Lots of individuals have been arrested. Enough to decide that the group will be proscribed because of what all the individuals in the group have been doing.

Other groups who identify those issues to citizens aren't proscribed.

In the UK Palestine Action have broken into weapons manufacturers and destroyed and damaged their production process. They have also attacked and severely injured police officers. Do you still consider they shouldn't be a proscribed group?

Yes that's fair. Those options from traditional established manufacturers categorically serve haulage operators better.

EV Semis are fine. He's demonstrated they work for certain applications. Totally reasonable. 🤷🏻

You would have to be arguing that they shouldn't be proscribed then, which given some of their actions seems a bit challenging.

It's a proscribed terrorist group. Expressing support of them is an offence. 🤷🏻

Three times I've specifically checked how to transfer WhatsApp chats to a new device and three times I've lost them.

No one has ever said that before! The anti-cars campaigners must be having a spiritual revolution right now thanks to this unique and pioneering insight!

It will work.
If it's Gas, there's the CO issue. If it's electric usually it's fine though the oven may eventually overheat.
Using what you have carefully is better than hypothermia.

His quality is... very good, but not incredible. His output and reliability is evidently poor.

Oh that's not how I would use the word virtual. I was assuming you were implying software based kill switches.

Ah I see. Yes I agree completely they're not a useful deterrent for the USA's actions now. They're only a deterrent against the USA invading the UK. (which is not something I until recently expected to be useful).

Yes, of course they are. Our nukes will work just as well for striking Washington as they would Moscow.

If the US ends maintenance contracts that will eventually become a problem until we can maintain them ourselves, leaving our missiles less effective at striking either Washington or Moscow.

He evidently can't write extraordinarily well. My evidence for this is that he hasn't written the next book in the series over the last 15 years.

We should probably not bother building our own tanks either. We don't buy enough of them to be worth it. Buy tanks from someone else and concentrate on more missiles, boats and subs.

The F35s do not have virtual kill switches.

It's independent in its operation. The missiles are American, the warheads are British. It's definitely a deterrent of some sort.

Everyone has disputed this report www.kyivpost.com/post/68368 and leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2... and www.snopes.com/news/2026/01... and even suggesting the rumour is being spread by Kremlin bot farms unn.ua/en/news/did-...

None, just what I've read. Is your assertion that the UK can't launch nuclear missiles without the permission of the USA?

I think that would affect the credibility of going further than the French position, but I think matching the statement would achieve the same as you have said, that the effect would be "even these guys are saying it".
We shouldn't slip into appeasement because we cooperate a lot.

They would be unable to switch the missiles off. They could stop supplying any replacements and stop maintenance programmes. This would be inconvenient but not entirely catastrophic.

The deployment, in the sense of the use and firing of, does not. The warheads are British. The missiles they are carried on are American.

Why couldn't Starmer conceivably approach a similar line to Macron?

Won't it just get appealed?

What if you do that 21 times?

As they should. And as others said if the USA takes Greenland by force the USA is the aggressor and they should be made to see the consequences for that aggression, through the deaths of those US service members in Greenland invading Greenland.

I trust the rest of NATO to carry out military action in Greenland to fight and kill US soldiers without escalating it beyond Greenland's borders. I do not trust the USA not to escalate it.
Sure the USA would have started it and escalated it.

Yes absolutely if the situation escalated to a war. If the US just takes Greenland by force I would still expect US service members to be killed, but the rest of NATO to try hard not to escalate to war.

Yes, though I wouldn't expect NATO countries to perform attacks on USA home targets, as it would cause an escalation.

Worth pointing out to them that if they invade Greenland they will end up facing the military capabilities of the rest of NATO. This will not be like the missions the US has been involved in while they have served. Lots more of them will die.