Its a really weird coincidence that all of the Top 3 title contenders clubs are playing at 3pm with none of their fixtures televised this weekend. That doesn't happen very often.
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
Its a really weird coincidence that all of the Top 3 title contenders clubs are playing at 3pm with none of their fixtures televised this weekend. That doesn't happen very often.
Sounds like good results for Chelsea.
But they will be televised. Abroad where the money is.
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
Having laws that are enforced at the whim of the police is a recipe for discrimination and corruption.
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
I would suggest that the point is that, for the example of metrication, it is not a law that should have been passed at all or enforced on anyone. But if it is passed then it should be enforced uniformly. That is not to say it should not be challenged or criticised. I am not talking of blind adherence to laws no matter how stupid they are. Only that those actually charged with enforcing them should do so without fear, without favour and without fail. It is for the courts and the jury to then subsequently decide if that law should stand or if there are mitigating circumstances. That I fully accept.
As I said in the point you replied to. If you do not enforce laws uniformly then that opens up the possibility of laws being used by the authorities to persecute those who they dislike whilst those they agree with are allowed to break them. That in turn then becomes a means of coercive control whereby people are unclear about what they can and cannot do and so are prevented from doing things that are not actually illegal. A situation that obviously the authorities quite like.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
I have no idea what will happen, neither do I have any knowledge of the details of the fishing licences to say who is in the right or wrong.
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
This is going to make me sound old but I genuinely don't think they make them like they did anymore.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
I have no idea what will happen, neither do I have any knowledge of the details of the fishing licences to say who is in the right or wrong.
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
Maybe the neighbours need to grow up and accept we have left
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
I have no idea what will happen, neither do I have any knowledge of the details of the fishing licences to say who is in the right or wrong.
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
The French have always done this though: think BSE or lamb, long before we voted for Brexit, let alone left.
Has somebody hacked Horse? If so, why? This isn't Facebook. If this really is you putting out these little one line updates, @CorrectHorseBattery , why? Are you ok, and if not, is there anything you want to get off your chest? You are amongst friends, even if we disagree on some things. Chin up, old chap.
Regarding Frost's thread, I see that he has used the symbol for Nanometres not Nautical Miles .
2 We have been in talks with the EU Commission for weeks on fisheries licensing & have granted 98% of applications. We do so in good faith & are fully delivering on our TCA obligation - to license vessels which can prove they have actually fished previously in our 6-12nm
Also separating UK and Jersey. Which was something the French Govt tried to do but did not manage.
It's also really interesting that he is replying for UK licenses and threats which will affect the UK, in response to the French Govt threats, as he has no responsibility for licenses to fish in Jersey waters, which is the Jersey Govt.
UK Govt is formally only responsible I think for being a communication channel to EU on behalf of Jersey.
Lots of FBPE types ranting away about how *he* has done the things actually done by the Jersey Govt.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
This is going to make me sound old but I genuinely don't think they make them like they did anymore.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
I know people try to, but no-one can properly sing along to Bohemian Rhapsody: the range is insane and only a vocal genius like Freddie Mercury or the tiny number of singers who can match what he could do can actually sing it.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
This is going to make me sound old but I genuinely don't think they make them like they did anymore.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
Hang on, sort of agree on Sheeran but Adele and Beyonce don't have anthems? That's not true. They both had Glasto in the palm of their hands.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
This is going to make me sound old but I genuinely don't think they make them like they did anymore.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
They DO make them like they used to. But culture is so fragmented now that we don't all listen to the same things in the same way. There are dozens of anthems out there but nota single audience listening to them all. I listen to Radio 6 and XS Manchester, and honestly couldn't tell you for sure more than five songs which have been in the charts in the last fifteen years. We can opt out of the mainstream in a way that previous generations simply could not. Ditto television.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
I have no idea what will happen, neither do I have any knowledge of the details of the fishing licences to say who is in the right or wrong.
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
Does the EU have good relations with its other neighbours?
The French would be well advised to back down, they've probably got enough to save face. If they continue with the blockade nonsense, Mon Dieu
Personally, I would cancel all the French fishing licenses and say 'fuck you'.
All 738 of them? - more than half the total continental EU allocation. Only Ireland - with less than half the French numbers comes remotely close. Odd how no other EU members have had problems.....
You've got to feel a bit sorry for the Auss...actually, no I don't.
As Matthew Engel, the former correspondent of the Guardian, so memorably wrote: “It is important to remember the verities of cricket between England and Australia. Winning is not what matters . . . it is about renewing old friendships in a spirit of sporting endeavours between two nations with a common bond. But, by God, isn’t it great to beat the bastards?”
The French would be well advised to back down, they've probably got enough to save face. If they continue with the blockade nonsense, Mon Dieu
Personally, I would cancel all the French fishing licenses and say 'fuck you'.
All 738 of them? - more than half the total continental EU allocation. Only Ireland - with less than half the French numbers comes remotely close. Odd how no other EU members have had problems.....
If the 55 unlicensed boats do not get a licence Macron is not going to be popular in Northern France
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
This is going to make me sound old but I genuinely don't think they make them like they did anymore.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
I know people try to, but no-one can properly sing along to Bohemian Rhapsody: the range is insane and only a vocal genius like Freddie Mercury or the tiny number of singers who can match what he could do can actually sing it.
That's the fun of it though - belting it out and sounding like Alan Partridge.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
I have no idea what will happen, neither do I have any knowledge of the details of the fishing licences to say who is in the right or wrong.
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
Does the EU have good relations with its other neighbours?
The French would be well advised to back down, they've probably got enough to save face. If they continue with the blockade nonsense, Mon Dieu
Personally, I would cancel all the French fishing licenses and say 'fuck you'.
But that's why I'm not in international statesman.
I wonder what the reaction would be from Ireland, Belgium, Denmark etc if the UK said that if the French want to change the terms of the fishing agreement then it’s necessary and right to suspend all away fishing licences until it’s agreed.
Would they suddenly take France’s side or would they pressure France to stop being silly…..?
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
Having laws that are enforced at the whim of the police is a recipe for discrimination and corruption.
I can see the point but I don't think that happens or when it does the police who do it should be prosecuted. We are talking about what actually happens here already. I haven't suggested anything radical. As has already been pointed out the police already do use their discretion with regard to traffic laws and drug laws as I believe they should and I'm sure there are other cases as well. I have no objection to them doing so if appropriate. I think they should. I don't think it is a recipe for discrimination or corruption as If you break the law you can not and should not rely on the police letting you off and if they do show corruption or discrimination, they should be punished appropriately.
A good example of how this could be done better is comparing the travel requirement of the UK, France and Portugal re Covid (the only countries I have travelled to and from in this time). None of the requirements of any of the countries are enforceable from a practical point of view. I could bore for hours as to how most of the proof you have to provide is unverifiable and nobody actually puts any effort into verifying it. It is all done on trust. So the French and Portuguese recognise this by what they require you to fill in. The UK doesn't by making it so much more complicated, yet equally as leaky. Basically for all 3 there are rules. Honest people check the rules and obey them, which is the majority and they achieve what they want in a costly manner.
Pass laws, enforce them where necessary. Prosecute the police if they abuse that. It is what we do at the moment anyway. Just be more flexible.
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
Brussels may have something to say quietly about that.
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Or they may just want to wave the big stick. After all Article 16 permits reasonable counter measures, and they might feel it appropriate to demonstrate that.
Err...
- We haven't invoked Article 16 - Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
Yes, that is why it would be a wave of the stick, rather than a whack with it. That would come with Article 16.
So you're predicting they will back down and accept the offer from Jersey?
I have no idea what will happen, neither do I have any knowledge of the details of the fishing licences to say who is in the right or wrong.
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
Does the EU have good relations with its other neighbours?
Mostly so I think.
Fishing patterns, and disputes over them in the Channel and North Sea long predate the EU.
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
Having laws that are enforced at the whim of the police is a recipe for discrimination and corruption.
I can see the point but I don't think that happens or when it does the police who do it should be prosecuted. We are talking about what actually happens here already. I haven't suggested anything radical. As has already been pointed out the police already do use their discretion with regard to traffic laws and drug laws as I believe they should and I'm sure there are other cases as well. I have no objection to them doing so if appropriate. I think they should. I don't think it is a recipe for discrimination or corruption as If you break the law you can not and should not rely on the police letting you off and if they do show corruption or discrimination, they should be punished appropriately.
A good example of how this could be done better is comparing the travel requirement of the UK, France and Portugal re Covid (the only countries I have travelled to and from in this time). None of the requirements of any of the countries are enforceable from a practical point of view. I could bore for hours as to how most of the proof you have to provide is unverifiable and nobody actually puts any effort into verifying it. It is all done on trust. So the French and Portuguese recognise this by what they require you to fill in. The UK doesn't by making it so much more complicated, yet equally as leaky. Basically for all 3 there are rules. Honest people check the rules and obey them, which is the majority and they achieve what they want in a costly manner.
Pass laws, enforce them where necessary. Prosecute the police if they abuse that. It is what we do at the moment anyway. Just be more flexible.
Having unenforceable laws is also a very bad idea, but if the police are going to be selective in their application of the law there better be a very full set of guidelines somewhere as to how they go about it or else certain groups are going to find themselves pulled over or stoped by the police far more often than others.
Sky report just now had a Jersey fisherman say that if France closes the ports they land their fish at next tuesday he backs Boris in taking on France
600 years on from Agincourt and we've not made a huge amount of progress in Anglo-French relations, have we?
Wouldn’t the Jersaymen, at the time of Agincourt, been backing France
No - Jersey was part of the English Crown by then - they split from Normandy when King John lost Normandy. He offered Jersey and Guernsey etc their special status in return for choosing his team which is why the Channel Islands are unique in considering John a “good king”….
Although Jersey paid for it heavily until after the Napoleonic wars with constant attacks and invasions by the French.
Culturally there is a long affinity with Normandy including the language being Jersey Norman French and long practical relations with Brittany (itself pretty independent from France for a long time) but very little love for the rest of France.
As for TSE’s comment about collaborating- I’m sure, brave lad that he is, he would have been operating a resistance cell hiding out in the huge forests and mountain ranges away from the twenty-odd thousand German troops in a 45 square mile island. I salute you!
Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.
And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'
How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?
This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
Well I answered that.
a) The log book probably goes with the boat.
b) Do you keep your old car records?
c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.
Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo
How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Proper licence enforcement in both cases. The issue is not that the laws are now being enforced but that they were not before. Don't pass laws that you either cannot or choose not to enforce.
Totally agreed. If a law doesn't need to be enforced, it shouldn't be the law.
Otherwise you're just giving a competitive advantage to whoever is prepared to break the law.
More dangerously to my mind you are giving the authorities licence to pick and choose how and when they enforce it to serve their own ends.
Although I agree with the point you make there Richard I don't agree with your original point of not passing laws you choose not to enforce, although I see how one might lead to the other.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
I would suggest that the point is that, for the example of metrication, it is not a law that should have been passed at all or enforced on anyone. But if it is passed then it should be enforced uniformly. That is not to say it should not be challenged or criticised. I am not talking of blind adherence to laws no matter how stupid they are. Only that those actually charged with enforcing them should do so without fear, without favour and without fail. It is for the courts and the jury to then subsequently decide if that law should stand or if there are mitigating circumstances. That I fully accept.
As I said in the point you replied to. If you do not enforce laws uniformly then that opens up the possibility of laws being used by the authorities to persecute those who they dislike whilst those they agree with are allowed to break them. That in turn then becomes a means of coercive control whereby people are unclear about what they can and cannot do and so are prevented from doing things that are not actually illegal. A situation that obviously the authorities quite like.
See reply to Physics Teacher.
I once went on a Police driving course, many decades ago and they talked about the leeway they give. So none next to a school when the kids are coming out, yet flexible at 3 am on an empty motorway. People then started asking for specifics with lots of 'what about if I am doing ....'.
Eventually he got really fed up and said if any of you are speeding you can get nicked regardless without excuse. Even if you think it should have been within some sort of leeway if the copper has had an argument with his wife that morning then tough.
If it happened to me I might not like it, but I accept it.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
Lets hope with the end of COVID we can have more of that type of stuff.
This also happened at my niece's wedding in Rhodes, Greece, in 2019 (sob, it all seems so innocent and far away now).
During the dinner someone started singing Bohemian Rhapsody and then half the entire wedding party joined in and we carried it all the way to end, word perfect. It is a miraculous song in its ability to do that, over 6 minutes. It is partly because it is so varied, and also because it has three or four moments of very different ecstasy. That makes it easy to remember and sing, somehow, and it is always moving when sung with passion
Not quite on the same level but I remember during the height of Britp going to a pub in Sheffield and a guy started playing the Oasis song Don’t look back in Anger on the piano and most of the pub joined in. It still remains a really happy memory.
That was the song that wrapped up Our Friends In The North, as Craig walked over the Tyne bridge. Why has that series never been repeated? Seems odd.
Oasis were not the greatest band, but at least they pumped out a few great singalong anthems.
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
I feel that but you have to allow the possibility it's that we lack the 2 things needed to know it - youth and then the looking back upon it. Oasis were derivative and samey and bombastic but they had weight.
Indeed, however I have quite a few friends in their 20s and they report that this is true. When they want to sing along to a song, they have to go back many years, often to songs written well before they were born - like Bohemian Rhapsody
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
This is going to make me sound old but I genuinely don't think they make them like they did anymore.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
Hang on, sort of agree on Sheeran but Adele and Beyonce don't have anthems? That's not true. They both had Glasto in the palm of their hands.
I grant I'm not really the target market, but they don't really do singalong tunes though, do they? I am lukewarm on Oasis (actually, they did one brilliant album, a quite good one, and had they stopped then I'd be as big a fan as anyone) is that they can be sung along at volume by an everyman.
My greatest ever singalong moment was watching the Smiths tribute band 'the Smyths' at the Flowerpot in Derby. I'm too young to have seen the actual Smiths live. But I think there's something a bit more hard-core about the audience at a tribute band anyway. They did a two-half set, and concluded the first half with 'How Soon is Now' - being in a crowd of about 150 people, all belting out the line 'There's a club if you want to go; you could meet someone who really loves you. So you go and you stand on your own, and you leave on your own, and you go home and you cry and you want to die' was one of the most joyful, euphoric moments of my life. Possibly because the reality was the exact opposite of the sentiment being sung. I saw not-Moz in the pub afterwards. Offstage, he really didn't look that much like Morrissey. Onstage though he was brilliant: voice and mannerisms just perfect. Only just short of parody - but then that was true of the real Morrissey too.
Sky report just now had a Jersey fisherman say that if France closes the ports they land their fish at next tuesday he backs Boris in taking on France
600 years on from Agincourt and we've not made a huge amount of progress in Anglo-French relations, have we?
Wouldn’t the Jersaymen, at the time of Agincourt, been backing France
No - Jersey was part of the English Crown by then - they split from Normandy when King John lost Normandy. He offered Jersey and Guernsey etc their special status in return for choosing his team which is why the Channel Islands are unique in considering John a “good king”….
Although Jersey paid for it heavily until after the Napoleonic wars with constant attacks and invasions by the French.
Culturally there is a long affinity with Normandy including the language being Jersey Norman French and long practical relations with Brittany (itself pretty independent from France for a long time) but very little love for the rest of France.
As for TSE’s comment about collaborating- I’m sure, brave lad that he is, he would have been operating a resistance cell hiding out in the huge forests and mountain ranges away from the twenty-odd thousand German troops in a 45 square mile island. I salute you!
Easy. He would have appeared in such inspiring clothing speaking French a la Officer Crabtree that the Germans would all have surrendered in panic on the grounds that Martians had just invaded.
Sky report just now had a Jersey fisherman say that if France closes the ports they land their fish at next tuesday he backs Boris in taking on France
600 years on from Agincourt and we've not made a huge amount of progress in Anglo-French relations, have we?
Wouldn’t the Jersaymen, at the time of Agincourt, been backing France
The Jersey folk have a lot in common with the French.
Both collaborated with the Nazis for starters.
Given Jersey had 11,700 German troops in 119km sq (98 per sq km) and France had 100,000 troops in 330,000 sq km in the Occupied Zone (0.3 per sq km) I think they faced rather different challenges....
Sky report just now had a Jersey fisherman say that if France closes the ports they land their fish at next tuesday he backs Boris in taking on France
600 years on from Agincourt and we've not made a huge amount of progress in Anglo-French relations, have we?
Wouldn’t the Jersaymen, at the time of Agincourt, been backing France
No - Jersey was part of the English Crown by then - they split from Normandy when King John lost Normandy. He offered Jersey and Guernsey etc their special status in return for choosing his team which is why the Channel Islands are unique in considering John a “good king”….
Although Jersey paid for it heavily until after the Napoleonic wars with constant attacks and invasions by the French.
Culturally there is a long affinity with Normandy including the language being Jersey Norman French and long practical relations with Brittany (itself pretty independent from France for a long time) but very little love for the rest of France.
As for TSE’s comment about collaborating- I’m sure, brave lad that he is, he would have been operating a resistance cell hiding out in the huge forests and mountain ranges away from the twenty-odd thousand German troops in a 45 square mile island. I salute you!
I'm not expecting a full Maquis style insurgency.
Just don't roll out the red carpet for the occupiers.
I mean I've watched the documentary The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society which was an accurate representation of life in the Channel Islands during WWII.
The French would be well advised to back down, they've probably got enough to save face. If they continue with the blockade nonsense, Mon Dieu
That's not a compromise.
It's the status as at last Wednesday of the continuing process.
IMO if Jersey shift their position from "we are pursuing the process according to the evidence provided" that will invite the French govt to continue with their bullying.
It stops here, is taken through the dispute process, or the farm has been sold.
Comments
Sounds like good results for Chelsea.
With the exception of road traffic laws which the Police do tend to enforce according to their own judgement (wisely usually) we do have a habit otherwise of enforcing laws in this country (a jobs worth attitude) regardless of the circumstances and where common sense should prevail. This has the downside of making it difficult to pass effective laws so some potentially good laws don't get passed because of all the potential exceptions and also laws being enforced when clearly it wasn't meant for a particular purpose. A good example might be the metrication rules for shops which should be obeyed by supermarkets, but if a market stallholder wants to sell in pounds and ounces, then fine. I mean who are they harming?
I have experienced the common sense approach by traffic cops on 3 occasions and the nonsense of a parking fine for doing the right thing but not complying with a technicality whereas if I had done the wrong thing, the technicality wouldn't have been needed and I would have been fine, but the rules are the rules.
And just to annoy @MaxPB because he obviously think I am some raving Francophile I think the French are far better at this than us. Plenty of rules that are just waived when not necessary.
Thought not.
Abroad where the money is.
Actually, sun is shining for first time in days and just had coffee with a friend. Now all I need is a hot date!!!
Possibly the last British band to do that? What will kids today and tomorrow sing along to?
It is a great failure of modern pop music. it no longer produces anthems that define the age and capture your youth - as far as I can tell
The EU is a process-obsessed bureaucracy, and they do not like their own countries breaking their treaties.
Down to 1.09 already now.
Before we head to Scotland next week, we thought we'd get together and try some of the local cuisine... #COP26Glasgow
https://twitter.com/USAmbUK/status/1454404931763462144?s=20
As I said in the point you replied to. If you do not enforce laws uniformly then that opens up the possibility of laws being used by the authorities to persecute those who they dislike whilst those they agree with are allowed to break them. That in turn then becomes a means of coercive control whereby people are unclear about what they can and cannot do and so are prevented from doing things that are not actually illegal. A situation that obviously the authorities quite like.
- We haven't invoked Article 16
- Article 16 says that countermeasures have to be "proportionate" and limited to what is "strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-59077644
The French would be well advised to back down, they've probably got enough to save face. If they continue with the blockade nonsense, Mon Dieu
There is no mass, shared music culture, any more, and modern music is not providing these communal moments.
That's what I am told. anyhow
Good Haka
It is a pity though that we poisoned our relationship with our neighbours to this degree. It is like neighbours sueing each other over the height of a hedge and who cuts it. No one wins.
Think of the songs that are great singlealongs - things like Bohemian Rhapsody, Sweet Caroline, Summer of 69, Wonderwall etc - they were made decades apart but are all properly anthemic to sing along to.
Singers like Ed Sheeran or Adelle or Beyonce just aren't anthemic in the same way.
But that's why I'm not in international statesman.
And another.
If this really is you putting out these little one line updates, @CorrectHorseBattery , why? Are you ok, and if not, is there anything you want to get off your chest?
You are amongst friends, even if we disagree on some things. Chin up, old chap.
2 We have been in talks with the EU Commission for weeks on fisheries licensing & have granted 98% of applications. We do so in good faith & are fully delivering on our TCA obligation - to license vessels which can prove they have actually fished previously in our 6-12nm
Also separating UK and Jersey. Which was something the French Govt tried to do but did not manage.
It's also really interesting that he is replying for UK licenses and threats which will affect the UK, in response to the French Govt threats, as he has no responsibility for licenses to fish in Jersey waters, which is the Jersey Govt.
UK Govt is formally only responsible I think for being a communication channel to EU on behalf of Jersey.
Lots of FBPE types ranting away about how *he* has done the things actually done by the Jersey Govt.
Say it quietly, but should England be tournament favourites?
England unbackable now on Betfair Sandpit. Can be laid for 1.01.
Ditto television.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ashes-relevance-nil-but-when-england-and-australia-collide-theres-always-meaning-q5wll7b90
Would they suddenly take France’s side or would they pressure France to stop being silly…..?
A good example of how this could be done better is comparing the travel requirement of the UK, France and Portugal re Covid (the only countries I have travelled to and from in this time). None of the requirements of any of the countries are enforceable from a practical point of view. I could bore for hours as to how most of the proof you have to provide is unverifiable and nobody actually puts any effort into verifying it. It is all done on trust. So the French and Portuguese recognise this by what they require you to fill in. The UK doesn't by making it so much more complicated, yet equally as leaky. Basically for all 3 there are rules. Honest people check the rules and obey them, which is the majority and they achieve what they want in a costly manner.
Pass laws, enforce them where necessary. Prosecute the police if they abuse that. It is what we do at the moment anyway. Just be more flexible.
I think the election is on Tuesday the 2nd not Thursday.
doesn't change an exhalant header, but thought I would add that. (sorry if its already been mentioned)
Both collaborated with the Nazis for starters.
It's always a pleasure to watch the All Blacks and they look brutal here, however Wales are giving them a proper test
And the atmosphere is intense, unlike Dubai or Murrayfield
Jos Buttler = Stepson
When did the channel islands start speaking English as their 'Linga franker' I have a felling is fairly recently?
Reply: 'Sweater.'
(Serious question)
Fishing patterns, and disputes over them in the Channel and North Sea long predate the EU.
Oh, wait that already happens...
Although Jersey paid for it heavily until after the Napoleonic wars with constant attacks and invasions by the French.
Culturally there is a long affinity with Normandy including the language being Jersey Norman French and long practical relations with Brittany (itself pretty independent from France for a long time) but very little love for the rest of France.
As for TSE’s comment about collaborating- I’m sure, brave lad that he is, he would have been operating a resistance cell hiding out in the huge forests and mountain ranges away from the twenty-odd thousand German troops in a 45 square mile island. I salute you!
England - 11 and counting.
Jos Buttler - 8 on his own.
I once went on a Police driving course, many decades ago and they talked about the leeway they give. So none next to a school when the kids are coming out, yet flexible at 3 am on an empty motorway. People then started asking for specifics with lots of 'what about if I am doing ....'.
Eventually he got really fed up and said if any of you are speeding you can get nicked regardless without excuse. Even if you think it should have been within some sort of leeway if the copper has had an argument with his wife that morning then tough.
If it happened to me I might not like it, but I accept it.
England = Klopp
Buttler = Mo Salah
My greatest ever singalong moment was watching the Smiths tribute band 'the Smyths' at the Flowerpot in Derby. I'm too young to have seen the actual Smiths live. But I think there's something a bit more hard-core about the audience at a tribute band anyway. They did a two-half set, and concluded the first half with 'How Soon is Now' - being in a crowd of about 150 people, all belting out the line 'There's a club if you want to go; you could meet someone who really loves you. So you go and you stand on your own, and you leave on your own, and you go home and you cry and you want to die' was one of the most joyful, euphoric moments of my life. Possibly because the reality was the exact opposite of the sentiment being sung.
I saw not-Moz in the pub afterwards. Offstage, he really didn't look that much like Morrissey. Onstage though he was brilliant: voice and mannerisms just perfect. Only just short of parody - but then that was true of the real Morrissey too.
I think I knew that (“For meeeeee!” I think?). Even so, just the solo bits are very hard to get right.
Just don't roll out the red carpet for the occupiers.
I mean I've watched the documentary The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society which was an accurate representation of life in the Channel Islands during WWII.
It's the status as at last Wednesday of the continuing process.
IMO if Jersey shift their position from "we are pursuing the process according to the evidence provided" that will invite the French govt to continue with their bullying.
It stops here, is taken through the dispute process, or the farm has been sold.
And I still lost...