Jerry_Atrick

I appreciate that and there can be the perception of a blind spot given what I wrote. Working now, but will respond more fully later. I wasn't aware of the Turkish journalist attack, but will do some research on it (Wilipedia can't be taken at face value and one event does not necessarily mean a systematic targetting). I am not saying Israel is perfect or should not be held to account.. I am saying there seems to be a lot levelled at it which is more based on belief than fact.

Sorry - I tend to post long as I try and give the background as to why I take a position, and these areas are rarely simple.. I also think, if you strip away the Israel thing, and the fact I don't think Labor (and Labour here) are doing enough for the people the purport tp represent although concede there are pratical challenges in doing so - we are probably more closely aligned than you think.

There have been as many white people in Aus, and nore in the US committing terrorism as Muslim. Sadly, any anti-solcial behaviour is not the preserve of one or a subset of nationalities or religions.

Allowing no reporting - by Israel? Are you serious? Journos were killed.. Were they actually targetted as journalists? How much reportng do you get from Iran once the protests started and before the war? What evidence do you have that journalism is systematically suppressed where it is physically safe (i,e, they are not going to be directly in the line of fire) by Israel? I have to admit, I am flummoxed by these assertions.. But if you can provide evidence to support that position, I am fine.. otherwise, are they not rabid? Re essentials of life - it is the UN who had decided not to enter Gaza nor allow the other organisation to distribute their supplies.. on what premise? As I understand, it is alleged what UN essentials were being distribnuted were ending up in Hamas' hands largely and not the people. Of course, that could be wrong because the press don't report these things all the time. But, that is my point.. A lot of aspersions are cast with scant evidence, and sensationalistic reporting by the very journos Israel are supposed to suppress. The default position is Israel is wrong, and I will challenge it if the facts don't fit (on anything). Sorry. I am an argumentative SoB. BTW, we all criticise the Iran war, and rightly so given the US objectives. But so far, the one Iranian I know (and it is only one) is still supportive of it. And I prefer to take people with their experience of it on the ground than us armchair experts. Oh, and by the way, she thinks Israel has gone too far on accoasions, but is generally supportive of Israel. They give her reiligion a home free of prejudice, which cannot be said of the Iranians, where the religion was born.

Sorry... What? OK.. the milita of a country invade your country... but don't target your military - but your defencelss and well separated from the military civilians.. illegally under intenational law; you legitimately retaliate and target their mitilary assets, which they hide behind cilvilan assets - and you target their military assets legally, but because they use civilians aas part of their defence (which is not really even contested by them) and, by the way being totally legal under the rules of war as long as they are targeting legitimate military assets - and Israel is the terrorist? Yeah - they took the West Bank - but not through some arbitrary decision - it was the resuilt of a war waged on them.. Or have I missed something. And in exchange for peace, the Palestinians (which even Arabs don't class as a separate Arabic identity) were offered 96% of it back, but rejected it at the last minute.. Now, there are tensions, because Ramalla is a Palestinian controlled territory on the West Bank, and tensions in a war between Israel and Gaza are going to surface. Is it right? No! But no country has never been hostile to those of "enemy" ancestry in their territory (which I know, the UN doesn't sanction, but at the end of the day, it was territory siezed as a result of a war perpetrated on Israel). And did they actually target the journos and NGOs, or was it a) friendly fire or b) mistaken identity - IN A WAR, FFS.. I think in Kosovo (BTW, an illegal war as there was no direct threat to NATO states, and there was no UN security resolution, and humanitarian reasons ions not a defence), journos and NGOs were killed by firendly fire, as was that in Afghanistan, and the list goes one. In fact, the betrayal of firendly Afghans by the west doesn't need to be brought up again, eoither. What terrorism did Israel actually commit. Where, without procvocation, did they go in and wantonly kill people as a country/defence force? Sorry dude - you and I live in a different world when it comes to this. (Apologies, that was condascending and I take it back) You may disagree with what they are doing - and I don't agree with it all, either, but it is not terrorism.

BTW, to be clear, I am not a blind supporter of Israel, either. It is very sad that Israel has chosen the death penalty in this case, because it is very open to abuse in my humble opinion, and it is a retrograde step for a reasonably progressive democracy, despite what peoples' perception of Israel is. Sadly, like the rest of the world, Israel is turning more right wing - but I think you can hold the divisionary disposition of the world at the moment as a cause of that - the world going more right wing - not just Israel. Despite this, and the fact that Hamas (and other Islamic states - i.e. Iran) has captial punishment - summarily dispensed - for merely speaking against the regime or religion, Israel should abandon this latest development because a) two wrongs don't make a right; b) it is open to abuse of human rights; and c) it is against the very notion of a progressive democratic country. Israel is doing itself no favours. However, I am guessing there is enough popular support to carry it, which would also be a shame. However, given Israel is under constant attack - physically by its nearby enemies and globally by those who seem to have a bias against Israel despite the facts, it is little wonder they are starting to be more brash.

What are the terrorist attacks Israel have committed?

I'm sorry for the laugh, it was somewhat bemused, but we have all done that once or twice in our lives. So it was one of those, "well, it happens adn welcome to the club" type laugh. For some reason, although we're in the sticks and nowhere near a fuel terminal or refinery, fuel in Taunton is cheap. I have no idea why, as even in the next town, Bridgwater, it is usually a few p a litre more expensive. The local servo we use had diesel at £1.91/litre yesterday (no chance here of the government easing duty - they're broke). Today, it was down to £1.85 so I topped the tank off. In the news there is concern of fuel supply, but people here seem pretty calm about it. No jerry cans, no long queues (even before the prices started to rise). We had supply issues about two or so years ago as we ran short on lorry/truck drivers returned to Eastern Europe due to some post Brexit stuff up of the previous government. There was a little panic buying, but deliveries took a little longer and any shortage was short lived. I guess people who panic bought realised it was futile. Plus I am not sure even how many people in the sticks know what a jerry can is.. Also, more people are working from home and driving noticeably less.

Hmmm.. Let me ssee. there are structural issues with the SA electricity market, and if the wholesale price was more, but on fossil fuels, everything would be cheaper. Is that your argument? OK.. Fine.. I get it. The use of gas is inermittent as well.. as it is the back up when sun and wind stop - which is pretty much a rarity in SA. Approx 75% on average of SA electricity is renewable generated, but go back to fossil fuels - especially coal, and thanks to recent geopolical events (i.e. wars), you may find yourself paying a hell of a lot more than you are now: (Spot price of coal - and guess what, there are no local supply guarantees - same as gas). Yeah - the power stations will have futures contracts to hedge the price - but that only lasts a short while - and they still have to buy futures contractos tor the future - and guess what - the futures prices have been rising But hey, it would all be cheaper under coal.. and other fossil prices.. Here's ICE Newcastle Coal Dec 26 Futues Price: It dipped slightly yesterday, but those forward hedges are looking more and more expensive. You're locked into higher prices for longer. But, yeah, it will be cheaper.. I am sure with fossil fuels, SA would be getting free electricity during the afternoon from June 26... But, yeah, let's stay with fossils because it will be cheaper. Oh.. and more and more people don't even pay bills now because of solar and storage. But yeah.. oh you get it. If you don't by now, enjoy forever higher prices.

Unless she goes for one of the big EV ones made in China 😉

I doubt he was ever going to come out alive

The wholesale price in SA is 30% cheaper in last quarter of 2025 compared to 2024 thanks to renewables. It's theater structural factors that are keeping the price high: https://cleantechnica.com/2026/02/17/electricity-prices-decreased-in-south-australia-because-of-clean-renewables/ This is consistent with other reports. And guess what? With fossil, electricity prices are likely to be higher.. Oh, and the regulator is getting SA a nominal price reduction: https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/power-prices-to-all-for-millions-in-nsw-qld-and-sa-as-new-default-electricity-offer-revealed/news-story/52dd8a808108d63e36ca6859a6117898

This week is the 4th round of the AFL season, but the way they have structired the fixture, which means teams are already having byes since the opening round (hopefully this round is the last), that it is impossible to form any realistic view, with the exception of the obvious stragglers, what the relative form is of teams. So, I will have to sit it out a bit longer before depositing my £50 for the season. However, these would be my picks this early in the week, without studying the team lists: Brisbane to beat Collingwood, though Collingwood can suprise us. £10 and 1.42 North Melbourne to beat Carlton, who seem to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory. Speculative bet as the North Ruck was given 3 weeks for smearing his blood on a Carlton player's face after what was a hit that should have sdeen the Carlton player with at least a one match suspension. £5 @ 2.30 Toss up between Adelaide and the Dockers. Probably Adelaide purely based on home turf. Though, the Dockers have looked very good in the couple of games I have seen. But probably sit this one out. Port Adelaide to account for Richmond. Odds are good enough for a £10 on it. Sydney to beat the Eagles at home. Maybe £5 on it. Eagles have not been bad so far this year and I think have 2 wins. Melbourne at home to beat the red-hot Gold Coast. Very speculative, but I was pretty impressed with them on the weekend with their comeback against Carlton (although, to be honest, Carlton stopped playing). £5 @ 3.4 Bulldogs to beat Essendon, but at $1.00, it's not worth the effort. Geelong to beat the Hawks. The Hawks are running mildly hot at the moment, but they haven't been really tested, and in their opener they were thrashed by a Greater Western Sydney team missing 10 of its normally starting senior list. GWS have had some bad losses since. Geelong aren't terribly good this year, but they always lift against Hawthorn. I would put £10 on it @ $2.45. I don't normally think about it this much before a round, but as I said, there have been byes alreaady so it really doesn't matter at this stage. GWS and St. Kilda have a bye.

Polls didn't seem too far off. It is an ominous sign for politics. Australia needs a centre right party now - oh wait, that is the ALP at the moment.. Maybe Australia needs a centre left party now. In the UK, Labour is deemed far enough right that the Greens under the charismatic (to young people) Zak Polanski are courting the unions to switch funding from Labour to the Greens.. and apparently behind closed doors some unions are seriously entertaining the idea.

Reality is there is good and bad, or more accuratley, positives and drawbacks wherever one lives and whomever is governing. The electricitt prices would probably be more expensive is SA as the generation mix is only one part of the equationl, and it is not that different to QLD and NSW. Yes, renewables have led to short term increases, and this is in part to the privatised ownership (note, the SEC in Vic is rolloing out renewables and it is one of the cheapest states in Aus for electrcity - and the SEC is government owned. There are other factors that are unique to SA: Market structure - lack of competition makes the depp discounts available in other states not really a thing in SA Economies of scale - or lack thereof.. Large area and sparse population.. It justs cost more per person to be on the grid. That has to be paid for. Gas sets the prices in SA as it is the backup generator. More storage will fix that in the long term, but you can thak the Howard government for silly gas prices Aussies pay for their own gas compared to what others pay for it.. and every subsequent government for not fixing it. I think this is the unintended consequence of going renewables in SA. Not great interconnection with other states - means SA can't import cheaper electricity at congested/peal times. Still centralised infrastructure - SA has plenty of sun and wind and using a more decentralisded renewable generation strategy probably would have reduced the problems with fluctuation. SA is still in the RoI phase of the investment, when prices are typically higher to recoup some of the cost and pay back some of the capital borrowing. As we know, investments in technology have an initially higher cost than then reduces over time. Some of your costs in SA are what they are unless a) the population grows wildly, b) investments are made to introduce competition, and/or c) there is a move away gtom gas or the gas fired stations are required less (i.e. increase in renewables - or nuclear - or, indeed, coal). The latter two really are not required as there are differing forms of the former, and increased storage will help smooth thhe load. Of course, you could also state-ise national electricity generation, too, in such a way the people are put before profits.