what hybrid warfare is.
  11. Think that argument can be applied to all countries mentioned; in which case, there would be no need for "sanctions". The reality however, is that economic sanctions are now the option for destabilising non-conformist regimes, and the road to civil and hot wars.
  12. Venezuela wasn't forced into starvation by outside sanctions but rather by the corruption and incompetence of its own leadership and government. Socialism fails yet again.
  13. Think they suspected (but couldn't prove) that "the next port of call" was Syria, thus breaching a sanctions regime by the US and EU. The West's strategy for regime change now appears to be economic sanctions to literally starve a population into revolting against their own Gov (EG. Venuzela; Syria, N/Korea, and even Russia), think they term it "hybrid warfare". The problem is of course that Regimes normally don't go down without a fight, so I guess we can expect a hot war at some point.
  14. The Iranian explanation that they seized the tanker because it had been involved in an "incident" in International waters with an Iranian fishing boat doesn't hold water either. If there had been an "incident" and the Stena Impero had been identified as being involved, the legal way to go would be to leave it to the authorities at the next port of call to deal with, not send out your own navy to detain her. Any investigation would then be undertaken by agents of the Flag State i.e. the UK.
  15. Exactly my thought Asp: The term "hostile action" was used in relation to the Iranians; but it seems equally applicable to seizing an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar, when your not even certain it was breaking current sanctions on Syria. What makes this serious escalation amusing, is that the UK doesn't have enough ships to cover the incident, so I guess we'll have to rely on the Yanks again. So much for paying £billions for two aircraft carriers.
  16. Last week
  17. https://youtu.be/fpEdfkSWsvI Tit for tat? Or what?
  18. So the same applies to M/Ways - thought they had a "P" sticker for this period of experience building ?
  19. They are considering banning young drivers from driving after dark until they have sufficient experience of driving after dark....................I think? 🤔🤣
  20. Presumably Insurance Companies base their risk assessment on accurate data; which is why younger drivers pay more. Believe HMG is now talking about stopping youngsters driving at night - which is quite scary, as if they're not considered safe at night they can't be considered safe to drive at all; and perhaps they should include M/Way experience too ?
  21. Might that be because the Third party element dominates the cost and is as high as the comp given the way no claims discount deters own cost claims.
  22. I think this is normal now Davy, I think they're trying to encourage fully comp on all policies. Probably easier/more profitable for them in the long term.
  23. I suppose i could be classed as being in negative equity . I am with esure & pay about £27 / month which is, ironically, more than my old Ford is worth.
  24. Its become a game. I use an agency to handle all of my insurance. Every couple of years the current company skyrockets its rate and the agency shops around and finds another one, so I usually end up with the same rate but a different company. Here's something to think about. According to the Prof in my economics class, insurance rates vary from company to company depending on how successful each company was in the investment market. Apparently they make the majority of their money from investing your premiums and reaping the rewards, if they do good their rates stay the same, but if they take a beating, they increase their rates to cover the shortfall.
  25. My policies have hardly changed over the past 5 years so I've tended to stay with the same company rather than do the shopping around business. This years fully comp premium on my 2.2 Alfa Brera (Italian with bloody expensive parts) was only £331 with LV 💚 which I think is pretty amazing. Last year I splashed out and got a 4.7 V8 Maserati GranTurisimo as a retirement treat. LV wouldn't cover it so anyone care to hazard a guess the premium on that one? Bill
  26. Weren't we told that privatisation would mean greater competition = lower prices, rather than cartels ?
  27. I have kept following the cheapest quotes over the last few years & changing accordingly & ,ironically ,it is sometimes cheaper to get fully comp than third party f&t. I don't know whether it is a spin off of cheaper quotes but your policy will not always cover "any vehicle" just any car so if you borrow your mate's van you won't be insured.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...