Washington wants to put the cart before the horse. It won't work. Up-front security guarantees are critical for any peace agreement with Russia to be countenanced since it has a dismal track record when it comes to honouring them.

So if we can draw any lessons, it's that the private political company is enjoying a media love-in way beyond anything reasonably justified, but too little scrutiny of its policies, its historic actions and its alliances. That, combined with a knobbled BBC, distorts reality. Gibb must be replaced.

How do the polls anticipate the voting intentions of more than 2.5 years of new voters by GE2028? Do political analysts really expect they will be as keen on a Russian influence private company operation as today's respondents appear to be?

He deserves worse than that. Chamberlain appeased the Nazis in the 1930s, but ultimately declared war on Hitler in September 1939 after he invaded Poland. The US did not enter the conflict until December 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Until then, Roosevelt had declared neutrality.

I guess trump repeated Putin's reassurance to Europe with all the sincerity and credibility of a president who deploys the marines in his own states and commands his armed forces to carry out extra-judicial killings at sea.

Trump's plan involves UK security guarantees? Then surely it's a mistake to see it as 'Trump's plan'. Third party Guarantees rest on realistic propositions to end/reverse Russia's invasion, not rehashed Russian demands for Ukraine to capitulate to terror.

Gove has made a habit of questioning the judgement of those who are better informed, wiser and more qualified than himself. I remember when he thought NHS suppliers should be selected on the basis of their links to Tories rather than ability to fulfil contracts & a good track record.

Doesn't Boris have an ally he appointed to the BBC Board; tends to get involved with editorial decisions; scrutiny of Johnson kept at bay? Bloke named Gibb I believe.

Propositions for developing shared spaces for driving, cycling and walking in the built environment shouldn't cause animosity, antagonism or aggression, only perhaps some passion, debate and improvement of understanding. I see no gain tho' from inlfamatory rhetoric as seen in the likes of the DM.

Yes, I read the article your post linked to. I remain of the view that stirring hostility between groups of road users is counter-productive and dangerous, particularly to the more vulnerable users like cyclists, runners and walkers. Thankfully in my area there is much consideration between them all

A can of baked 🫘 could be relied on for a more insightful political & fiscal opinion than Liz Truss. At least there's a vanishingly small chance it could unwittingly precipitate a reduction of over £400bn in UK pensions assets.

I find it best to ignore rants publishing such nonsense as a 'new war on motorists' & cyclists 'hitting motorists at every opportunity' - when did that happen ever? If anyone is provoking conflict between citizens, it's rags like these. I'd prefer mutual respect & a mandate for smaller cars.

The character limitations of social media posts make it difficult not to abridge quotes (with notation naturally) but what excuse exists for doing so in a long form written report with far-reaching consequences for our national media asset?

Davey's question isn't about interference in running the BBC. It's about reinstating the BBC as a self-managed public body which actually conforms with its charter, mission and public purposes.

I'm with Ed. BBC's impartiality is baked into its mission and public purposes. Anyone who is seen to obstruct that principle must go now.

US defense companies 'letting go' of their talent (because their federal government thinks tarrifs and token lethal strikes, rather than military investment, will protect them from foreign adversaries) will help underpin Europe's recruitment of essential skills in its defence workforce.