Weston Super Saint

Even under UAE employment law there doesn't look to be a legal way to terminate the workers in the way they have! https://u.ae/en/information-and-services/jobs/terminating-employment-contracts Although I'm not sure how succesful a law suit against a company owned by the Government is likely to be...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying what they did, merely pointing out that there "could" be a reason why it wasn't illegal. If their contracts are covered by UK employment law, then this will be the easiest group claim for wrongful dismissal ever put before the tribunal system!

Might depend on the country where their contract of employment is held. By UK standards it certainly doesn't appear that any consultation has happened. If they are not governed by UK law (maybe their contracts are from Dubai??), you'd need to check the relevant law...

There's a job going for one of them - 799 to go... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-60779178

Seems fair.

Yep, he should take some of the blame. Since it was made 'better' under his watch (I doubt that he had anything to do with it personally, but he's the man in charge), will you give him any credit as well as the blame?

That's Sultan Bin Sulayem for ya.

One for debate.... Are the far right (in Ukraine) still bad or are they now good? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60767664 Some serious cognitive dissonance with this one

Investing in nuclear fusion would give far better, far more reliable results. That should be where the money is going for a 'long term' strategy. The concept has been proven, now it's about scalability. Won't happen though, way too many vested interests in fossil fuel.

Absolutely nothing to do with the money, it's just a coincidence that they have happened at the same time : Sauce

Nope. Boris is off, cap in hand, to a country with a much, much better record of human rights so we can top up our supplies of oil on the cheap. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60754163

Why do Abramovich pictures always look like he's having a surprise prostate examination?

Presumably the Geordies won't be able to buy any pies or Brown Ale in the concourse today.

Meanwhile Iran thumbs its nose at NATO by destroying buildings in a missile strike near the US embassy in Iraq.

Rule 1?

The egg chasing is even worse. Every two minutes they stop, guys come on wearing earpieces, communicating with the manager, giving out water, energy gels, easter eggs and plenty of instructions. The ref doesn't just stand and watch, he makes sure the clock is stopped so no time is lost in the game. Unbelievable! It's blatant cheating from everyone involved. What sort of example is that setting for the kids? (for Tamesaint's benefit [/sarcasm]).

They could save so much time and effort and just push the big red button if the goal is to completely destroy the country so no-one can live there.....

Have they given up on their previous goal of taking Kyiv as so far they've failed miserably? Instead they've decided to head 550km West, which is bound to end well given their previous track record of logistics and supply chains!

You're conflating two seperate issues. I agree, Putin does not decide who joins the EU or NATO. Putin can decide whether he attacks non NATO countries as he knows full well that NATO will not directly engage in defending them.

The EU and NATO are not the same thing! Moldova isn't in the EU so that is a moot point. If Russia invaded Finland and demanded it leave the EU, then yes, unless they can defeat the invasion they would have to leave the EU, unless the EU finally puts together the EU army and enters into a defensive pact with its members (which FInland would likely not enter into anyway), then it would not have many choices! Moldova does not allow foreign forces on its land and has no intentions of joining NATO and isn't a current member, so whether Putin demands it or not is irrelevant. Finland has declared that it will not align itself with military alliances and does not want to join NATO, so whether Putin demands it or not is irrelevant. The difference is that whilst Ukraine has a constitution that wishes it to join NATO, it didn't meet the joining criteria. I'm sure the Skates would love to be in the Premier League, but likewise they don't meet the criteria to do so!

If he invades them (very unlikely), then yes, unless they are confident they can defeat him / his forces. Countries are responsible for their own protection, if some of them take the Warriorsaint point of view that having weapons isn't necessary then they leave themselves open for invasion. The whole NATO joining argument and maintaining a buffer is just more Putin bollocks anyway. He didn't want Ukraine to join NATO to keep a 'buffer' between Russia and NATO countries, then he invades Ukraine with the intention of reclaiming it for the motherland and in doing so moving his own country's borders right next door to a NATO country. The argument is and always has been a sham and an excuse for invasion.

No idea about the credibility of the source, but more info here

There may be a wider issue though as the Polish planes are currently in Poland, so how do you get them into Ukraine? Either a Polish fighter pilot flies them into a disputed warzone - which could very easily be spun by Russia to claim that a NATO country is carrying out an act of aggression against their invasion thus leading to an escalation that NATO don't want to enter into - or Ukrainian fighter pilots pick them up in Poland and fly them into Ukraine - with a similar result from Russia claiming they were 'launched' from a NATO country. I think the original suggestion was that the US would supply planes to Poland and it was up to them to get them to Ukraine. Poland then announced that they would give the Migs to the US and they could then get them to Ukraine - this is the suggestion that the US took umbrage with. Different with weapons moving across the border as presumably they would be in crates / packaging and therefore much harder to interpret as an act of aggression rather than a transaction between countries.

I probably quoted the wrong post. The point about NATO not doing more in this (and many, many other wars / conflicts) is still valid. As Badger / Lighthouse point out, the obvious issue is around the ability of the Ukrainian pilots to fly the planes. Pretty sure it was the topgear episode when they went from Crimea to Chernobyl where they found an enormous 'Mig' graveyard. Might be more useful to supply them with aircraft engineers and get those bad boys up and running again....

Not just their terms, anyone's terms, this is not exclusive to Russia and NATO has intervened against any other agressor. NATO is not the world's police force and is a defensive pact ONLY for its own members. If you ain't part of the club, you don't get protection, so if one of the bigger boys wants to nick your sweets, they can (unless you defend yourself).