JoeLeg

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not worth a reply. Missed the point totally. > Pathetic. Well, hang on, what IS your point? You got really pissed off that someone got *arrested* - not charged, arrested - which is simply the police doing what they?re supposed to do when they find a person has been killed. The poor homeowner was arrested ?on suspicion of? murder. At that point he gets a lawyer and tells is side of the story. Of course it?s awful for him, I?d hate to be in that situation, he?s just undergone a traumatic event and now he?s in a police interview room. BUT if it doesn?t go like that then he can?t be officially exonerated. And hey presto, he was officially exonerated. You say the law is an ass, but actuallyvthe law had his back from start to finish on this occasion. As for the guy in Catford? No, sorry, that one isn?t as clear cut in my view. That needed to go to trial.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Pensioner to face no charges - so, to address > the > > ranters who started the thread, police > > investigated quickly and efficiently, justice > done > > as it should be. > > > > ETA Crossed with BB > > Somebody started a perfectly reasonable thread at > the time but to call them a ranter? > > It does seem like you got your tuppence worth in > though Rendel! Apbremer unfortunately had no understanding of proper police procedure. The homeowner in this case was actually afforded greater protection by being arrested because his rights to legal representation, and to advance a defence of self-defence, which the law recognised, kicked in. And as can be seen it was dealt with in a manner which was not only legally but also morally/ethically correct. The rant was in the OP, who hopefully has more of an understanding now. There police face many problems, but fortunately on this occasion the system worked. ETA - it?s got very little to do with being PC. Someone died. The police have very strict rules to follow on these occasions. Did the public outcry affect things? Maybe. But that had nothing to do with the original nevcesityvto attest and interview under caution with a lawyer present, which was the original focus of your anger.

Hey Frank/Sean/Whatever name you use down the Cherry Tree... Here?s a hint; when you?re in a hole, stop digging. I wondered how long it would be before you started to physically threaten people, because really that?s all you?ve got isn?t it? You post like a drunk 16 year old, then get shorty when other folk point out the glaring inconsistencies in your arguments; yeah, I?m really beginning to think your a spotty little kid riding his parents WiFi after they?ve gone to bed. You certainly act like it. I particularly enjoy the way you repeatedly flounce off the thread and then charge back on. Like I say, stop digging. ETA - and by the way, you?re a really BAD judge of character, if your assumptions on this thread are anything to go by.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, what's tiresome is how quickly you retreat > into moral outrage and personal attack when > someone has an opinion that's opposed to yours. > For what it's worth, I've worked in communication > and mental health so perhaps I just have a more > developed awareness around this than you do! Then perhaps you?re well placed to answer the question I posted to you earlier?

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rendel, your examples don't make it OK to use an > outdated, pejorative word simply because it's in a > slightly different context. Using the words keeps > the bias alive, even if it's being used > indirectly. Looks like the changing of attitudes > to mental health has a way to go around here. To be honest I?ve not come across any reference to the word ?lunatic? being viewed as you view it, and while I wouldn?t have an inherent problem if society in general decided that lunatic should go the way of many other words we no longer use in polite conversation, I?d be interested to know what could replace it. Surely even ?crazy? could be viewed in the same way? What kind of language can we use to describe ideas, actions or behaviour that we find incomprehensible? (Apologies for thread drift, I?m genuinely interested in this point)

eddeal1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > all arm chair Philosophers....all mouth no action. Who exactly are you referring to?

Disclaimer - I?m aware that what follows is on the level of ?a bloke down the pub told me?, but then you can also. Heck put the relevant website/thread for yourselves. I frequent a website called Arrse, which has a number of former/serving police officers on it, almost all of whom are former service personnel. It is hardly a bastion of delicate liberal sensibilities. The general opinion of those with police experience is that while it?s a tragedy, there is procedure to be undergone to ensure that the law is followed. This quote from a serving detective sums it up best... ?The law in this country doesn?t generally allow this (the investigations) to be conducted outside of custody and the rights of the arrested bloke will be better served by having the protection afforded by arrest.? Where they all get wound up is over the idea of what will happen to the other burglars, if caught, and burglars in general (like I say, the site is not a bastion of fluffy thinking). But the agreed view is that this poor guy will have to go through the legal process before, most likely, not being charged, so long as nothing happened on the street, and he didn?t commit any act over and above self defence, in which case they are all agreed it?s a different matter.

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Flicking through old posh joes comments haha u r a > proper blogger, Again, that?s the best you?ve got? I?m from a one parent family that was not financially well off growing up but I got an education and learned to use words so you think that makes me posh? That says way more about you than anyone else. Again, mate, I would say nice try but that was just poor effort. Also, ?flicking through? - yeah, exactly. You?re not actually *reading* what others wrote, are you? Just skimming over it long enough to dismiss them as posh and therefore not proper people. All a bit ?Animal Farm?, frankly. I?m working long hours wile u lay > back on edf sipping ya frappe Well I average 60 hours a week so I sympathise. it?s rather funny > coming home to these comments and most times I > don?t come back for a couple days as I rather get > my head down as I have no choice in life and have > to work to live and earn my stuff, nothing is > handed to me over here lol 🥄🥄 Well no one got anything handed to them, but anyway, I?ve come to the conclusion that even if you aren?t an adolescent troll sweating away in his mums spare room you?ve got the mindset of one. It takes a special kind of person to think I?m going to be annoyed by personal insults from someone who thinks they know me. I had a vicious Fusilier corporal for a section commander while at Strensall, who?d only recently returned from active service in the first Gulf War; he was a Yorkshireman and took a particular dislike to me because I?m a Londoner. After him, no one ever really got to me on a personal level, so in retrospect I thank him for that, because he taught me to judge people by their actions and nothing else. Like I say, the Army is a great place to learn about how to get along with those different to you. But it was also where I started to see that if someone is being a fool then it?s encumbant to call them out on it. So I?m going to happily repeat myself - troll or no troll, you espouse a worldview in which somehow you?re more worthy because of your background, and you really aren?t that far removed from the mindset of people like the Khmer Rouge. Plus you support neo-nazi?s. And you know you do. Keep it up mate, no worries, keep coming on here spouting crap, and I?ll keep arguing with you. I can?t change the world but I will confront anything like this on the little part of it I can touch. I don?t tolerate it at work, won?t allow it in my kids, don?t have friends who spout it, and any time I hear it I will speak up.

Peckhamguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joe is a antifa lol Haaaahahahaha! Oh dear deary me...that the best you can come up with? Poor...

Louisa - I agree with everything you say, without reservation. However, I wold add that if we were to abolish the monarchy, it would need to go hand on hand with a movement that was dedicated to actual, tangible equality in society, and I think right now there are too many vested interests to let that happen. Abolition of the monarchy would mean nothing if we allowed the other elites to continue their grip on the undeniable efforts they make to keep power and wealth centralised in the hands of very few. There would simply be a transferal of power to somewhere else. I have no idea how to achieve what we would, I suspect, both like to see, because it?s toed up not only with entrenched, inherited power, but also societies attitudes to prejudice and class in many other ways. America is (I believe) am excellent example of what happens when you create a system which theoretically allows anyone to rise to prominence based on merit, but fail to inhibit the very things which facilitated the creation of an upper class. There?s far less social mobility over there than they would like to think; money still talks, just look at the personal debt they incur from college education, it makes our student loans look reasonable! When America was born, they gave great thought to the idea of a free nation where all men were able to pursue their dream, but then limited it to very few men - specifically men. The point I?m making is that to remove the unelected class at the top of the tree is a great start, but only if it comes with removing everything else that has a vested interest in keeping that system there. And I have no idea how to do that.

sidebirds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I agree with JoeLeg on everything. It is only a > > certain kind of person that displays the > inverse > > snobbery that PeckhamGuy and Sidebirds have. > It's > > the kind of inverse snobbery that becomes the > > excuse for hate, ignornance and a lazy outlook > on > > the world. He has no intention of answering to > his > > view that there is 'nothing wrong' with that > neo > > nazi website. Fortunately, his kind don't > > represent the working class either. > > "nverse snobbery"? I attended a private girls' > school and now study at the Royal College of > Music! But (OBV!) I wear my working-class > credentials on my sleeve... MATE. Like I give a crap what school you go to when you spout such rubbish about people who you perceive as being different to you. Want some salt (Pink Himalayan, natch) for that massive chip on your shoulder? Despite all your proclamations about how ?real? you are, and how much you seem to feel the need to point out to us that you?re still ?from the streets?, you can?t help missong the fact that you display exactly the same prejudice that you accuse others of. You have an inability to realise you?re just perpetuating the circle. "The working-classes get it in the neck first and millions of them are righteously p*ssed off after having their wishes flouted by several decades of elected politicians." Moving past the point made by Rendell that you've clumsily selectively quoted to try and make an argument, why does this excuse the idea that someone is ok supporting a neo-nazi website, and also how does this back up the idea that a working class person inherently has a better grip on how the world works? The interesting point I would make about your education - which you seem so keen for us to know - is that it demonstrates social mobility does indeed exist, even if it is nowhere near the levels it should. From your background you've been privately educated and gotten into an excellent College; 100 years ago that would not have happened, probably even 50 years ago. Change comes too fast for those that resist it, and too slow for those that crave it - but it does come. I also feel the need to repeat my point that there are sections of society still suffering far worse prejudice than the group we're discussing; that does not excuse the fact that the working class is still at the bottom of some piles, but there are opportunities open to them that were not there within living memory, and so long as we continue to educate ourselves and slowly, too slow unfortunately but still better than nothing, break down barriers then we are on the right path. Telling the middle class that they're a bunch of latte-loving know-nothings just makes you look like a fool. Like I say, this is not East Baltimore. ETA - Sidebirds, the thing is you?re, what, 19 years old I think you said? So I reckon you?ve gone straight from your private school to your Royal College, and bluntly you know very little about the world. Here?s a tip - take a gap year, drop out for a while, something, anything, and go and travel. Or anything else that exposes you to stuff you?ve never seen, people you never thought you?d meet. Get out of your comfort zone, go and hang around people you?ve got nothing on common with, expand your horizons. You?re young and you think you know everything, so I can forgive this in you. Peclhamguy is older and should know better, but you don?t know anything expect what you?ve seen, and it isn?t as much as you think it is; trust me on this. It was true for me at your age, and I?ll bet the same for every other poster on the EDF. For me it was the Army, but that?s not for everyone. And when I say ?gap year? I don?t mean something organised and safe, actually go and experience the world. Expand your horizons. Then come back and argue with me.

Amy A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's true that Peckhamguy was the first to claim > the argument was about class and we were posh > snobs ganging up on him. > > But was it wise to follow him along that avenue of > thought and apparently agree with him? Or would it > be more effective to emphasise to him that his > class is totally irrelevant ? Yeah, maybe, you might have a point there; he dangled it and I took a bite. But as I say, I?ve realised I feel strongly about this issue. There are many problems facing us as a society in this world, but I personally have had enough of hearing from people like myself that others just don?t understand the world we live in. This isn?t East Baltimore, it?s not South Africa, not Venezuela. This is London in the 21st century, and everyone gets an education and the right to be whoever they want to be. The ?class struggle? isn?t gone yet, but it?s a lot less than it was and frankly it?s nothing compared to the levels of racism and sexism that still wash around us. So yes, it makes me angry when people still run that line, because frankly I think they?re just making excuses, In this case for being a racist but there?s others available. Anyway, sorry for ranting.

Amy A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Joe Leg, > > Thing is, I really really don't think you're > bigoted, I've seen your posts on this thread and I > generally agree with them and it's very obvious > that you're a good, upstanding principled person > who sticks up for whats right. And that's why > we're able to have a proper conversation about it > instead of a slanging match. > > But I still think that it's unhelpful to agree > with Peckhamguy in any way that his views are > typical of his group. He likes being part of that > group, and I feel that describing his behaviour in > terms of group behaviour is not only incorrect, it > gives him confidence and solidarity with 'his' > group. But his views *are* typical of a subset of white working class people who don?t like the idea that anyone else could have a grasp on how the world ?really is?. All too often we write people off like that by saying ?oh it?s just how they are? - I?ve done it myself for half my life, before realising that actually we need to continually challenge such views, wherever they occur, and I (and this is just my personal view) feel that if I won?t challenge them in the social/racial/whatever subset that I very much part of, then how can I look myself in the mirror? Of course he isn?t representative of the entire white working class, but people like him *are* out there, and they *do* believe that they havecfar more support than really exists, and we *must* take every opportunity to remind them that the silent majority in which they place so much faith actually thinks they are pillocks. > > Second, there is an uncomfortable edge on this > thread of people mocking Peckhamguy's lack of > literacy, for example. None of that came from me. We all know that we live in > an area where there is growing tension between > social groups and a growing gap between income > brackets. Well, yes, and it?s a problem. A mahoosive problem. Not denying that. Also not saying it?s a reason to assume people with more money than me somehow don?t understand social issues. I?m sure you agree. Sideboys remark about lattes and nibbles > was offensive to some extent because there's some > truth in it. It was silly and belittling, but it > referenced the real problem of house prices, > gentrification and social exclusion of lower > income brackets that I'm sure we're all > uncomfortable about, whatever side of the divide > we're on. Again, yes, your basic point is accurate. But that little dig about coffee and nibbles goes to show that the prejudice runs both ways. I agree that the working class has long been and still is given crap by some sections of society with more money than sense, but that doesn?t mean sinking to their level. It?s thay kind of thing that demonstrates there are those on both sides of the debate who could do with having a word with themselves. > > I really don't want this to come across as a group > of posh people ganging up on a working class > person and part of some kind of East Dulwich > gentrification culture war. Because that is > unpleasant in itself, and I think unhelpful in > this specific case. And I don?t think it is. For starters I?m hardly posh, and I?ve made that clear. Also even if I was, does that mean I?m not allowed to call Peckhamguy out? And moreover, isn?t that kind of stuff the sort of thing that gives rise to the idea that we?re giving people a pass? I can?t shake the idea that somehow we?ve settled, as a society, into a weird kind of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand we all *know* that white working class people are no more or less likely to be bigots or indeed voluntary workers than anyone else, while on the other we often act unsurprised when one of them turns out to actually be a bigot, as if in the back of our mind we really assumed it all along. And then - and this is when it gets bad - we just shrug our shoulders and say ?well, that?s just how they are, they don?t mean any harm, it?s how they were raised?. So yes, I think society assumes things about the white working class (just like it assumes things about pretty much every group, and that?s another thread entirely), and that doesn?t make it right, but that also doesn?t excuse it when actual bigotry raises its head. And I know you agree with all this and o know I?m preaching to the choir, but I guess I?m just trying to explain myself. It?s something I feel very strongly about, I?ve come to realise.

Amy A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If a sentence begins 'I know not all Jews are ... > (insert bad thing)... BUT' or 'I know not all > black people are .... BUT' then that person > generally does believe that all Jewish people are > whatever, and all black people are whatever. > > So if someone says ' I know not all white working > class people are bigots... but I strongly believe > we give white working class people a free pass on > bigotry and tiptoe around them.' then I tend to > find myself disregarding the first three words of > the statement. > > If we've agreed that you find rascism across all > strata of society and that Peckhamguy's rascism is > not representative of the white working class as a > whole, why are we talking about giving the white > working class, as a whole, a free pass on bigotry? I?ve taken a couple of days to think about your points, which are reasonable and well put, as they?ve given me a lot to think about. I?m reject the idea that I am tainting a whole group of people with my commentary. I stand by my view - and let me clarify it - that I believe some parts of the white working class embrace the idea that they, and only they, have a true understanding of the nature of the world. It is not so much the racism endemic in Peckhamguys posts that set me off a few days ago, rather his assumption that only someone like him truly sees the world as it is, because of his background. He?s more ?real? than the rest of us. Why does it rile me so, when the same viewpoint can be found all over society, as you rightly point out? I think because Peckhamguy and me are probably not that different in background, upbringing and ?class?. I live in East Dulwich, but I was also born here and grew up here when it was very different. I certainly can?t afford to shop in most of Lordship Lane. And so I feel particularly aggrieved by Peckhamguy because me and him aren?t so different, but he?s talking trash which is not only unhelpful but frankly just dangerous. This idea that education is somehow a betrayal of your roots really, really gets to me, and that is what he?s espousing, and I?ve heard it elsewhere, and it makes me angry every time. Look, there are myriad examples across all social, racial and economic groups of this issue. I?m sure we can all think of several. But this one gets to me because it?s my background, and I think it really is that simple. So yes Amy A, you?re right that people often use this kind of thing as a cover to be generally bigoted, but that isn?t the case with me. Maybe I?m clumsy in my use of language, maybe I didn?t think my arguments through and it looks like something else, and if so I apologise. I?m just really fed up with listening to people who aren?t so different to me and have had similar opportunities in life being absolute twats. I could drone on and on about what makes me angry, but it essentially comes down to this; education is everything, education is what lifts people up, education is the key to society moving forward, to progress - however slowly it may come, it doesn?t come without learning and curiosity and being open-minded. Anything that stands against that, stands against making us better as humans.

Amy A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > And for those on this thread talking about the > limited word view of the white working classes, I > know you qualified it with 'some', but it's still > a bit offensive. There are loads of white working > class people who aren't bigots. Can you explain to me why we give the white working class a pass where bigotry is concerned? Why am I not allowed to call them out on it? I was very clear that I do not paint entire section of society with the same brush, but I do believe, very strongly, that we tiptoe around that group and write off the views of what I?m sure is a minority as being ?just how they are?. Why exactly are we doing that?

I don?t think he is absolved at all; he made the comment, which was badly phrased and open to wide misinterpretation, and he should in the subsequent days have clarified what he meant. Not that it would?ve made much difference, the damage was already done. I think he has a point about various organisations having opinions which later turn out to be incorrect, and it shows up the danger of policy wonks and ?talking heads? being given too much credence off the basis of a sound bite of their views, bit then that says more about the attention span of some of the electorate than anything else. It also highlights the point that in this information-overload era we live in it can be nigh-on impossible to find meaningful debate when there are so many voices shouting at once.

That quote from Gove is going to haunt him for a long time, but I?m fairness to him it?s been consistently taken out of context. The full quote is ?I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong?, and he was speaking about predictions from the TUC, CBI, NHS and IFS that he was wrong on Brexit. It was a clumsy response to a question from a journalist and it was jumped on by many who certainly have had enough of being told things they just don?t want to hear. I think (hope?) Gove regrets it, and I certainly think he should?ve done more to clarify his position subsequently, as it did a lot of damage and reinforced the notion some people hold that their baseless confidence is the equal of other people?s experience and learning.

I thought about it for a while, and my feeling is that some stuff has to be challenged. Of course it?s very easy to fight back online, but maybe online is where it has to start. I don?t get into most of the discussions on here purely because I don?t have anything useful to offer to them, and I only challenge others when I feel strongly about something. But some stuff can?t be allowed to slide. On the one hand we tell our kids - not just our own bit all of them - how important education is. On the other we sit back and let some groups disparage and denigrate the idea of learning. I?m fed up of hearing that white, working class Brits have it bad, when at the same time some of them (some, NOT all), seem happy to stay mired in a pit of self-pity, blaming others for their misery. This isn?t a backwater of Afghanistan, we have genuine opportunity in this country. And anyone who tells that they are more ?real? than others while revelling in their ignorance is going to get an argument from me.

Also, if I DID drink latte, or Babysham, or Tennants Super or Lady sodding Grey tea, why would any of that matter? If people eat ?nibbles? does that somehow make them unable to comprehend real world problems? If you?re working class are you not allowed to eat olives? Is it betraying the memory of the Krays? What kind of garbage is it when a persons choice of drink and food is somehow a representation of their social strata and this their worldview? Get a grip.

sidebirds Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > would you like to join me for a "latte" and > "nibbles" Well I don?t drink latte (or flat white or anything else), and I?m not really into nibbles so feel free to drink whatever you want while you try to explain to me why I?m not allowed to criticise a section of society which looks down its nose at me (the inverse snobbery is astonishing) because it thinks I?m somehow not ?real people?, as if the only ones who matter are defined by their adherence to a social code which venerates the denigration of academia and defines as ?out of touch? anyone who doesn?t cleave to what they perceive as correct etiquette? And at the same time refuse to see that they?re damning others with the same attitudes that they themselves rail against? Peckham guy wears his social credentials proudly, which is cool, but then ignores the opinions of others based not on the arguments, but on whom he perceives to be making those arguments! If you aren?t his type of people, then de facto you are ignorant about anything worth knowing. Utter rubbish, spouted by a troll. L and we can discuss these "white working > class people"? Well I think I just did up above, but you feel free to tell me why white working class people get a pass in bigotry when we wouldn?t tolerate it from anyone else? feel free to bring a clothes-peg > for your nose. Won?t be smelling anything I haven?t before - my profession is pretty working class, frankly, my dads side of the family were proper Glasgow tenement folk, and my mum worked as an inner city state school teacher, and my mates (my proper ones) are about as working class as they come, so take your assumptions and shove them somewhere restricted. ETA - yes, as Rendell mentions I?m ex-Army, infantry to be precise, and I invite anyone to hang around an infantry battalion for any length of time displaying class snobbery and see how long they last before getting filled in by the other guys and having an interview without coffee in the OC?s office! You want an environment where you learn to take people as you find them? That?ll do it.

I *#%^ing hate it when people flaunt ?working class? as some kind of moniker that signifies them to be somehow a ?purer?type of person, untainted by all that high falutin? education and so on. It?s this repulsive idea that (to misquote someone else) ?my ignorance is the equal of your experience?, and it?s just a hop, skip and a jump away from the Khmer Rouge, frankly. Hyperbole? No, I don?t think so. This whole chip carried widely on the shoulder of some white working class people, that somehow their limited worldview (and it always is limited) is still a clearer view of how the world really is than those who have travelled, read and studied is dangerously frankly. It?s an insidious kind of bigotry, one that discriminates against education, of all things, and derides any contrary viewpoint as somehow ?not real?. It?s an Orwellian level of contradiction that Peckhamguy is embracing.

Say what you like mate, but you still supported a neo-nazi website, and you?re still using a load of whataboutery to deflect from your own failings. You display the same faults that you accuse others of, but apparently it?s ok because you?re white working class and therefore more ?real? than anyone else, yeah? Twat. The silent majority supports you eh? Yeah, right...

Go on then!

I think we should remember that the OP has a small child. A lot of these things that make London great to live in become off-limits to an extent when you have kids. It can be really hard to see the benefit in this town while drowning in nappies and fatigue. I?m East Dulwich born and bred, and will always be a Londoner and love this city in many ways, but I can understand how you can also want to be somewhere else. Kids change your perspective, don?t they?

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think you underestimate Putin - he's far more > sophisticated than you give him credit for. I don?t underestimate Putin. As my earlier comments show I?m well aware of Russian skill in deceiving others about their true aims. The ones I don?t trust are - ironically - the Western governments, because they are the ones more likely to push Russia into a corner. He > doesn't just come out fighting because that's a > hard-wired response (or because he has a tough guy > image) and he won't necessarily up the ante (he > would only do this if he thinks there is a benefit > to doing so and cutting off one of your major long > term revenue streams doesn't sound too > beneficial). I agree with all of that, but we shouldn?t forget that Putin is aiming to build Russia back to superpower status. He is just as likely, having tested > the water and (possibly surprisingly) found it to > be rather icy cold, to limit any response to a > measured tit for tat and hope the matter blows > over. > Until the next time. His long term goals are rather worrying, given that the West seems intent on resisting him. > I suspect he was not banking on the sort of > combined response that has taken place. If Russia > and Putin were responsible for the nerve agent > attack, he is most likely to have viewed it as a > test to see whether they could cause some > instability between the allies at a time when the > UK and EU are splitting and there is a minority > government and Trump in the WH. Now he has his > pretty clear answer, there's nothing in it for him > to escalate against so many different countries > more powerful than his own. What would be the > point in that? He's just won his election. > Again, yes, I think this is all likely to be what happened - he thrives on staying ?on the pffensove?, and as you say probably wasn?t expecting this much cohesion in the response. > Leaders with a tough guy image who are also clever > operators don't pick pointless fights they may > lose (or be perceived to have lost). To remain > the tough leader you have to pick your fights > carefully. Putin does that - he knew he could > batter the opposition in Syria and he knew he > could take Crimea and his proxies could take the > far east of Ukraine, but he equally saw that he > should then stop, as a fight for the rest of > Ukraine, although one he could win, would come at > a major price. I think that ?major price? is a massive understatement. I don?t think he ever intended to take the whole of Ukraine?s; he wants a physical buffer between Russia and NATO, the idea that he would ever tolerate Ukraine joining NATO is laughable. If he had gone on to annex the whole place it would?ve made Afghanistan look like a tea party. What concerns me with Russia - and I have long believed it was just a mater of time before we found ourselves dealing with a resurgent Russia intent on being taken seriously - is hard w much bluff and brinkmanship they will play. China takes the long view, Putin appears less patient. Then again, game theory tells us that this is exactly how he will behave, as he does his level best to control the confrontations without allowing it to spill over into conflict. I remember the Cold War, it scares the crap out of me, so yes I guess I?m pretty unhappy at what goes on these days. ETA - this response isn?t as clear as it sounded in my head. Essentially I take Putin very seriously, I think he has a long term plan and his actions often make me think of Bismarck, and they way he manipulated and controlled events. I don?t think he wants a war, and I know that the preferred Russian method is to keep your opponent off-balance and defensive, guessing at your next move and he can do all that using hybrid, cyber and media activities these days. However, I don?t trust many in the West. Russia wants to be respected and taken seriously; they hate the memory of the 90?s, it was worse for them than Communism, in almost every way. Putin has given them back a lot that they feel ?makes them Russian?, and they have long memories. We in the West need to remember that we a dealing with a different culture, and our recent adventures have fallen foul because we filed to appreciate the importance of that.