You really are a prat mate seriously.
What could you or anybody else find funny in that?
You have made a fool of yourself on here.(yet again) , and you clutch at straws in an attenpt to regain some sort of credibility.
Ffs grow up man it’s only a forum…nobody cares…
What the actual f… is he playing at?
I am all for supporting the Ukranians in military training roles and supplying weapons, but troops on the ground ? 
Why is he wanting to involve Brit troops in this?
Is it to actually fight, (which will afaik constitute an act of war,…which will have us right up sh. creek seeing as our forces numbers are minimal, with no backing from the US) or is it to send a peacekeeping force ?
Either way it ain’t good.
He’s an ex human rights lefty lawyer ffs, he is way out of his depth in this, all it will lead to is another Gulf War aftermath scenario…our troops coming home in body bags.
An alarming concept if it blows out of proportion toWW3 leading to conscription when you have 2 sons of military fighting age as I have.
He already has egg on his face, as it looks like Germany and other countries want no part of it, so where does he go from here with it?
Is he seeing that a lot of people in this country admire Trump and his no nonsence tactics, so he is attempting to emulate him?..well it aint coming off with any credibility if he is.
On.a side note,.(and sorry but I have got to say it) …
It’s a bit rich Starmer being the prominent foreign leader in wanting to secure a foreign country’s borders from invaders, he can not even secure his own ffs…25000 have invaded since he became PM.
Hope he makes a better job of ‘Smashing’ the Russian forces if that is his mad assed plan, than he is making of…‘Smashing the gangs’.
Think it’s just a peacekeeping thing, more eyes on the ground
Ok so what are the rules of engagement in that scenario, if something kicks off and escalates between Russian and Brit forces ?
Exactly the correct question to ask.
Thank you…I think🤔
I don’t believe for one moment that you agree with me on something.
So what is your (veiled) point?
"they may use force at the tactical level, with the authorization of the Security Council, if acting in self-defence and defence of the mandate ".
can of worms.
No veiled point at all.
That is the correct question.
@oiltreader seems to be giving te general rule for UN peacekeepers.
Will that apply in this case?
OR will it be nearer the NATO rules??
What chance is there of Putin actually adhering to ANY rules.
He certainly has not adhered to the rules of The Geneva Convention since he invaded.
Like @oiltreader says…‘Can of worms’ snd a potentially high volatile situation with dire consequences.
Only thing that would keep Putin in check is if the US as a prominent (and nuclear) superpower was involved as a deterrent, but is NATO going to continue as an entity?
Our forces imo are the finest in the world, who I have a lot of resoect for (but minimal in numbers due to constant cost cutting) but I can not see Putin quaking in his Cossack boots over us and the French quite honestly.
Exactly
No chance. He never has, so why would he start now?
A small country called ummm…Ukraine stopped him in his tracks.
Putin is using N. Korean personal. He really could do with a year or two to regroup at the moment.
And there it is…the obligatory patronising.
You really can not help yourself can you? …
You should have finished that sentence with ‘duh’, …poor effort.
Anyway back to the grown up type conversation…
My point was if the US were DIRECTLY involved, with their potentially superior to the Russian military power, it would be a much bigger deterrent than the Brits and the French to stop them getting carried away and kicking off in the peace keeping campaign.
I imagine that if a UN peacekeeping force is actually airdropped into Ukraine it will be easy to spot the British military ones; they’ll be the only ones NOT wearing the flag of their home nation on their uniforms!
After all The Union Flag is frowned upon in lefty circles because of the offence it causes poor minorities
Oh dear here we go again 
Tut tut Rach from accounts…
Yep.
Badenoch was talking nonsense, and Starmer was wrong to agree with her in any way.
Badenoch was absolutely right to criticise the decision to allow the Palestinian family to stay in the UK under the Ukraine resettlement scheme and Starmer was right to agree with her.
We elect and pay politicians to run the country on our behalf, a fanciful idea I know but technically correct, it’s for the government to make laws and political policy not the judiciary, typically it’s the job of judges to ensure court hearings are held fairly and decide the appropriate penalties for offenders using the appropriate guidelines.
While it’s right and proper that the judiciary should be independent of political parties, it’s the government who ultimately have the power to see that laws and government policies are upheld in the way they were meant to be.
Chief Justice, Dame Sue Carr is completely wrong in her assessment that the leader of the opposition should not speak out about what she sees as an infringement of UK policy, that’s part of the job of the opposition, she’s also wrong for criticising Starmer for agreeing with Badenoch.
As I understand it: The family initially applied under the Ukraine scheme, which I agree was wrong.
They were allowed to stay, not under any special Ukraine regulations, but under the general asylum scheme.
Agreed.
Disagree here.
The Judiciary is not there to carry out Gov policy. It is there to carry out the law.
If the Gov has written the laws in a bad way, that is the fault of the law makers.
The evidence that the law is badly drafted is in the Gov saying it will be changed.
The judge carried his duties under law correctly, the outcome is not what the Gov wants, so the law is being changed.
The Judge INTERPRETS the law as he or she sees fit. Their decision can be questioned by the appeal court.
Judges decisions can set legal precedents, this is the concern in this instance.
