HubPages Curtain Call: What’s Next for You?
No doubt you’ve all seen HP’s recent email announcing its imminent closure. The writing has been on the wall for some time, and now the curtain is finally falling. So the question is: how will you be spending your time once HP is gone?
For me, I lost interest earlier this year and began using my spare time more productively — focusing on YouTube and hobbies like DIY, gardening, genealogy, and cooking. My latest project was making this for my wife: https://youtu.be/MoZp4t_FKVY
A lot has happened since I was last active here. We’ve enjoyed holidays in Anglesey and Essex, visiting “A House for Essex” (an eccentric architectural gem) and spending two days at the Clacton Airshow. The highlight was a day trip to RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo) at Fairford.
On the domestic front, politics and policy have touched our lives directly. In spring, my wife was granted full Motability Disabled Benefit due to her back condition. Under the UK Government’s scheme she received a new EV car (2025 Citroën e‑Berlingo), with tax, insurance, repairs, and maintenance all covered — and replaced every three years. A home charger was also installed, meaning her only cost is electricity, at just 2.6p ($0.03) per mile when charging overnight. She now has a disabled badge for free or priority parking, and our son receives carer’s allowance — £370 ($470) per month — for supporting her. These policies have made a tangible difference to our family.
By coincidence, when our son’s old Daihatsu finally gave up, we found a pre‑production Renault Kangoo EV van at half price, with only 3 miles on the clock. Another unexpected but welcome change.
So yes, it’s been an eventful year. But with HP closing, it feels like the end of an era. How has your year been, and what are your plans for the future — once HP is gone?It's been good to be able to converse with you over the years and get the perspective on political issues by someone from the UK.
I'll be over there some time in 2007 to visit my friend from Wales. I'll never forget how one of them would come up to me speaking the Welsh language and my friend telling me how they're speaking English. My confused expression made them have a good laugh.
As for me, I will continue to operate my businesses. Write for various forums.
My year has been pretty good.
So, one last issue to debate.
What do you thing of President Donald Trump suing the BBC for deceptive editing of his Jan 6 speech. It was blatant and obviously intentional. Many Brits that I've discussed it with feel the BBC deserves to be sued. Others don't.
How do you feel about it?It’s been good conversing with you too over the years, and I’ve always appreciated hearing perspectives from across the pond. Your anecdote about Wales made me smile — the quirks of language and culture never fail to amuse.
As for Trump suing the BBC: regardless of whether their editing was right or wrong, no, I do not believe the BBC should be sued. To me, this looks less like a pursuit of justice and more like an attempt to stifle opposition. Trying to silence the BBC is a blatant attack on freedom of speech.
Greetings to our special guest star
If the forums here would no longer be available, I would be bored to tears.
Matching wits with the “family” of forum participants over the last 15 years has been my delight. It is interesting to note how rigid our attitudes and beliefs are and how resistant to change those tend to be.
So, what would I do? I would engage in on line chess games, and ply through the internet knowledge bank continuing to improve and enrich myself. I could continue to gradually read all the magazines that I have subscribed to over the last 45 years, determined to not discard any one until I have read them.
The alternative of focusing on looking after my rather infirm spouse is not a great deal of fun. This leaves me rather home bound as I would otherwise be bouncing around the planet seeking ever more oddities to explore.
The days of backyard barbecues and summer picnics are over as the country where I was born and the values that I adhered to and supported are now under threat, where comfort is no longer an option. As the threat comes ever more close to impacting my personal life, I cannot afford to be complacent as so much have changed.
These forums and debates are therapeutic for me as a way to vent my rage, frustration and disappointment regarding the direction this country has taken over the last year. Being the mercenary that I am, I would have to find a comparable medium to the hub pages forum, if it can be found.
As you say in Britain, I am a “sticky wicket” determined to educate and inform as well as be educated and informed.
So, I say to all the forum participants, thanks and fare well………Greetings back to you, my long‑standing ally in these debates. Over the years, I’ve found our exchanges to be some of the most rewarding — not because we always agreed (though we usually did), but because we shared the same values and outlook, and reinforced each other’s determination to speak plainly about the issues that matter.
Like you, I will miss this forum “family.” It has been a place where we could match wits, vent frustrations, and sharpen our thinking together. I’ve always admired your persistence and your ability to keep enriching yourself, whether through chess, magazines, or simply the pursuit of knowledge. That kind of resilience is exactly what keeps us going when circumstances at home or in the wider world feel restrictive.
For myself, I stopped participating regularly back in January, once it became clear the writing was on the wall for HubPages. Since then I’ve been finding pastures new — focusing on YouTube, DIY, genealogy, and other projects that give me a sense of purpose and creativity. So while I’ll miss the camaraderie here, I’ve already begun to redirect my energy elsewhere.
I share your concerns about the situation in America. With Trump and the far‑right dominating the political landscape, it feels dire and unsettling. By contrast, things are a little rosier here in Britain now that Labour, with its more socialist leanings, is in power. It doesn’t solve everything, but it does give a sense of hope that progressive policies can make a tangible difference.
So I echo your farewell — but I also say thank you. Your contributions have enriched me, and I suspect many others too. Whatever platforms we each find next, I hope the spirit of debate and solidarity we’ve shared will continue.
- Kathleen Cochranposted 10 months ago
0I suspect the end of writers being able to comment on each other's work was the beginning of HP's decline. The interaction that first attracted most of us has been reduced to toxic discussion boards that I will certainly not miss.
Since you asked (otherwise I wouldn't risk being banned for self-promotion) what is next for me is publishing my first novel on Audible. Very excited for this new venture, and I've been fortunate enough to find a narrarator who is absolutely "the voice in my head." Wish me luck!
What I will miss is the 400 readers each month who encourage me just by reading my work. You have been like gasoline to my fire for writing. Please look for me on other outlets.
I can never thank you enough for all that you have meant to me.
KathleenI completely agree with you that the loss of interaction between writers marked the beginning of HP’s decline. And while I share your view about the boards becoming toxic, I must say I’ve also found them fruitful — they’ve given me insights into Americans and their perspectives that I could never have gained just by reading articles on Google.
Brilliant! Your words about Audible made me smile. Publishing your first novel there is such an exciting step, and finding a narrator who perfectly matches “the voice in your head” is a rare gift. I most definitely wish you the very best of luck with this new venture — it sounds like the start of something wonderful.
I also think it’s a beautiful reflection of the bond between writer and reader when you mention those 400 monthly readers. Clearly they fuel your creativity, and it’s a testament to the impact your words have had. May that encouragement continue to follow you wherever you publish next.
- Kathleen Cochranposted 10 months ago0
(One last time . . .)
https://hubpages.com/community/Top-Ten- … hing-a-HubBrilliant — thank you for sharing that link, it genuinely made me laugh. A proper tonic!
We don’t have a dog ourselves, only a cat, and I’m fairly sure she’d struggle to eat a half‑finished hub (though she might sit on it in protest).
And as for number 3… well, if my agent ever rang with a movie deal, I suspect I’d leave a few hubs unfinished too!
- boxelderredposted 10 months ago0
Kathleen - I love this and am so glad you shared this link. Made me laugh out loud.
- Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months ago0
One last reach for staying in touch: on Facebook: Kathleen Cochran - Articles and Excerpts
Stop by from time to time. With HubPages closing, I’m moving on to a new project. I’m almost finished with a book about my mom, Frances Mealbacl. She was farmed out by the wealthy Dodge family, and her life has been full of fascinating experiences. The book also tells the story of her 12-year court battle to access all of her birth records, which she won. I can’t wait to share her story with the world!
Cool — your mum’s story sounds remarkable, and it’s wonderful that you’re bringing it together in a book. A 12‑year court battle and a life shaped by the Dodge family… that’s quite a legacy to preserve.
Now that spring is here, with temperatures hovering around 16–18°C (60–65°F), I’ll be spending a lot more time in the garden and down in my DIY workshop at the bottom of the garden — in between our summer holidays and day trips.
Once autumn and winter roll around, I’ll be able to focus more on my other hobbies, including videography and genealogy. And like you, I’m also writing up my family history, going back to my great‑great‑grandfather and beyond. He even kept a diary about his life in Victorian Britain and his time living in America before the Civil War, so there’s plenty to explore.You're a good guy Arthur, even if we disagree on so many things political.
I hope to pursue the opposite of what most on here are expressing... books, new sites...
I will prepare to retire... from most things....
The idea of living somewhere remote, forested, simple... waking up and deciding what to make for breakfast for myself, my sons, and occasionally even my wife (who likes to sleep in very late when she can)...
Taking the time to go on long walks with the dogs, and/or son on occasion.
Stress free from the worries of work every day, or politics...
Working toward that a lot lately.I retired early, at the age of 55 - so I‘ve been living a leisurely stress free life for the past 15 years - It’s great.
Yep... all that useless energy of youth has been spent...
Its about that age (55) that I started hitting the wall... by 62 I want to be out of the rat race... it can be done if you are realistic about finances and lifestyle.
I recognized long ago... the value of money depends on where you are...
100,000 dollars won't buy you a parking spot in NYC... but will buy you a nice 3/2 on a quarter acre lot in the sticks in many States.An interesting American perspective, Ken.
Where you say “it can be done if you are realistic about finances and lifestyle,” that’s where the UK and USA really diverge. Retiring didn’t require any lifestyle downgrade for me — quite the opposite.
Lifestyle:
I still do everything I did when I was working, and we still enjoy the same luxuries. Last year I spent about $6,000 replacing our old bath with an indoor Jacuzzi, and we still take our three holidays a year. The only real difference is that I no longer have to give five days a week to an employer. I still get up at 5am, but now it’s to spend the day doing things I actually enjoy.
Finances:
We own our home outright, my wife’s EV cost us nothing because the government covers it due to her disability status, and we have no medical bills because the NHS is free at the point of use.
On top of that, the combined income from my workplace pension and the State Pension is higher than what I earned while working. So we’re actually better off financially in retirement, with more disposable income for luxuries, holidays, and savings.
That’s the real difference: in the UK, retirement isn’t something you have to “fight” your way into. Workplace pensions are mandatory, the State Pension is guaranteed, healthcare is universal, and the system is designed so people can step back without falling off a financial cliff. Savings help, of course, but they’re not the whole foundation.And that is all good... Until it becomes unsustainable for the state to provide...
My grandparents, on my mother's side, worked hard to have a pension that was supposed to provide for them... Then in the company's bankruptcy that was lost, biggest power company on the east coast at that time.
The money they had saved in Credit Unions in the early 80s ...when interest rates were over 10% ...lost during a scandalous fleecing of Credit Unions nationwide, quite a few politicians made themselves rich on that one... In the late 80s...
Then there was 2008... Lots of 401ks and IRAs took a major blow sending retirees back to work.
Government social planning works ...until it doesn't... until 25% inflation in one year ruins your budget ... until the government decides Social Security is no longer sustainable... Despite you spending a lifetime paying into it.
You look at your system and say... 'we have it better here in the UK'
Perhaps you do... Until you don't... You are reliant on your government to provide for you... what happens when tomorrow it says it is no longer going to?
An interesting take on today's reality:
https://youtu.be/yYXMTlcKvN0?si=xHhJIi6mdOGnzxIRGeez, Ken, how many seniors are on Social Security, do you think they have a right to rely on a government not to steal the money they spent a lifetime putting in the coffers?
The program has been around for over 90 years, the only real threat to it has been Trump. So, the sky is not falling yet. What makes you think that it is “so much better” here in comparison with England?
It you say they are vulnerable, are we not as well under a similar calamity?You know our government stole that money long before Trump showed up on the scenes.
They have been telling us for decades now SS was about to go bankrupt ...then they let in millions of migrants and put them on social benefits.
You and I both know the rich elites have gotten immensely rich while working stiffs have tread water (at best) for the last 30 years.
And now they have maxed out the credit card...the interest we have to pay on our debt greater than what we spend on the military.
A trillion dollars just in interest and growing fast.
Same for the UK... In debt and on the decline.
Totally off topic but fascinating:
The feminisation of society:
https://youtu.be/pfbilhs5dt4?si=1kcHXmgfhI70llrn
Japan went there first ... where it leads:
https://youtu.be/VaPIai9P5qw?si=M2o-eThhP2OQFySSCredence, you make a fair point. People in both our countries spend a lifetime paying into these systems with the expectation that they’ll be there when needed. That’s not an unreasonable expectation — it’s the whole purpose of contributing in the first place.
And you’re right: if someone argues that the UK is “vulnerable,” then by the same logic the USA would be as well. The challenges of ageing populations, economic cycles, and political decision‑making aren’t unique to one side of the Atlantic. Every developed country has to manage those pressures responsibly.
The difference, I think, is simply that each system has evolved in its own way. The UK model is built around predictable adjustments and long‑term planning, whereas the USA has had a more turbulent history with private pensions, corporate failures, and market shocks. But the basic principle is the same: people expect stability after decades of work, and that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to expect.
Ken, I understand why you see it that way — the American system puts a huge amount of retirement risk on the individual. If a company collapses, a pension fund fails, or the markets tank, people can lose everything. That’s exactly why the UK moved away from that model decades ago.
My retirement isn’t dependent on a private company staying solvent or a fund manager behaving responsibly. Workplace pensions here are legally protected, the State Pension is guaranteed by statute, and healthcare isn’t tied to employment or savings. It’s a very different structure.
Of course any system needs to be managed responsibly, but the UK model is designed so that people aren’t thrown back into work at 70 because a corporation went under or a private fund collapsed. That’s the difference: the risk isn’t pushed onto the individual.
So when I say retirement didn’t require a lifestyle downgrade, it’s not luck — it’s because the system here is built to provide stability rather than leaving people exposed to market shocks or corporate failures.
And just to be clear, the UK State Pension can’t simply be “cut” overnight. It’s protected by law, uprated each year by the Triple Lock, and any change would require an Act of Parliament. The UK approach is to adjust pension age gradually over decades rather than reduce payments to existing pensioners. So the system isn’t vulnerable to sudden reductions — it’s designed to evolve slowly and predictably.
A big part of that stability comes from how pensions are structured here. Workplace pensions are mandatory for all employers, and the money goes into an individual pot that belongs to the employee — not the company. So if the employer goes bankrupt, the pension doesn’t disappear with it. You take it with you when you change jobs, and it’s protected and index‑linked.
Then there’s the State Pension. Anyone who’s worked and paid tax for 35 years gets the full amount at pension age. It’s funded and planned at a national level, not tied to the fortunes of any one company or investment scheme.
Private pensions exist too, but they’re optional — most people rely mainly on their workplace pension and the State Pension. And for younger people, the Lifetime ISA has become a popular extra savings option because it’s government‑backed, tax‑free, and the government adds a 25% bonus to whatever you save. A lot of people use it as an extra retirement buffer because it’s low‑risk and predictable.”
None of this means the system is perfect, of course. With people living longer, the pension age may rise a little over the next few decades. But the structure itself is solid — it’s designed to be sustainable, not to collapse the moment a company or fund hits trouble.Your employer pension, money in a big pot, sounds much like our Social Security. When presented, it was just that; money put into a big pot to be shared by all, according to what they put in. And then the "managers" of that pot decided to give it to Congress to borrow at the lowest possible interest rate while increasing the people that can draw from it - the result is that our pot is nearly empty.
The government pension sounds like our Social Security - money taken in taxes is given out to retirees. Until the tax receipts dry up, and then it all falls apart. Ours is a giant Ponzi scheme, yours isn't, but both depend on producers funding those that do not produce. As such it will ultimately fail as the needs grow beyond the willingness to pay.
Such fine programs work well...as small requirements on the producers/earners. As those requirements grow and grow, with new demands made all the time, sooner or later the producers rebel and decide it isn't worth their time to work for those that then take it away. And they take their business and money elsewhere.Wilderness, I understand why you’re drawing parallels, but the structures really aren’t the same. A UK workplace pension isn’t a shared pot like Social Security — it’s an individual fund that legally belongs to the employee. The employer can’t borrow from it, the government can’t dip into it, and it doesn’t disappear if the company goes under. It’s ring‑fenced and regulated very tightly for that reason.
The State Pension is separate again. It isn’t funded or managed in the same way as the USA’s Social Security system, and it isn’t vulnerable to being “raided” or redirected. It’s uprated each year by law, and any change requires parliamentary legislation. The UK approach has always been to adjust pension age gradually over decades rather than reduce payments to existing pensioners.
On the “pots drying up” point — that’s where the systems really diverge. UK workplace pensions don’t rely on a single shared pot that can run out. Each person’s fund is invested across diversified assets, contributions continue throughout their working life, and the system is designed so that payouts come from the individual’s own accumulated pot, not from a central pool that can be depleted. And importantly, the pot travels with the employee when they change jobs, so over a lifetime you end up with one consolidated pension rather than lots of small, vulnerable ones tied to different employers. It’s not a pay‑as‑you‑go model, so it doesn’t face the same structural pressures.
How UK Workplace Pensions Are Actually Administered
To avoid any confusion, here’s how a UK workplace pension works in practice:
1. It’s an individual pot, not a shared pool
• Every employee has their own personal pension pot.
• Your pot is not used to pay current retirees.
• Your pot is not dependent on future workers paying in.
2. It’s run by a regulated pension provider, not the employer
Typical providers include:
• Legal & General
• Aviva
• Scottish Widows
• Standard Life
• Nest (the government‑created auto‑enrolment provider)
These organisations:
• are heavily regulated,
• must meet strict capital and governance rules,
• and cannot use your money for anything except investing it for your benefit.
3. Your employer cannot touch the money
The employer:
• pays contributions,
• passes your contributions to the provider,
• and has zero access to the pot.
If the employer goes bankrupt, your pension is untouched.
4. Your pot follows you when you change jobs
When you move jobs:
• your pension pot stays with you,
• you can keep it where it is,
• or transfer it into your new employer’s scheme,
• and over time you can consolidate everything into one large pension.
You don’t end up with scattered, vulnerable pots tied to old employers.
5. It’s not a pay‑as‑you‑go system
Because your pension is:
• individually owned,
• invested over decades,
• diversified,
• and legally protected,
…it doesn’t face the “pot runs dry” problem that affects pay‑as‑you‑go systems like USA Social Security.Then I didn't understand the state pension fund; you said it was funded at the national level and I assumed that was taxpayer money providing the funds.
Our SS, while in a big pot, used to be OURS, and we got a statement each year showing what we had contributed. Then Congress figured out just what a huge pot it was, and that they could "borrow" at near zero interest or even zero interest, and the game changed. Our SS required Congressional action to dip into...which they were happy to do to fund their pork barrel spending.
I hope yours does much better. It all depends on the honesty of legislators, and their feelings that they are fiduciaries of our money.
On the cheerier side, private pensions (not a pension, but a sum of money) pretty much follows your guidelines. It really IS ours and cannot be touched by government or business (unless, of course, the laws change). It is protected in that manner. But there is no law saying we must have such a thing; business is not required to fund it and neither is the worker. The result is that some go without, depending on SS, which was never intended to be large enough to live off of.Thanks for your feedback, Wilderness.
State Pensions
Yes — the UK State Pension is funded by taxpayers, but not through ordinary income tax. It’s financed through a separate system called National Insurance, which works differently from standard taxation.
National Insurance is also what funds the NHS, so the same contribution covers both healthcare and the State Pension.
National Insurance is a regressive tax, charged at:
• 8% on earnings between $16,680 and $69,358
• 2% on earnings above $69,358
The important distinction from the USA Social Security system is that UK State Pension and NHS funding are legally ring‑fenced. Under UK law, ring‑fenced funds cannot be diverted for unrelated government spending. No Chancellor can “borrow” from it for other purposes.
And just as you used to receive annual Social Security contribution statements, everyone here gets an annual record of their National Insurance contributions.
The Triple Lock
The biggest modern reform was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2010, and it’s now written into law. Each year, the State Pension rises by whichever is highest of:
* 2.5%
* Inflation
* Average wage growth
Before 2010, it only rose with inflation.
Private Pensions
Private pensions in the UK work much like those in the USA:
• optional,
• independent of employers and government,
• and fully protected from interference.
The downside is similar too — private schemes can be risky, especially when run by high‑risk financial advisers or when people try to manage investments themselves.
That’s why younger savers increasingly prefer the government‑backed Lifetime ISA:
• higher interest than a normal savings account,
• tax‑free growth,
• and for every $4 saved (up to $5,300 per year), the government adds $1.
The only restriction is that the money can’t be accessed until age 60, unless it’s used as a first‑time house deposit.
What is a Lifetime ISA & How Do They Work?
https://youtu.be/L7GN3ZiOJaA
Workplace Pensions
As mentioned earlier, workplace pensions are now compulsory, with both employer and employee contributing. Crucially:
• The pension belongs to the employee, not the employer.
• It’s administered by a regulated pension provider.
• It moves with you when you change jobs.
• Neither government nor employer can access it.
So over a lifetime, you build one consolidated, well‑protected pot rather than a patchwork of vulnerable employer‑linked schemes.
Security in Old Age
In the UK, most people retiring today have both a workplace pension and the State Pension, and together those usually provide a comfortable standard of living.
For people who rely mainly or entirely on the State Pension — such as long‑term carers, homemakers, or those with limited work histories — it would indeed be difficult to live on the State Pension alone. That’s where the UK’s welfare safety‑net system comes in.
Means‑tested benefits ensure that low‑income pensioners can cover their essential bills and, with careful budgeting, still enjoy a few modest luxuries. It’s a level of support that goes beyond what the USA Social Security system provides.
I hope that lays out the differences more clearly.Your private pensions sound much like ours, except ours is not mandated. I certainly wish they had taken that approach when our SS was created. You MUST save, and the employer - instead they make us save into the SS account with a zero rate of return (or less), and politicians continually using it as an interest free loan to the government.
But our welfare program also kicks in if SS is all you've got coming in. No one is allowed to starve or go homeless unless they choose to do so.
I'll add that actual pensions - a set income per month - is on the way out. Far too many plans of that kind, the defined payment rather than defined contribution, end up underfunded and with a corporation in total control of it. Too many people lose most or all of what they planned on seeing.Wilderness, I think we may be talking about two slightly different things here.
What you’re describing sounds very much like our private pensions — the optional, individually‑managed retirement funds that people can choose to set up themselves. Those really are similar to what you have in the USA.
But a workplace pension in the UK is a different system entirely. It isn’t optional, and it isn’t the same as a private pension. By law, every employer has to enrol their workers into a workplace pension scheme, and both employer and employee must contribute. The pot belongs to the employee, is run by a regulated pension provider, and follows the worker from job to job. It’s a completely separate system from private pensions.
So in practice, most people here end up with:
• the State Pension (funded through National Insurance),
• a workplace pension (compulsory, employer‑linked), and
• optionally, a private pension or Lifetime ISA if they want to save extra.
It’s that middle one — the workplace pension — that’s quite different from anything in the USA.
On your point about welfare: it’s good to hear that the USA system also provides a safety net for people who only have Social Security to rely on. That’s important in any developed country. The main difference is simply that the UK system tends to be more comprehensive, so people who fall back on the State Pension alone usually receive enough additional support to cover essentials and maintain a modest but decent standard of living.
On defined‑benefit pensions: you’re right that they’re disappearing, but the situation here was a bit different from the USA. UK DB schemes were generally well‑protected, with strict regulation and safeguards to stop employers raiding or underfunding the pot. They’ve mostly been phased out because they’re expensive for employers to maintain, rather than because workers were losing their pensions. That’s why the UK shifted toward defined‑contribution workplace schemes — not due to widespread failures, but because they’re more sustainable long‑term.
And just to add one more point on UK defined‑benefit schemes: even when employers did go bankrupt, workers weren’t left unprotected. The UK has long had a statutory safety net that steps in to cover most of the pension if a DB scheme fails. So although these schemes have largely disappeared because they’re costly for employers to run, they didn’t collapse in the same way many American plans did. Workers here were generally shielded from losing everything.
And finally, it’s worth noting that DB pensions have mainly disappeared in the private sector. In the public sector — the civil service, NHS, teachers, local government and so on — DB schemes are still the norm. Back in the mid‑1970s, the Labour Government and the civil‑service unions signed a legally binding agreement stating that changes to the civil‑service pension scheme could only be made with union consent. Margaret Thatcher did try to overturn that agreement in the early 1980s, but the courts prevented her from doing so. As a result, public‑sector DB pensions have remained well‑protected right up to the present day.Our workplace pensions aren't as different as you think. Yes, yours are involuntary and ours are not, but they both put the funds in to a pot owned by an employee that takes the pot with him when he changes jobs. Both are typically funded by both employer and employee. Control is a mix of employer and employee; typically the employer offers a mix of possible investments and the employee chooses. I'm not sure, but I think those choices are probably regulated as well.
the DB schemes used to be the only option, but a few employers took advantage and either stole outright through fraud or set up the plan to benefit the company more than the employee. The other stick beating them to death was the union that insisted that pensions grow to outlandish numbers. Retirees often drew more in pension than they ever did working, and by a considerable amount. As unions used to be much stronger than they are now this was a major problem and companies simply could not fund the plans as they needed to in order to pay the pensions that would come about in a few decades. More than a few of those plans simply ceased to exist when the ponzi scheme fell apart.
Unfortunately, that's where our SS stands now; it is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, run by a Congress that was too stupid and too greedy to see what the future would bring, and it isn't working.While Arthur may be doing swimmingly well in the UK system...
It is like our Social Security... it will work... until it doesn't.
The laws that protect it, will protect it, until they are changed.
Bad as things may be in America, what I see going on in the EU is hitting even harder:
How Europe is Designing a Tax System You Can't Escape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf7rw4RIx_Q
They are creating a system where "you will own nothing and be happy about it".Ken, I admire your confidence in drawing sweeping conclusions about the entire EU, the UK, and the future of Western civilisation from a single YouTube video. Truly, it’s a bold research methodology.
But let’s ground this in reality for a moment.
The Dutch “36% unrealised gains tax” you’re panicking about isn’t an EU plot, isn’t a pension threat, and isn’t a sign that Europeans will soon “own nothing.” It’s a Dutch court‑mandated tweak to their investment tax system. It applies to investment returns, not wages, not homes, not pensions. The UK isn’t adopting it. The EU isn’t adopting it. It’s a Dutch administrative fix, not the opening chapter of a dystopian novel.
Spain’s wealth tax? Again, national, not EU‑wide, and aimed at people with millions in assets. If that’s your idea of “own nothing,” then I suspect we’re using different dictionaries.
As for the “you will own nothing and be happy” line — that’s not a policy, not a law, not a directive. It’s a meme based on a misquoted WEF think‑piece from 2016. The fact that it’s still circulating says more about the internet than it does about Europe.
Meanwhile, the UK State Pension and most EU pensions are legally protected in ways Social Security simply isn’t. In the UK, governments are prohibited by law from raiding the National Insurance fund. Congress, on the other hand, has treated Social Security like a piggy bank for decades. If you want to talk about Ponzi schemes, you might want to start a little closer to home.
So yes, I’m doing “swimmingly well” in the UK system — because it’s stable, regulated, and not based on YouTube doom‑prophecies. A Dutch tax reform and a meme don’t change that.
But if you find another video predicting the collapse of Europe, civilisation, or the moon’s orbit, feel free to share. They’re always entertaining.The UK national debt is a significant economic indicator, reflecting the government's financial obligations. As of the latest data, the UK national debt is approximately £2.9 trillion, which is about 96.4% of GDP.
The U.S. national debt represents the total amount of money the federal government owes due to borrowing over the nation’s history, the debt-to-GDP ratio is around 134%, indicating that the total debt exceeds the annual economic output of the country.
Your free ride is about to expire... the UK economy is bust... so is ours... so is France and Germany.
Change is coming, whether you believe it's coming or not.
War is coming whether you believe it's coming or not.
edit/add:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlEVi6cysSk
Your next educational videoKen, before getting into the economics, I want to address the video you posted. It presents itself as analysis, but it relies on four major distortions.
1. It treats “Islam” and “Islamism” as the same thing.
The speaker slides between Islam (a global religion), Islamism (a political ideology), and extremist groups like ISIS and the Taliban — and then uses the actions of the last group to define the first. No serious academic treats these categories as interchangeable.
2. It cherry‑picks the worst examples and presents them as universal.
The transcript is a list of atrocities, extremist clerics, and authoritarian regimes. All real — but not representative of 1.5 billion Muslims. It’s like defining Christianity by the KKK, the Inquisition, and Anders Breivik.
3. It makes sweeping claims about “no free inquiry” in Muslim countries.
This is simply false. The Muslim world contains universities older than Oxford, and countless institutions of scholarship and debate. The video ignores all of that because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
4. It attributes every conflict in the Middle East to “Islam”.
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iran — all reduced to “Islam”, with no mention of colonial borders, Cold War interventions, proxy wars, ethnic divisions, or authoritarian regimes. It’s reductionism, not analysis.
The core problem is simple:
The video takes real problems — extremism, terrorism, misogyny — and then claims “this is Islam itself.” That leap is never justified.
My Own Experience of Muslims in Britain
Alongside all the abstractions in that video, here’s the reality I’ve actually lived:
I’ve worked and socialised with Muslims for decades. They’re ordinary, law‑abiding citizens who take pride in being both Muslim and British, and who have integrated into British society just like anyone else.
My wife worked for years in a multi‑faith church in Bristol where Muslim and Jewish religious leaders collaborated closely on community projects. The idea of inevitable conflict simply doesn’t match what happens on the ground.
Like any community, there is a tiny minority of extremists. But the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain live, work and socialise alongside everyone else — including Jews and LGBT groups — in complete normality and harmony.
The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) represents both Sunni and Shia organisations and actively promotes civic participation and integration.
In 2018, the MCB launched a programme to train and encourage Muslim women to take leading roles in mosques and community institutions.
On 30 April 2007, the MCB publicly affirmed that discrimination against gay people is wrong, and stated that Muslims must not discriminate against LGBT individuals.
And finally, Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK. British law always takes precedence on equality, human rights and civil matters. Sharia councils can offer advice, but their decisions are non‑binding.
That’s the Britain I see every day — not the caricature in the video.Ken, you’re making sweeping assumptions without checking the actual data.
The simple reality is this: the national debt is not “spiralling out of control” in the UK, France or Germany. The only major Western economy where the debt has genuinely exploded in the past year is the USA — and that happened after Trump returned to office.
Let’s look at the numbers properly.
United Kingdom
Both the UK and the USA had healthy, manageable debt levels in 2010 — around 60% of GDP.
From there:
- UK debt rose steadily and peaked at 100% of GDP in 2020 due to Covid.
- Since then, it has been falling, not rising.
- It dropped to 96.4% in 2022 (the figure you quoted).
- And it has continued to fall to 93.6%.
That is not a country “bust” or “spiralling out of control.”
United States
The USA followed a very different trajectory:
- In 2010, the USA’s national debt was around 60% of GDP — the same as Britain.
- By 2019, it had risen to 79%.
- Then in just one year, due to Covid, it jumped from 79% to 98.7%.
- Unlike the UK, it did not stabilise after the pandemic.
- It continued rising, reaching 99.6% in 2024, the year Trump returned to office.
- And in the past year alone, it has surged to 134% of GDP — the figure you quoted.
If any country’s debt is spiralling, it’s the USA’s.
France
France began with a higher debt level in 2010 (85% of GDP), but:
- It rose gradually to 115% in 2020 (Covid).
- Since then, it has stabilised around that level.
Not ideal, but certainly not spiralling like the USA.
Germany
Germany is the standout example:
- It started at 81% in 2010.
- It has steadily fallen ever since.
- It now sits at a very healthy 62.2% of GDP.
That is the opposite of “bust.”
Bottom Line
Your claim that the UK, France and Germany are collapsing economically simply isn’t supported by the data.
The only major Western economy where the national debt has exploded in the past year is the USA — and that happened under Trump’s current presidency, not under Europe.
So the idea that Europe is “free‑riding” while America is strong is the exact opposite of what the numbers show.OK, I'm not interested in parsing data... or sources...
We are in WWIII... thanks primarily to the UK and Biden Administration.
Perhaps it was unavoidable... but any negotiations or treaties were at least equally shut down by the UK and Biden Administration, as they were Russia/Putin...
So, what we did was push China and Russia together... throw in North Korea and you have the core of who we are fighting against... now that we are taking out other partners they would have had (Venezuela, Iran).
Here is a good example (link timestamped to the relevant information) to how deeply they are working together:
https://youtu.be/BGcbbxEwCm4?t=136Ken, you’ve said yourself that you’re “not interested in parsing data or sources,” and that’s really the core of the problem here. Your claim that “we are in WWIII” and that the UK and Biden “caused it” isn’t based on evidence — it’s based on a narrative.
The reality is far more complex.
Russia invaded Ukraine for its own strategic reasons.
China’s long‑term ambitions in the Pacific pre‑date any recent administration.
And authoritarian states cooperating isn’t new — it’s been happening for decades.
You’re presenting it as if the UK and the US somehow forced Russia, China and North Korea into alignment, when in fact those relationships were already developing because their interests overlap, not because of anything London or Washington did.
As for the video, it’s commentary — dramatic, selective, and designed to tell a particular story. It’s not a neutral analysis of global strategy.
I’m sticking to verifiable facts.
If you’re not interested in those, then we’re simply talking past each other.I'm not interested in parsing data because I don't believe in your sources or how you are perceiving what is transpiring in the world.
Much like how you view the conflict with Iran, and Russia, I don't see things with the same perspective, nor the sources you are using to come by them.
That's all. Your "verifiable facts" to me are neither verifiable or facts.
I agree we are talking past one another...
I see economic issues across the EU and UK and America... I see an energy crisis ahead for many nations of the EU, perhaps not the UK... but if the EU economy suffers a depression and the American economy suffers a depression, the UK is not going to be safe, regardless of the laws put in place to protect your benefits and your economy.Ken, you’ve made it clear you don’t accept any data or sources that don’t already match your worldview, so there’s not much point trying to debate facts with you. I’m basing my comments on verifiable information; you’re basing yours on belief and perspective. That’s why we’re talking past each other.
And yes — if the global economy does slide into recession, the shockwaves won’t spare the USA. Major conflicts always hit energy markets, shipping routes, and global trade, and the USA is just as exposed to those pressures as everyone else. Supporting a war that risks damaging your own economy isn’t exactly a great strategic position.I would say the UK is far more exposed and vulnerable than the USA.
As I said, if the EU economy falls into a Depression (the most likely to do so out of the big 3 (China, US, EU)... it will be the UK that feels it the most, not America.Ken, that’s not really how economic exposure works. Every major economy has different vulnerabilities and different buffers, and none of them — including the USA — are insulated from a global shock triggered by a Middle Eastern war.
The EU’s biggest risks are energy prices, industrial competitiveness, and high debt in some states. But it also has buffers: diversified gas supplies compared to 2022, and fiscal space in the core economies. It would be shaken, but not collapse.
The UK has its own vulnerabilities — slower growth and exposure to energy imports — but it also has a flexible currency, an independent central bank with strong credibility, and a shorter gas supply chain than much of the EU. Households would feel the squeeze, but again, not collapse.
And the USA isn’t immune either. It’s dealing with higher inflation, higher borrowing costs, and fiscal deficits that have pushed national debt to historically high levels. A global recession triggered by a major conflict would hit American consumers, energy prices, and borrowing costs just as hard as anyone else.
So the idea that the UK would “feel it the most” simply doesn’t match the economic reality. A global shock is exactly that — global. No major economy escapes the consequences.Always have to counter in the negative, even with as obviously true and simple a statement that you just responded to.
The UK would be more seriously impacted than the United States, the primary reason is the UK has a far higher economic dependence on the EU through trade, supply chains, investment, and geography.
An EU depression would hit UK exporters, jobs, and growth much harder than the more diversified, domestically driven, Western Hemisphere focused US economy.
In 2024–2025, the EU accounted for 41% of total UK exports (48% of goods exports, 36% of services) and 51% of UK imports (54% of goods).
In comparison EU trade is about 15% of total US trade and only 3% of US GDP, the US's top partners are Canada and Mexico.
A depression in the EU would slash UK export revenues and manufacturing/services activity far more severely.
For the US, the hit is real but proportionally minor, spread across a $30+ trillion economy with many alternative markets.Ken, you’re focusing on EU–UK trade links, but that’s not the relevant exposure here. A conflict in the Strait of Hormuz isn’t a “trade with Europe” shock — it’s an energy shock, and on that front the USA is actually more exposed than either the EU or the UK.
Per‑capita oil consumption:
• USA: 23 barrels per person per year
• EU: 11
• UK: 9
The USA uses more than twice as much oil per person because of long supply chains, suburban sprawl, limited public transport, and low EV uptake. That means any spike in global oil prices hits American households harder and faster than it hits Europeans.
Natural gas tells a similar story. The EU has diversified heavily since 2022 — Norway, the USA, Algeria, and LNG from multiple suppliers. Only about 5% of EU gas now comes from the Strait of Hormuz, and the UK actually supplies around 5% of the EU’s gas itself. Both the EU and the UK are also rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels and expanding renewable energy, which steadily reduces their long‑term exposure. The USA, by contrast, remains far more dependent on oil and gas for transport, electricity, and industry.
The USA still relies on natural gas for 40% of its electricity and is dealing with higher inflation, higher borrowing costs, and historically high national debt. A global energy shock feeds straight into fuel, food, transport, and interest rates.
So yes, the UK would feel the impact — but the idea that the USA is somehow insulated doesn’t match the data. A Middle Eastern energy shock is global by definition, and the USA’s higher oil dependence means it doesn’t escape the consequences.OK... we are steering into energy...
We were discussing Social Security (and related pension/retirement services offered) and how the economy (and National Debt) of our nations puts those services at risk, now that we are circling around 134% of GDP here in America and the UK and EU aren't doing much better.
The focus then directed to economies in general... I do apologize for swaying over to the Russian-Ukraine (WWIII) scenario in one post... but the continued war does impact the EU far more than it does America.
The direction the EU takes... should it continue to struggle, or worsen into a depression... will have far more impact on the UK than America.
Now we are shifting the conversation to the Iran war and the impact on energy prices that will have... OK... it will impact the EU more than America, it will impact China and Japan and Asia in general more than America.
So... what I see going on... what the speeches made by JD Vance, Rubio, and Trump to the WEF and EU institutions when they visited over the last year... has been an effort to let the EU and UK and world know... the world is changing, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not... and you can get on board with what America is doing, or you can be left behind and fend for yourselves... good luck with that.
America (the Trump Administration) is securing the Western Hemisphere for America... we aren't apologizing for it, we aren't asking permission, we are securing our needs and our interests in a world that is surrendering to China's influence, that is OK with making deals with China as China is supporting Russia against Ukraine.
Mexico was happy to let them ship the chemicals to flood America with fentanyl, happy to let them build factories so they could ship autos using the NAFTA alliance to bypass America's restrictions, etc.
Trump put an end to that.
The Panama canal had been allowed to fall under the control of Chinese controlled companies that could have shut down the canal on America, over 40% of all ships passing through the canal are related to American interests.
Trump put an end to that.
China was investing into Greenland, to control its resources and likely to eventually establish a military/intelligence presence there.
Trump put an end to that.
Venezuela... now Iran... soon Cuba...
The Trump Administration is ensuring that America is not reliant on China for anything... from prescription drugs to computer chips... from rare earth minerals to key choke points for global trade... America is ensuring that it cannot be cut off and cannot be held hostage by a hostile foreign nation.
Since the EU does not want to support the Trump Administration's efforts... the EU can take care of itself. That was the message attempted to be sent by the Trump Administration, I don't think it sunk in for many EU elites, reality is going to hit that arrogant bunch especially hard in the not-too-distant future.Ken, I’m not trying to steer the conversation anywhere — I’m just addressing the specific claim you made earlier: that the USA would be less affected by an energy shock than the EU or the UK. The data simply doesn’t support that. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is an oil‑price shock, and the USA’s per‑capita oil dependence is more than double that of Europe. That’s why American households feel price spikes faster and harder.
The broader geopolitical points you’re raising are a separate discussion, but they don’t change the underlying maths. Energy shocks are global by definition, and the USA’s higher consumption, higher transport dependence, and higher borrowing costs mean it isn’t insulated from the consequences. That was the only point I was making.True... but America has the ability to mitigate those shortfalls, over the long term, if it is required to do so.
The problem I see, is that many do not want to accept we are in a global struggle right now, between two powers really, the rising China (BRICS) and the quietly fading (until Trump) America (SWIFT).
This struggle has a high percentage chance of becoming a global war, that will not look like anything we have seen in previous wars, that could ultimately prove to bring the collapse of human civilization.
That aside... The Iranian Theocracy is 47 years past due being terminated.
The world needs to rid itself of terrorist backing regimes that have completely incompatible beliefs to the rest of the world. Rather than letting such radical extremists work towards building nuclear missiles that can threaten the rest of the world.
Seeing the Iranian Theocracy eradicated is something I would support no matter what else was going on in the world or who was President.Ken, everyone wants to see terrorism reduced as far as possible — that’s not in dispute. The question is how you achieve that without creating even larger problems. All‑out war isn’t a solution; it’s the equivalent of trying to clear weeds by burning down the entire garden. You might remove the weeds, but you destroy everything else in the process. In the real world, terrorism is contained through a mix of diplomacy, targeted operations, intelligence work, and long‑term pressure. There’s no single, dramatic action that eliminates it, and large‑scale conflict tends to create more instability, not less.
Sometimes the only way to defeat an enemy that is determined to continually wage war, is to acknowledge this and wage war in return against them... wage war against them until they no longer exist.
This is what we have not done since WWII... to include Iraq, despite what could have been accomplished for Iraq and its people, we instead left them to the machinations of a hostile neighbor that continues to wage war against American and Iraq interests within that nation.
Allowing the Theocracy to continue to exist is no longer something the rest of the world can afford to allow. The Persian (Iranian) peoples have been subject to oppression for decades, its time we undo the horrific failures of the Carter era and eliminate this threat once and for all.
If it takes all out war... mobilizing the entire nation like it has not been since the 1940s... then this is exactly what should be done.I agree with you, Ken. If the U.S. hadn’t stepped in during WWII, there’s a good chance Europe and the UK would have ended up under German control. I feel the same way about this current war, it’s not something that can be left unresolved. It needs to be seen through to a clear outcome, where the enemy either makes major concessions or faces decisive defeat.
I have to wonder if Trump would have stepped in, at least on Europe's side. He shows himself much more aligned with their opponents way of thinking - just as he is with Putin's or Xi's.
I agree with you. Trump has repeatedly shown admiration for authoritarian‑style leaders — Putin, Xi, Orbán, Netanyahu — and he’s been openly hostile toward the EU and the UK over the last year. Given that pattern, it’s entirely reasonable to question whether he’d have stepped in on Europe’s side if a crisis like WWII happened today.
" and he’s been openly hostile toward the EU and the UK over the last year." Nthan
Can I ask for a few examples?It’s hard to believe you’ve missed the constant stream of insults Trump has directed at Europe and the UK while simultaneously praising leaders like Putin. That’s been a major factor in the growing rift between America and Europe, both in trade and defence.
And yes — I remember very clearly how he treated Zelenskyy in the White House. That spoke volumes.
Since you asked for examples, here are a few of the many public comments he’s made about UK and European leaders:
Comments about Sir Keir Starmer:
• “No Winston Churchill”
• Calling Britain’s aircraft carriers “toys”
• “Loser who has no future”
• “Coward”
• “Too scared”
• “Stupid”
• “Act of GREAT STUPIDITY”
Comments about Sadiq Khan (the Mayor of London):
• “Stone cold loser”
• “Very dumb”
• “Incompetent”
• “Nasty person”
• “A disaster”
• “National disgrace”
• “Stupid guy”
• “Terrible, terrible mayor”
And similar insults have been directed at EU leaders — Macron, Scholz, and others — including mocking Macron’s appearance and implying he was untrustworthy.
Since you asked for examples, that should be enough to be going on with.A complete list would take multiple pages. Mine would start with the threat to invade Greenland.
Damned shame we didn't follow through with it...
You have to admit, it would have been the fastest war we were ever in.
Start... Victory...Finished all in the same day.Absolutely — Trump’s Greenland threat was a serious moment, not just another insult.
Ken, the problem is that events are moving in the opposite direction to what you’re describing. It’s becoming increasingly clear that America isn’t gearing up to “crush” Iran — if anything, Trump is now looking for an off‑ramp he can sell to his supporters as a win. The all‑caps talk has faded, and the face‑saving language has begun.
And on regime change, that ship has sailed. Whatever hopes Washington once had of toppling the Iranian government have been quietly abandoned. The reality on the ground simply doesn’t match the rhetoric.Last year, Putin and Iranian President Pezeshkian signed the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, committing their countries to oppose interference by third parties in each other’s internal and external affairs.
As I have repeatedly said, we are in a global war, or struggle, and Iran is most definitely sitting in the middle of all that is going on. There is no backing away or looking for an offramp... if that is what your intelligence is telling you then it is being fed false information or is feeding you false information.
Iran is not going to be allowed to remain as a threat to the strait. I expect it may very well become the hot spot for the ongoing global conflict in ways you have not considered.
Within the past year, the United States (along with Israel) bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, military bases, and missile factories; killed high-ranking Iranian officials, military commanders, and nuclear scientists, with virtually no Russian interference.
All these cases lay bare the limitations of Russia’s power to shape outcomes around the world. If anything, Russia being tied down in Ukraine allows America the opportunity to rid the world of its remaining supporters where Russia would have normally given support, currently the focus is on Iran, Cuba is in the works as well.
It also laid bare that America (under the Trump Administration) is no longer pssyfooting around and has had enough of watching global thugs and terrorists that exist merely to spread suffering and death do whatever they want under the guise of being protected by 'international law'.
Iran is a wanton spreader of suffering and death... there is no bigger threat to global peace in the world than Iran, they are driven by zealotry they finance fanatics, they financed October 7th, if they ever get a nuke they have stated openly and repeatedly they want to use it.
All that said... the link to, and escalation of, the war on Russia is evident in these military actions being taken. Russia is “not neutral” in the Iran war, as Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin recently acknowledged, as you are probably aware of.
Russia is helping Tehran improve its drone employment tactics, Russia has been supplying Iran with targeting intelligence on U.S. troops, warships, and aircraft.
This is not new, during the incompetent Biden Administration's term, Russia reportedly provided targeting data to Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen to help the terrorist organization attack ships in the Red Sea.Ken, I want to focus on just one specific point you keep repeating — the claim that Iran is responsible for most, or even all, terrorist attacks in the West. That simply isn’t supported by any credible data.
Iran is certainly a state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, and it backs groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and various Shia militias. But when we look at actual terrorist attacks carried out in Europe and the USA in recent decades, the record is overwhelmingly clear:
It has been ISIS, Al‑Qaeda–linked actors, and domestic extremists who have carried out the vast majority of attacks — not Iran or Iranian proxies.
Europe (2014–2020)
• Paris, Nov 2015 – ISIS
• Brussels, Mar 2016 – ISIS
• Nice, Jul 2016 – ISIS‑inspired
• Berlin, Dec 2016 – ISIS‑inspired
• Manchester, May 2017 – ISIS‑inspired
• London Bridge, Jun 2017 – ISIS‑inspired
• Barcelona, Aug 2017 – ISIS‑inspired
None of these were carried out by Iran‑backed groups.
United States of America
The deadliest jihadist attacks in the USA since 2001 were:
• Orlando, 2016 – ISIS‑inspired
• San Bernardino, 2015 – ISIS‑inspired
• Boston Marathon, 2013 – jihadist‑inspired
• Numerous lone‑actor ISIS‑inspired attacks (2014–2020)
Alongside these, a large share of recent attacks and plots in the USA have come from:
• far‑right extremists
• domestic lone actors
Again, no connection to Iran.
Iran and ISIS
As you may know, all serious sources agree that Iran viewed ISIS as a major enemy:
• Sectarian hostility: ISIS is a Sunni jihadist organisation; Iran is a Shia theocracy.
• Threat to allies: ISIS threatened the Assad government and Shia communities in Iraq and Syria.
• Open enmity: ISIS propaganda repeatedly vowed to attack Iran.
Because of this, Iran fought against ISIS:
• Iraq (from 2014): Iranian‑backed militias and Quds Force officers helped defend Baghdad and fought ISIS in Tikrit, Baiji, and around Mosul.
• Syria (2012–2017): Iran supported Assad’s forces in battles against ISIS in Aleppo, Deir ez‑Zor, Palmyra, and elsewhere.
The factual bottom line
Across Europe and the USA, terrorism databases and official threat assessments consistently show that:
• ISIS and Al‑Qaeda–linked actors, plus
• far‑right and other domestic extremists
account for the overwhelming majority of attacks and plots.
Iran‑linked groups barely register when it comes to actual executed attacks on Western soil.
So while Iran is absolutely a malign actor in the region, the idea that it is behind “all” or even “most” terrorism in the West simply doesn’t match the public record.Well, ISIS is something else entirely... lets not go delving too deeply into ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Qaeda
How MI6 & the CIA Created the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda & ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXY2C-iWbVY
Not related to Iran, I agree with that.
Iran funds Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah... they are a destabilizing force in the Middle East, they are the threat to the 20% of global oil that passes through the strait.
The Theocracy is a threat to Israel and America, always has been, always will be... so lets just call an enemy an enemy and end them.Ken, thanks — and I appreciate you acknowledging that Iran isn’t behind terrorism in the West. That was the only point I was making, and it’s good to see we’re on the same page there.
As for the Engdahl video, I watched it. His argument is basically that ISIS, Al‑Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood were shaped by Western and Gulf intelligence networks — which, as you say, has nothing to do with Iran. So that part doesn’t really change anything about the point we just agreed on.
And yes, Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and yes, they’re a destabilising force in the region. Nobody’s disputing that. Where we differ is on the jump from “they’re an enemy” to “so let’s end them.” That’s the kind of thinking that turns a regional problem into a global catastrophe. Recognising a threat doesn’t automatically mean launching a war that would drag half the planet into the fire.We differ on that last part of the last paragraph.
We see what 50 years of tolerance, negotiations and patience has gotten us.
When dealing with a terrorist nation that has stated it wants to nuke Israel and the 'great satan'... why should we tolerate their continued existence?
Allowing the Theocracy to continue is like living with a known murderer who has stated over and over he wants to kill you... it makes no sense, there is no room in the world for their continued existence.Ken, this is exactly where our paths diverge. You’re talking about eliminating an entire state — and that’s not even the position of the man you support. Trump’s own 15‑point plan on Iran is built around pressure, containment, sanctions, deterrence, and forcing negotiations from a position of strength. Whatever one thinks of that plan, it’s the opposite of “end their existence.”
Even Trump isn’t proposing the kind of total war you’re describing. His approach — for better or worse — is about limiting Iran’s capabilities, not wiping the country off the map. So when you say there’s “no room in the world for their continued existence,” you’re not just disagreeing with me; you’re miles beyond what your own preferred leader is advocating.Right... I am saying what needs to be done.
The complete eradication of the Theocracy, every controlling member, every zealous supporter, hunted down like animals and eliminated, anywhere in the world.
The removal of the extremist faction controlling Iran... nothing less.
Similar to how we viewed our wars against Germany and Japan... nothing short of the complete destruction of their government system and the beliefs behind them.
Anything else is a defeat, which will eventually become a defeat of our social norms and beliefs here at home... what is the saying "if you can't beat them, join them"... if we do not defeat what is behind this extremist state, it will eventually win... a win for them is our destruction... religious, social, cultural destruction.
This regime is responsible for the types of crimes visited upon the Chinese by the Japanese... visited upon Jews by the Germans.
Letting the Iranian Theocracy continue to exist is the same as if we had allowed Germany or Japan to continue to exist as they were, after WWII.Ken, that’s all wishful thinking. Everyone would like to see the regime gone, but it’s increasingly clear that nothing short of a full‑scale ground invasion would achieve that — and that simply isn’t going to happen. At some point, Trump is going to have to negotiate with Iran, and yes, that will count as a win for Iran.
I must agree that Theocracy is a threat anywhere, in America as well as the Middle East.
The difference between Iran and the rest that were brought up is Iran's terrorists were largely confined to Israel and Israel only. America was only marginally threatened. The other's threat were worldwide.I’m with you on that. Iran’s actions have mostly been directed at Israel and within the region, whereas groups like ISIS, Al‑Qaeda and their offshoots have carried out attacks worldwide. That distinction matters, and you’ve put it clearly.
Do you have concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities? This has been one of Trump’s primary explanations for why he is conducting this war. Both past and current negotiations have focused heavily on this issue.
Here’s a clear breakdown of the main demands that have been emphasized:
1. End or Severely Limit Uranium Enrichment
Iran is being pushed to stop high-level enrichment (especially near weapons-grade, ~90%).
Under earlier agreements, enrichment was capped at 3.67%, suitable only for civilian energy.
2. Reduce or Eliminate Uranium Stockpiles
Iran would need to ship out, dilute, or destroy much of its enriched uranium.
This is to prevent having enough material on hand for a rapid nuclear breakout.
3. Shut Down or Convert Advanced Nuclear Facilities
Limits on facilities like Fordow (a hardened underground site).
Advanced centrifuges (used to enrich uranium faster) must be removed or disabled.
4. Allow Full International Inspections
Iran must grant broad access to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This includes surprise inspections and monitoring of undeclared sites.
5. Halt Weapons-Related Research
Iran is expected to stop any research tied to nuclear weaponization, such as warhead design or triggering mechanisms.No, I don’t have any concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities; Iran’s main beef is with Israel, not Europe. When you look at the wider picture, the strategic risks to Europe and the USA come from Russia, and if we’re talking about actual risks to the USA, North Korea is far closer, already has nuclear weapons, and is openly hostile — which would seem a far more immediate concern than Iran.”
And just to be clear, none of this means Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon; the international monitoring framework has always focused on enrichment levels, inspections, and declared facilities – there was never any claim from those inspection that Iran already had a functioning weapons programme.
Those five points you’ve listed are the same categories that formed the basis of the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (the JCPOA). That framework was in place for several years before Trump ripped it up.
And in any case, the situation around Iran’s nuclear facilities has already been shaped by events in recent years, including claims by Trump that the main site was destroyed two years ago, and subsequent reports that further strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at the start of this war now has anything that remained now buried under rubble and destroyed.I have to push back on several points here because the picture you’re painting is overly simplistic and ignores key facts.
In my view, Iran’s nuclear program is not just a concern for Israel; it has regional and global implications, including for U.S. interests and Gulf allies. While Iran may prioritize Israel, its capability to produce highly enriched uranium and potentially nuclear weapons directly affects strategic stability in the Middle East. Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Jordan, are actively bolstering their defenses in part because of the Iranian threat.
Comparing Iran to North Korea misses scale and infrastructure. North Korea is a smaller, regionally focused threat, but Iran has far more resources, industrial capacity, and missile delivery systems, in my opinion, making any nuclear capability significantly more consequential.
The claim that “there is no concern” because inspections exist is misleading. From my research, I have gleaned that Iran has enriched uranium up to 60 %, which is far above civilian reactor levels of 3–5 % and much closer to weapons-grade (around 90 %). We really have no way of knowing precisely what enrichment levels they currently maintain due to limited on-the-ground inspections, which leaves a critical gap in monitoring. While there is no verified evidence that Iran has a functioning nuclear weapon, the combination of high enrichment levels and stockpiles of uranium makes this a serious concern.
The JCPOA did limit enrichment and impose inspections, but it did not dismantle Iran’s program, and the agreement has a short lifespan. And was not fully respected regarding inspections of certain sites, the Iranians said were off limits.
Using these points to downplay Iran’s capabilities ignores why Ukraine is cooperating with Gulf states on drone defense. The threat from Iran is real enough that regional partners value Ukraine’s battlefield-tested drone expertise, and yet the U.S. continues to be the primary supplier of high-tech defense systems to these nations. This shows that global security is multidimensional, and threats like Iran require ongoing vigilance, not dismissal.Sharlee, I think you’re taking a series of partially correct facts and stretching them into conclusions they don’t actually support. Let me go point by point.
First, saying Iran has “global implications” doesn’t make it a comparable threat to Russia or North Korea. Plenty of countries have regional impact. The question is capability and especially immediacy; there is nothing immediate about Iran's threat. Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon nor is it anywhere close to getting one. North Korea does. Russia does. That distinction matters.
Second, the comparison to North Korea isn’t about size or industrial base—it’s about actual, demonstrated capability. North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Iran has not demonstrated a deployable nuclear weapon. Comparing a confirmed nuclear state to a potential future capability is not a like-for-like comparison.
Third, 60% enrichment is often cited, but it’s being used here to imply something it doesn’t prove. Yes, it’s higher than civilian levels and is concerning. But enrichment alone is not a weapon. There are still major steps required—weaponization, warhead design, and delivery integration—and there’s no verified evidence those steps have been completed. In addition, it is not currently accessible. Conflating enrichment with a functioning nuclear weapon is very misleading.
Fourth, the claim that “we have no way of knowing” what Iran is doing is an overstatement. Monitoring is reduced compared to the JCPOA period, but it’s not nonexistent. Intelligence doesn’t rely solely on inspectors. There are multiple methods of observation, and treating the situation as total blindness exaggerates the uncertainty.
Fifth, saying facilities like Natanz and Fordow are underground and resilient is true - remember, Trump says they are obliterated—but that doesn’t mean they are unaffected or fully operational at all times. “Resilient” is not the same as “untouched” or “fully capable.” That’s another example of turning a partial truth into a stronger claim than the evidence supports.
Finally, bringing in Ukraine and Gulf cooperation doesn’t actually strengthen the argument about Iran’s nuclear threat. It shows that Iran is a regional security concern—which no one is disputing—but it doesn’t demonstrate that Iran represents an immediate or comparable nuclear threat to the U.S. or Europe - it simply does not.
So the issue isn’t that your facts are entirely wrong—it’s that the conclusions drawn from them and the logic used in coming to those conclusions go well beyond what those facts establish.
To me, a more accurate framing would be:
Iran is a significant regional actor with a concerning but currently disabled nuclear program. But logic tells us that it does not currently pose the same level of immediate nuclear threat as countries that already possess and have tested nuclear weapons.Sharlee, I think we’re talking past each other here. I’m not claiming Iran is harmless, and I’m not claiming inspections remove all concern. My point was about proportional strategic risk. Russia already has thousands of deployed nuclear warheads, which is a threat to both Europe and the USA; and North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and long‑range delivery systems, which is a threat to the USA. Iran has neither. That’s the distinction I was making.
On the inspection issue, the picture is more nuanced than you’re presenting. Under the JCPOA, Iran accepted the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated — daily access, cameras, seals, environmental sampling. The IAEA repeatedly confirmed full compliance. When Trump tore the agreement up in 2018, Iran didn’t immediately abandon the agreement; it continued unilaterally complying for roughly a year after that in the hope the deal could be salvaged. And only after that did it began breaching limits, but even then, the IAEA still had access to declared facilities and continued monitoring enrichment levels. Physical inspections only became impossible once the 2026 war began. So the idea that we ‘have no way of knowing’ isn’t accurate — visibility is reduced, but not zero.
On enrichment: yes, Iran has gone up to 60%, but enrichment alone doesn’t produce a weapon. Weaponisation, testing, and delivery capability are separate stages, and there is no verified evidence Iran has crossed those thresholds. That’s precisely why the JCPOA existed — to cap enrichment, limit stockpiles, and maintain monitoring — and it did that effectively until it was dismantled by Trump in 2018. And the realistically, under ideal conditions, the timeline to a tested, deliverable nuclear weapon for Iran would be between 3 to 7 years - not something that could be done overnight - and something that would be rather obvious long before Iran built their first; just as it was when North Korea was developing their first nuclear bomb.
As for the regional picture, I’m not disputing that Gulf states take Iran seriously; they always have. That’s why they invest heavily in air and missile defence. Ukraine’s cooperation with them on drone defence fits that context, but it doesn’t elevate Iran to the top of the global nuclear threat list, nor does it change the basic strategic reality for Europe or the USA.
So I’m not dismissing Iran; I’m putting it in proportion. It’s a serious regional issue, but not the primary nuclear danger to Europe or the USA when compared with actors who already possess tested, deliverable nuclear weapons.I didn't realize the IAEA was still inspecting in Iran until Trump made it too dangerous.
Sorry, a typo, I meant to say 2025: Inspections became impossible on 13 June 2025, the day the Iran–Israel war began and nuclear facilities were attacked, Israel’s Operation Rising Lion; and then on 22nd June 2025 Trump followed that up with Operation Midnight Hammer, a massive strike using B-2 stealth bombers and "bunker buster" bombs. And according to Trump that destroyed any chance of Iran developing a nuclear bomb – So what is this current war all about, certainly not regime change, and certainly not to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, as they were destroyed in 2025?
Do I have concerns about Iran getting a nuclear weapon? NO! Here is why, the man who never lies said so - "Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated" - Donald Trump
I also didn't worry about it after Obama's nuclear deal which, ironically,
1. Ended Iran's Uranium Enrichment other than for civilian use
2. Reduced Iranian Uranium Stockpiles
3. Shut Down or Converted Advanced Nuclear Facilities
4. Allowed Full International Inspections
5. Halted Nuclear Weapons-Related Research
At least I didn't worry until Trump came along and destroyed it all.
Now he has started an illegal war for no reason at all.
You forget - Ken only believes his YouTube data is the truth, nobody else's. So, throwing truth at him just bounces off.
Yep, I know. Just over a week ago in this forum, Ken started his reply to me with: ‘I’m not interested in parsing data because I don’t believe in your sources or how you are perceiving what is transpiring in the world.’
That really does speak volumes.Yes, it does speak volumes...
I love how socialist lefties always work to denigrate those that consider your tripe well dressed up nonsense and speak to it as such.
I don't care that you found your facts from a 'prestigious' institution of infallible knowledge.
Any institution will put out what information serves their interests... and this has been proven over, and over, and over again.
You parse data that is taken in isolation and does not and cannot consider the full body of matters that could impact it.
Its not like you are building a house, with blueprints and detailed information as to what size lumber to use, where the plumbing is routed...
You love to isolate how this will or will not impact the UK, how the laws protect this or that... but its all BS... those laws will work only so long as they are left in place... until the body politic does away with them for something else... or until a hostile nation brings down your economy, or invades your nation... things change.
Ukraine was a great place to travel to ten years ago... not today...
Venezuela was a hell hole where people had little hope for a better future... until something recently and unexpectedly changed that...
Cuba has been a prison people have been escaping from for decades... millions of Cubans occupy Florida because of this reality... that is finally about to change.
The information you like to share, with meticulous detail, that you probably believe is as solid as the ground you walk on... isn't. Its facts and figures built on sand by the beach, all it takes is a wave to come in and wash it all away.
The UK has weathered a lot, has survived its perpetual fade into irrelevancy for the last 100 years... in large part due to its ties to America...
And what I am sure of, that you most certainly will deny, is that when America starts to seriously fade... the UK is going to fade farther, faster, than America when it declines.Ken, your worldview isn’t grounded in facts — it’s built on misinformation, disinformation, and right‑wing propaganda. No wonder you reject anything that doesn’t fit it.
That is exactly what a typical projector of misinformation and disinformation would say about someone exposing the truth for all to read.
Ken, that’s the beauty of your approach — anyone who challenges your misinformation gets labelled the problem. It saves you having to deal with the facts.
Facts are malleable, as are social, cultural, and human realities, they are capable of being changed, constructed, or redefined rather than fixed by nature or tradition.
The thing is though, Ken, is that 2 + 2 will always be 4. There is such a concept of a fact being immutable. That, Regardless of nuance and differing of opinion.
To be perfectly correct, Credence, 2 + 2 = 4 only if the number base is greater than 4, lol (Just in case Ken picks up on that "esoteric" fact.)
I guess i missed that, have been away from the more intense mathematics for a time now, but we are still plugging the same theme.
A better example: we can say that the earth is not flat, but spherical if not perfectly round.
I dunno...
Are you sure you consider yourself Progressive?
That doesn't sound right to me...
The belief that biological sex and objective facts are socially constructed or malleable is a central tenet of modern progressive ideology.
You might need a refresher course in Progressive Ideology.
It's allright, you're an old dog, I know it's hard to learn new testament...“I notice you’re shifting the goalposts from gender to biological sex, which is a different concept. Nobody—including most progressives—denies that biological sex is usually associated with XX or XY chromosomes. But science has known for decades that gender is not defined solely by those two chromosomes.” That is a fact that you are hiding from yourself.
For us “old dogs” it is apparent that the “new tricks” are worse than the old ones that came before….
You know, it is funny that you mentioned or implied that the woman vote would be a threat to the continuation of the current regime. Do you imply some characteristics and definitions for being a woman beyond the anatomical identifications? This is a way of getting under the foundation of your absolutes in this regard.
Facts, by definition, are NOT malleable. What is malleable is if one chooses to believe them or not.
Ken, that’s a neat bit of wordplay, but it doesn’t change anything. Facts aren’t ‘malleable’ in the way you’re suggesting — interpretations can vary, but the underlying evidence doesn’t reshape itself to fit anyone’s worldview. That’s the difference between information and ideology.
but Ken, isn't that what you do - project misinformation and disinformation? It is people like Nathanville that keep people grounded in the TRUTH.
Didn't you just describe his source of all news - YouTube?
YouTube may or may not reflect the truth. CNN always tries to and succeeds 99% if the time.
Social media platforms like YouTube have a serious veracity problem.
MSM demographics capture those with above average educational backgrounds while Fox captures those with below average educations.Got it... MSM is for the people without critical thinking who are prone to conform to what Big Brother tells them.
Fox is for people without higher education who are prone to distrust MSM.
And people who consider both to be tripe and untrustworthy to rely on for real facts and information... what do you call them?
They don't conform to your nice tidy perspective of "them vs us"... they cannot be slotted into either bubble, not constrained by forced-delusion.You are right, Fox is for people who have underdeveloped critical thinking skills and are easy prey of the lies, misinformation, and disinformation that network puts out.
Your first comment indicates that you may be reading challenged since what you said was 100% misinformation and not what I said.
Exactly — YouTube seems to be his entire news universe these days.
But make sure you do it ILLEGALLY. Law and Order seems to have no part in your reasoning.
Absolutely. Ken’s whole argument is basically ‘do whatever you want, legality be damned’. He’s said it openly more than once. So your point about law and order having no place in his reasoning is spot on.
If it takes all out war... mobilizing the entire nation like it has not been since the 1940s... then this is exactly what should be done.
Oh really? we will show the Trump the door long before this happens…You’re right — the American public has no appetite for anything like the kind of mobilisation Ken is fantasising about.
At this point, he’d have better luck trying to organise a village fête in a hurricane.
Thanks for the clarification, wilderness — and yes, when you break it down, our workplace pensions really aren’t as different as they might first appear. As you say, both systems involve employer and employee contributions, both build up a personal pot that follows you when you change jobs, and both operate within a regulated framework. The broad principles are very similar.
In the UK the main difference is simply that workplace pensions are managed by an independent, regulated pension provider. They invest the money on your behalf, but you don’t usually choose the specific investments yourself. Regulation limits them to safer, lower‑risk investment classes, which keeps things fairly steady over the long term.
DB schemes here — now mostly in the public sector — are still generous. Like mine, many pay around two‑thirds of final salary and are index‑linked to inflation. Strong unions have kept those protections in place, so they’ve survived where private‑sector DB schemes have largely disappeared.
On the state side, the UK system is structured differently from your Social Security. Governments here are legally prohibited from dipping into the National Insurance fund, so it can’t be used as a general spending pot. Whatever its imperfections, it isn’t a Ponzi scheme in the way you describe the pressures on SS.
Otherwise, as you say, when you take a broad look, the differences aren’t nearly as dramatic as they might seem at first glance. Two countries, two systems, but the same basic goal: giving people a bit of security in retirement.
Hi Ken, just as an aside — both my pensions go up on 1st April this year:
My workplace pension rises by 3.3%, in line with the UK inflation rate for 2025.
My State Pension rises by 4.7%, in line with average UK wage growth for 2025.
So even in retirement, our income keeps pace with the cost of living — and in this case, rises ahead of it."You are reliant on your government to provide for you... what happens when tomorrow it says it is no longer going to?"
Eh? Social Security pays an average of $24912 a year to retirees in the USA. Meanwhile the UK State pension equates to about $15,954 a year.
Meanwhile fewer than 60% of adult Americans have any sort of private retirement plan such as a 401k or 403k or IRA, in the UK 75% of adults have some sort of private pension.
So just put that question back on you, seems more of your pensioners are dependent on the state than ours? 40% of your workforce seems to ultimately have zero retirement plan beyond "eh, I'll just live on social security or work until I die", whereas that seems to be 25% of our workforce.
I feel like I am painfully aware of the need to make up lost ground in my own pension savings as a 41 year old, however I appear to have about 5 times more than the median pension pot of an American 35-44 year old, despite only investing in various index trackers (so no lucky stock pick involved here).
No idea why really as our wages are typically lower when expressed in dollars (some exceptions apply, some sectors actually pay a little more here), and I'm not what I would consider a 'high earner' (more a little above average). Perhaps its just because I don't lose a huge chunk of my pay cheque to cover health insurance so have the ability to save some wedge? Or maybe due to some other cost of living factors, or perhaps the Fentanyl, Tranq and Meth addicts in the US just bring down the averages massively (those aren't really a thing here, we're more into our cocaine), who knows.
(Thanks though for the SP500, achieved partially through having about 50% of my portfolio invested in that).
The greatest 'quality of life' indicator in my view is life expectancy. In the US that is 76.5 for males and 81.4 for females. In the UK it is 79.1 for males and 83.0 for females.
I can be expected to live 2-3 years longer than you.
Any discussion comparing standard of living or quality of life should begin with the question "why are Brits living longer than Americans?". I can think of a good 4 or 5 factors immediately.I think the point I was trying to make was that it can all go away, tomorrow.
The laws can be changed... the government can simply state it doesn't have the money, for whatever reason, and stops funding.
Pensions can disappear... a Company declares bankruptcy... a State goes insolvent... the stock market is wiped out and 401ks become worthless.
These things are far more fluid than we like to believe them to be.
If the dollar loses another 25% in value in one year's time, like it did a few years back... what you have saved might lose value, stocks are volatile and require a fair bit of knowledge to invest in wisely.
For people who do not have assets to begin with (young people) it just became that much harder to get that house, to have spare income to put into stocks, etc.
The revolution is not going to come from those of us with grey hair and assets... its going to come from the younger people who feel they have no path forwards to secure assets of their own... or a family... or a future."If the dollar loses another 25% in value in one year's time, like it did a few years back... what you have saved might lose value, stocks are volatile and require a fair bit of knowledge to invest in wisely"
Not sure why you think the dollar losing value would be a bad thing for me, as that isn't the currency I'm paid in.
I can remember when you got $2 to the £1 and Brits were all flying over the New York with empty suitcases to fill them with clothes and gadgets, its only about $1.34 to the £1.
We run a trade deficit with the US, you sell us more than you buy from us, so a collapse in the value of the dollar would be a good thing for us?
Unless you are talking inflation rather than FOREX, but I struggle to see why US inflation would be my concern, more worried about UK inflation (which has also been above the ideal rate).Hmmm... your focus on the UK... interesting, I thought it was just an Arthur thing... is that common place, to take a topic and refocus it on how it impacts the UK or people in the UK?
Take what I suggested and apply it to the UK's pension plans, 401ks, etc. or the equivalent.
As an American, I have no concern for what happens to the UK, that said, I hope you fair well, as a nation and individually.Ken, America doesn’t have a monopoly on these forums. You talk about the USA, we talk about the UK. There’s a whole world outside the American bubble.
That's just a myth... there is no world beyond North America.
Nice try tho...Ha — well, if that’s true, Ken, then I must be posting from somewhere beyond the edge of the map. Lovely view from here. But in all seriousness, it’s good to remember there’s a whole world of perspectives out there, even if we enjoy the jokes along the way.
Seems to me you started it Ken by attacking the UK.
Ryan, that’s a really clear and sensible reply — you’ve cut straight through the confusion and dealt with the actual point. Nicely put.
Ken, you’ve shifted from discussing actual conditions to imagining total systemic collapse. Ryan was talking about the real world as it exists today — wages, pensions, participation rates, life expectancy. That’s the difference.
Ryan, great post — thoughtful, well‑argued, and a welcome dose of reality in this thread. Always good to see another Brit bringing some clarity to the discussion.
Oh lordy, lordy ... Another Yank v. Brit pissing match.
*Us Yanks usually don't fare well in these matches; the Brits are more experienced. Twain had a cautioning thought (in a reverse sort of way) about such instances that makes a lot of sense. ;-)
GATook me a while to find an interesting response that was moderately applicable...
UK vs USA Culture, Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kItsPSG4tI
You might get a chuckle.Meh, on the video. Maybe a grin. I think I've seen these segments before, but the Brits are always worth a grin, if not a chuckle.
On the other hand, I like shopping at Walmart ... so ...
GA ;-)No amount of facts will ever convince an idiot - Mark Twain.
The problem today is, what are the facts?
How do you know for sure they are facts?
U.S. employment figures, where preliminary "facts" are corrected months later, are a regular feature of the Bureau of Labor Statistics...
Revisions later... like when the BLS announced that preliminary data for the year ending in March 2024 was overstated by 818,000 jobs... one of the largest in history, if I recall correctly, debunking what was "fact".
Or the Climate Change fact, Al Gore himself was saying that if we did not do something about climate change the world would come to an end as we know it... like over a decade ago?
" An Inconvenient Truth" The documentary suggested dramatic sea-level rise scenarios, with simulations depicting areas like the World Trade Center site inundated by 2016.
So many young people learned to hate themselves, humanity, for destroying the world with their carbon... that was nice of Gore, who was jet setting around the world on his private plane, to convince so many that the world was imminently facing an apocalypse scenario.
Nahhhh... you can have your modern 'facts' today... they often don't jive with the reality that is right in front of my eyes.Just keeping them honest:
"No amount of facts will ever convince an idiot - Mark Twain." - it appears Twain (my mom says I am a relative, but I couldn't find the link) was predicting the appearance of MAGA
Ken uses an example - "U.S. employment figures, where preliminary "facts" are corrected months later, are a regular feature of the Bureau of Labor Statistics..." - But everyone but Ken knows those are "Preliminary" and don't take them as established Fact. They are "fact" only at the time of reporting.
.Another example is "Or the Climate Change fact, Al Gore himself was saying that if we did not do something about climate change the world would come to an end as we know it... like over a decade ago?" - Only Ken expects the effects of climate change to happen in less than 10 years when everyone else knows that it takes many, many decades. What Gore said then was a fact and it is even more so today.
A third example is "that was nice of Gore, who was jet setting around the world on his private plane, to convince so many that the world was imminently facing an apocalypse scenario." - The problem with that is Al Gore never owned a private jet.
Based on the above, CNN has a much better record of providing facts than Ken does.That one was good, gotta give you kudos, had me laughing all the way through... especially the "my mom says I am a relative, but I couldn't find the link".
Ken, credit where it’s due — that one actually made me smile. And I’ll give you this: it’s the first time you’ve ever posted a video that’s not only enjoyable but 100% accurate. Nicely found.
Sounds like the kind of contest where, as Mark Twain might say, the loudest claim isn’t always the most convincing proof.
Uh oh. That cute bit of 'wit' concerning the Twain quote, relative to the recent thread exchanges, is waiting to bite my butt. Maybe it will go away. ;-)
GA
My question to ChatGPT---
“I’m looking for factual, sourced information on Iran’s compliance with nuclear inspections under the Obama-era JCPOA deal. Specifically, did Iran restrict access to certain sites—such as military locations—or place limits on where inspectors could go? I’m aware there’s a lot of media interpretation around this, so I’m interested in the documented facts about what was and wasn’t allowed under the agreement.”
Short answer: Yes — but it’s more nuanced than “Iran blocked inspections.”
Under the Obama-era deal (the JCPOA), Iran did not allow completely free, immediate access to all sites, especially military ones. However, it also did not have total control or a blanket ban on inspections. The reality is in between.
Here are the key facts with sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-insp … ran-true/?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
Inspectors did NOT have “anytime, anywhere” access
The deal did not allow inspectors to show up anywhere instantly, especially at military sites. Inspectors had to request access to suspicious locations.
Source: CBS News – “Obama: Inspectors can access any site in Iran, but that’s not the full story”
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/de … hatgpt.com
Iran could delay inspections (up to about 24 days)
There was a formal dispute resolution process before access was granted. This process could take up to 24 days, and critics argued it could take longer in practice.
Sources:
CBS News – notes up to 24 days could elapse
Bipartisan Policy Center – analysis of delayed inspections under the JCPOA
Military sites were a major restriction point
Iran publicly resisted inspections of military sites. Leadership in Iran stated these areas were off-limits.
Sources:
CBS News – reporting statements from Iran’s leadership
U.S. Institute of Peace (Iran Primer) – reports Iran repeatedly stated military sites were off limits https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2017/s … hatgpt.com
Some inspections were limited or controlled
Even when access was granted, it was not always unrestricted. In at least one case (Parchin), Iran collected environmental samples itself rather than allowing inspectors direct access.
Source: Los Angeles Times – reporting on inspection arrangements at Parchin
https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-f … hatgpt.com
Inspectors DID have strong access to declared nuclear facilities
The deal allowed continuous monitoring at known nuclear sites and created one of the most extensive inspection systems in place at the time.
Source: CBS News – reporting on monitoring provisions under the JCPOA
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-insp … hatgpt.com
Bottom line:
Yes, Iran restricted immediate access to certain sites, especially military ones.
Yes, inspections of suspicious sites could be delayed.
No, inspectors were not completely blocked from the process.
And yes, inspectors had continuous access to declared nuclear facilities.
Simple summary you can use:
Under Obama’s Iran deal, inspections were not “anytime, anywhere.” Iran could restrict and delay access to certain sites, especially military locations, but inspectors still had strong, continuous monitoring at known nuclear facilities."
Related Discussions
- 96
Is Hubpages Dead?
by Anne Ryefield 7 months ago
Maybe it's that we authors aren't active on the forums, but it seems like Hubpages isn't thriving behind the scenes these days. Do you think HP is a sinking ship?
- 50
What are your experiences in hubpages so far?
by Umesh Chandra Bhatt 4 years ago
There are some writers who are working here for quite some time may be more than 5-6 years and at the same time there are some who have completed only a few years or have recently joined the portal for contributing their bit.I want to know from the writers whether they are happy with their journey...
- 14
Has your writing improved over the years?
by MarieLB 9 years ago
Has your writing improved over the years?How long have you been publishing your writings & has your writing improved much since then? How?
- 24
Do I alone shudder in the Horror imagining another 4 years of Obama spending and
by Sheila 14 years ago
Do I alone shudder in the Horror imagining another 4 years of Obama spending and Governent Control?Obama has spent more than any other President in US history. What do we have to show for it? This Country will no longer be "American" if we have another 4 years of this fiasco. This...
- 75
Celebrating 11 Years on HubPages
by Shauna L Bowling 3 years ago
I received notification today that this is my 11th Hubbiversary. Seems hard to believe. I remember when I first joined HP. I posted mostly poetry at the time. I was always thrilled each time I was notified of new followers. Oooh - I have five followers! Twenty! Thirty! I was so green. With the help...
- 13
Have you noticed any difference in yourself.
by Eiddwen 13 years ago
Since joining HubPages a good while ago now my writing has been a therapy from heart-breaking issues in my life.Today I know and feel that I am healing since my daughter Erin's passing but not just this I have grown as a person and a writer.I understand myself / I know who I am and my self...