Burns-bass

Here’s mine cuddling a Brompton. Quite why it’s doing this I don’t know.

I have one of these and have used it for hundreds of gigs. It’s an amazing bass and the Rosewood board is solid as a rock and beautifully made. This has the vintage pickups which sound great and a really well designed bridge. I paid less than this when the bass was brand new, however.

This is common on these basses. This one is (relatively) local to me and I bet there’s a story with it. Will take one of the team and stick in a speculative bid.

Exactly this. Keir Starmer putting troops into Ukraine is a direct provocation and escalatory. (we already have special forces there to be fair, but they’re not in direct conflict, apparently)

Listen to yourself. You really want to put the UK on the road to war with Russia? I’m sure all this stuff sounds great in your mind. Feel free to grab your gun and crack on, but don’t take the rest of us with you. Russia has always wanted to have a buffer zone around it to protect it from NATO and the western sphere of influence. This has been part of the uneasy peace deals we’ve had for years. Any peace deal will establish that again with a backstop if they break this. I agree we should re-arm, but stealing Russian funds is utterly mad given how much UK and global cash is managed abroad by our banking sector. You set a precedent like that and we’ll have the mother of all recessions here as half the world realises they can’t trust us with their cash.

Absolutely agree. But your point here about the Russian economy in meltdown and a lack of manpower surely illustrate how ludicrous it is to suggest they'll roll through Ukraine and attack Poland...? One of the biggest issues for the US is how the conflict has pushed Russia into much closer relationships with China. In the future, this could be hugely dangerous to us all.

The problem is, we have no stick – the Amercians do. As distasteful as it is, agreeing a peace isn't about losing face, it's reflecting the reality that we (the UK and Europe) don't want war, couldn't fight or or afford one.

If you think that would have stopped escalation you're absolutely mad. That would have caused WW3 – and it still could if we send our troops there.

The question for me isn't what I find morally wrong, it's at what point do you commit UK troops to directly engage Russian ones? That's the question. Personally, it would be if a NATO member is directly attacked. We can stamp our feet and talk about how awful Putin is, but we're complicit in looking the other way at conflicts across the world.

Oh, and I know people find it distasteful that we sometimes need to placate regimes (and individuals like Putin) with abhorrent political views, but it's what the UK has done throughout history. The UK has no moral high ground.

I'm sure he's said an awful lot of things. Trump has said he's going to make Canada a US state. Do you believe that? I'm not an apologist for Putin, but a pragmatist. If he attempts to invade Poland or Latvia (which he won't) then NATO would have every right to go to war. I also think that we should rebuild our armed forces, invest in our manufacturing base to produce arms and provide support where it's needed. But the histrionic nonsense about Russia an existential threat to the UK from Starmer that inflames tension just makes people afraid. Here's a reasonable article setting out that premise and why we need a European realignment: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/21/donald-trump-jd-vance-europe-us-realignment.

Putin isn't directly threatening the UK. We need to reconsider just what level of threat this is to you, me and our way of life and work from there. Starmer may relish his role as a statesman and commit to putting troops on the ground in Ukraine, but this is a really dangerous path to follow. The media seems impossible of conceptualising this through any other paradigm than WW2, but Putin isn't Hitler and he's not about to set tanks rolling across Europe toward London. But surely we have leverage? Err, what exactly? The UK has no empire anymore. We have no industrial base and we have no armed forces. W As part of Europe and NATO, we can define a response, but the idea of the UK as having any direct influence or power is nonsense. Our real leverage here is the relationship we have with America, and that – as the treatment of Zelensky shows – can change very quickly and decisively. While it's great to Starmer rack up the air miles and talk a good game, it's just that. Talking.

Thanks for this. I’ll give it a go when I get a chance. I feel really guilty having something so cool just left in the corner.

It’s taunting me…

Which is why it’s so odd they chose Mandelson. Guess maybe he and Trump met on Epstein island

I’m sure it’s meant in a lighthearted way, but Europeans are arrogant and widely consider ourselves to be culturally and intellectually superior. Read any newspaper to see the way they speak about Trump. I don’t like the guy, but I can sort of understand why he has a chip on his shoulder.

Here we go: https://www.guitar-auctions.co.uk/sale/234/394/Ric-Grech-Blind-Faith--1966-Fender-Precision-Bass-guitar-made-in-USA Looks cool. I bought a few basses from Barry Matthews in the olden times (2003/4). Lovely fella.

Completely agree.

Zelensky has no power and no leverage. As awful as it sounds, it’s true. Trump knows it, Putin knows it and Europe’s leaders know it. We simply don’t have the cash in hand or the manufacturing base to create arms at the scale needed by Ukraine. Surely we have power? The entire UK infantry could fit into Wembley Stadium with about 10,000 empty seats. Ukraine has no future without the USA, regardless of how many supportive tweets European leaders punch out tonight with their PR teams.

So Zelensky’s pride is intact but arms shipments have stopped. What’s better for the people of Ukraine? Zelensky hasn’t fought the war single handed, has he? Ukrainians are proud people and incredibly strong, but they’re being propped up by the US. Without that guarantee, they’d have lost by now. I agree with your assessment of Trump. I’m not supporting him, I’m merely suggesting that an experienced statesperson would have handled this differently.

My dad used to live in America so we spent a lot of time there, and they’re some of the loveliest, friendliest and most loyal people you’ll meet. They are also incredibly patriotic with an almost religious belief in the sanctity of the country. Zelensky will be seen to have insulted America and I think will tarnish his image. Watching the footage on the BBC, I think this was a pre-planned attack.

To be fair, I’m watching it now on the BBC and this looks less like a breakdown in communication than a calibrated and pre-planned attack from Vance. Hearing it on the radio was slightly different.

Trump may be humiliated in the eyes of liberal Europeans, but to his domestic audience this will play very well. (If we look at sheer numbers, most of the world sides with Russia. China, India, much of Africa and South America do, for example, and this will play well there too.) The problem now is that European nations can’t and won’t get directly involved. We have no leverage without the USA.

Yes. If you park your personal animosity to Trump (which I share, by the way) you have to understand he’s in charge. Trump is a mafia boss. You pay your tribute to him and follow his rules, or you’re ostracised. Zelensky’s pride could cause the deaths of many thousands and see significant losses of territory. It also emboldens Russia. I 100% agree Trump is a horrid person, a bully, a misogynist and quite probably senile. But he’s in charge.