Member Info for senseman

oh dear - people do seem intent on continuing with the politics and attacking me - even though i did not start the discussion & I've indicated am quite happy to move on...)
1. i didn't start the politics - others did by stating/indicating it was ok for india to buy cheap russia oil
2. the logical consequence of the drivel some have written is that
(a) we have no obligation to ukraine and ukraine should have surrendered on day 1. even though it is now crystal clear that if it had, once ukraine was occupied and russified, russia would have left it 12 months and done the same again with other country(s).
(b) it is acceptable in today's world for a country to invade and seize another country by force (+ as many others it fancies afterwards)
(c) it is ok for any country to buy cheap russia oil - even though the uk is, for good reason, not doing so.
(d) it is a fair argument to say that because this or that country did so in the past, it is acceptable for a country to do similar now

intelligence is the ability to correctly identify the essence of issues - sadly lacking in some here (the usual suspects)
the moral and pragmatic world obligations are self evident
and on the 'legal' front, in 1994 russia, usa and uk signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty if it surrendered it's nuclear arsenal. russia welshed on that agreement. belatedly the usa & uk are upholding their obligations to ukraine

i will gladly shut up re politics - if others do so!

pk - you keep attacking me without good reason. so i defend myself. and will continue as long as you do. i reject entirely your invalid comment.

pk - i hate to point out, YET AGAIN, that it was NOT I who instigates that discussion. i do wish that peeps would take note of who starts stuff

morning euston - being a man of reason, perhaps you can kick us off with today's guesses:-

here's one to stave off the boredom (just for fun):-
with likely near 7p a share in the bank by end 2002, and another 6p for 2023 if oils stays $100, and taking account of tax credits circa 14p (say 6p for buyer discount), if any offer was made say by dec 22, what do peeps think would:- (a) be fair & acceptable? (b) would be accepted by the BoD? (ie: not what they should accept, but what one think's they would)

pk - not a drink all evening - just posting whilst writing an article for a deadline - never a good idea. you are quite correct - the guy is the indian pm's brightest mouthpiece - my brain was rushing through too many things at once. but that is detail - my substantive point stands. and not 'ranting' at all, thank you. merely not letting drivel go unaddressed. i note that no one has addressed the reasonable question - if it's ok for india to soak up cheap russia oil - why is not the uk doing so and what would posters say if we did? the answer is because we think it's wrong and uk joe public would not let politicians do so unscathed.

i agree - you need treatment for your syndrome

then you'd best get out of the kitchen, Dalt. you're not fit to wipe my nor numerous others' boots. you're in at 45p yet constantly deride posters who have done their level best to protect HUR from disaster. are you so stupid that you think others' haven't noticed??

should read.. 'more than Daltry's political view...'

But shared by immeasurably more Daltry or those he cheers for.

You never write anything constructive, Daltry. Just whinge on and on. And never resist the chance to have a personal dig at me, eh? Well, enough is enough - you are nothing more than a spiteful, vindictive old man - with neither manners nor grace

here's one for the muppets
the uk is not in the eu
if india buying cheap russia oil is ok - would the uk buying cheap russia oil be ok? and why don't we do it?
what would your opinion be tomorrow if the uk said - we are buying as much russia cheap oil as we can, for as long as we can? our economy needs the costs saving. would you agree with and vote for this? or not?
come on - don't be suddenly shy. it's the weekend and we know there will be no HUR news for a goodly while so we're hogging the board
i await your answers with interest!

pk - quite correct, you didn't post link, unreserved apology
but writing that a world PM is impressive and pragmatic is de facto implying approval, unless properly qualified - note how nutters extrapolate nonsense from your post
the indian pm will be re-elected - because economically india is doing well - and that is his narrow objective
but a pm (especially of such a populous country) is only half a pm without a responsible world view. he is not a statesman. can one imagine gandhi saying....'luvly jubbly, let's buy loads more russia oil 'cos it's cheap'?

(responsible) british posted the link to highlight how narrow minded and perfidious world leaders can be, and how Brent price & HUR's fortunes are linked

india is a world leader both economically and population wise - with that comes responsibility. it needs to make better decisions not centred on short-termist economic advantage

my expertise is world affairs and politics, not oil. if you consider i write sense about HUR, you should reflect even more carefully if i comment re world affairs. i stand by my substantive comments. in spades. in very big spades

Saltney Juniors, Liverpool and AFC Wimbledon
You can't get anything right today, silly girl.....

'When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think that sardines will be thrown into the sea."
Courtesy of Eric Cantona

for god's sake. if we always bang on about what this and that country did badly in times past, all it does is give cart blanche for history to repeat itself. you have to judge each new situation on it's merits taking into account harsh lessons from the past.
eg. europe was dependant on russia oil and gas. it is now weaning itself off that dependency as fast as reasonably poss.
the fact that it WAS dependant and STILL (currently, out of necessity) uses russia oil and gas, is NOT a valid argument for India to use as it's raison d'etre for gobbling up as much bargain basement russia oil & gas as it can and thereby lengthening putin's tenure with all it's world-impacting negative consequences
this is simple stuff!

pk - but it was you out the video up and praised the guy....!!!
you're as daft as island....and look who he is cheering on...)
don't post crap (or politics) if you don't want to be called out for it
you double-standards little tinker

someone didn't miss the point at all
it's just that you aren't very bright

my god.....you bozos are easily seduced by an intelligent speaker spouting the level one argument 'it's good for my people'. it would cost me a bottle of fanta and a bag of chips for someone to get you into bed!!
he is smart enough to knowingly avoid comment on the higher ethical more relevant level 2 issue, namely should one act to stop a despot intent on ignoring the strived for world rules based system and destabilizing the world by invading and seizing another country
the interviewer is too stupid to ask him the relevant world issue questions
putin is hitler again.
the logical conclusion of what you write is that it is ethically sound to support a country intent on destroying democracy because it helps your own country's economy
the erudite man knows he is talking drivel. and you fools fall for it?!
putin is a mid level intelligence gutless spiv, backed by ex kgb silovki, who has set back russia by 20 years. he is toast. russia cannot win in ukraine and is going to be severely smacked
history will not judge india or its current pm kindly
as i said....it would take just a bottle of fanta and a bag of chips to get you tarts into bed!!

a year ago $ was 73p. Now it's 83p. suits us - it's whacking £ free cash up quicker

for clarity (a) means what you YOU think would be fair (b) means what you think BoD would accept

i'll say +25p fair, 20p would be accepted (15p just looks far too cheap)
the longer production and $100 oil holds up, the higher i will go. epl clarity and 'a plan' may give cause for rethink