Here is - no joke - virtually the only photo of the Armenian genocide in action (there is no gore)
It shows Armenians being marched out of a town - into the deserts where they were killed in their thousands: starved, drowned, pushed over cliffs. Dozens of children were tied together and thrown in rivers
It was an unspeakable crime yet we have about four photos and this is one
So we forget. We don’t even learn in the first place
Sadly, people never cared very much about the Armenians. European governments cared far more about Greeks or Bulgarians being massacred by Turks (not so much about Turks being massacred by Greeks and Bulgarians), because they were classically educated. It wasn't about the lack of photography.
Again. I disagree
Imagine if we had thousands of photos of THIS:
"At least 150,000 Armenians passed through Erzindjan from June 1915, where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site at the nearby Kemah gorge.[172] Thousands of Armenians were killed near Lake Hazar, pushed by paramilitaries off the cliffs.[168] More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, one of the deadliest areas during the genocide. Arriving convoys, having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands, would have found gorges already filled with corpses from previous convoys"
It would be seared in the collective consciousness. We do not have photos; it is not seared
And the lack of photos is no coincidence:
"The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists and photographers from documenting the atrocities, threatening them with arrest"
How many people really cared about the Rwandan genocide, or ongoing massacres in Central Africa, despite the photographic evidence?
I can remember Richard Littlejohn at the time, writing an article along the lines of "If the MBongo tribe and the Mbango tribes want to wipe each other out, why should that bother me?"
A sentiment shared by Corbynistas (cf Myanmar, Yemen, Xinjiang, Ukraine et al). There are no Jews to blame, y’see.
Around 3000 people died in earthquakes in Afghanistan in the last fortnight it hardly merits a mention.
Although that marks the difference between a tragedy and an atrocity.
It is hugely sad, and I don't really know why some peoples' sufferings elicit widespread sympathy and other peoples' sufferings don't.
I have a sense that without the Holocaust, Jewish suffering (in pogroms, riots, expulsions etc.) would have been met with a shrug. Reading Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe, it's not even the case that the Holocaust was seen as such a big deal, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The attitude of the Communists in the East, and Western allies in Germany was very much along the lines of "Yes, Jews suffered horribly at Nazi hands, but so did lots of people."
How many people in the West know anything about the Taiping Rebellion? Hardly anybody does, yet it may be the second or third largest conflict in human history, and it was every bit as murderous as the Second World War with many massacres of civilians. Nor was it that long ago, the late 19th century, not in antiquity.
The world has a long track record of forgetting awful things, that's if the world even pays any attention in the first place.
Here is - no joke - virtually the only photo of the Armenian genocide in action (there is no gore)
It shows Armenians being marched out of a town - into the deserts where they were killed in their thousands: starved, drowned, pushed over cliffs. Dozens of children were tied together and thrown in rivers
It was an unspeakable crime yet we have about four photos and this is one
So we forget. We don’t even learn in the first place
Sadly, people never cared very much about the Armenians. European governments cared far more about Greeks or Bulgarians being massacred by Turks (not so much about Turks being massacred by Greeks and Bulgarians), because they were classically educated. It wasn't about the lack of photography.
Again. I disagree
Imagine if we had thousands of photos of THIS:
"At least 150,000 Armenians passed through Erzindjan from June 1915, where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site at the nearby Kemah gorge.[172] Thousands of Armenians were killed near Lake Hazar, pushed by paramilitaries off the cliffs.[168] More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, one of the deadliest areas during the genocide. Arriving convoys, having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands, would have found gorges already filled with corpses from previous convoys"
It would be seared in the collective consciousness. We do not have photos; it is not seared
And the lack of photos is no coincidence:
"The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists and photographers from documenting the atrocities, threatening them with arrest"
Even now referring to the Armenian genocide can get you into trouble in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel-winning Turkish novelist, can vouch for that.
Even now the Turks are openly contemptuous of Armenians - as are the Georgians and the Azeris. It is perplexing
Only Mother Russia seems to care about them, and even Russia shrugged at Nagorno Karabakh
I dunno what the Armenians have done to engender such hatred, apart from be quite commercially successful (but nothing like the success of Jewish people)
Turkey / Azerbijan and Armenia are on opposite sides of the Muslim / Christian Orthodox cultural tectonic plates for one thing - and there is a lot of Turkey vs Armenia history up to and including genocide.
But it's more complex than that, and not a history I know anything of at all - especially Georgia vs Armenia.
The only history I have read even superficially is little pieces of personal accounts of Armenian immigrants to the USA.
Can anyone elucidate or provide a reference, or Youtube history series I can watch as wallpaper?
Looks more like my neighbours driveway, which they are currently digging it up to replace some bricks.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
Here is - no joke - virtually the only photo of the Armenian genocide in action (there is no gore)
It shows Armenians being marched out of a town - into the deserts where they were killed in their thousands: starved, drowned, pushed over cliffs. Dozens of children were tied together and thrown in rivers
It was an unspeakable crime yet we have about four photos and this is one
So we forget. We don’t even learn in the first place
Sadly, people never cared very much about the Armenians. European governments cared far more about Greeks or Bulgarians being massacred by Turks (not so much about Turks being massacred by Greeks and Bulgarians), because they were classically educated. It wasn't about the lack of photography.
Again. I disagree
Imagine if we had thousands of photos of THIS:
"At least 150,000 Armenians passed through Erzindjan from June 1915, where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site at the nearby Kemah gorge.[172] Thousands of Armenians were killed near Lake Hazar, pushed by paramilitaries off the cliffs.[168] More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, one of the deadliest areas during the genocide. Arriving convoys, having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands, would have found gorges already filled with corpses from previous convoys"
It would be seared in the collective consciousness. We do not have photos; it is not seared
And the lack of photos is no coincidence:
"The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists and photographers from documenting the atrocities, threatening them with arrest"
Even now referring to the Armenian genocide can get you into trouble in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel-winning Turkish novelist, can vouch for that.
Even now the Turks are openly contemptuous of Armenians - as are the Georgians and the Azeris. It is perplexing
Only Mother Russia seems to care about them, and even Russia shrugged at Nagorno Karabakh
I dunno what the Armenians have done to engender such hatred, apart from be quite commercially successful (but nothing like the success of Jewish people)
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographic evidence has never been definitive.
Our ability to prove that the Holocaust took place, for example, depends much on eye-witness testimony and written records, than on photographic evidence.
So, we'll just have to be sceptical, but we can verify the truth, without just relying upon rumour. Rules of evidence were reasonably sophisticated, even before photography became common. And, people did a lot of fact-checking. A good example is the way people had to do a lot of waiting around in large communal chambers in royal courts, surrounded by lots of courtiers and other bigwigs. The intent was that if someone turned up claiming to be the Spanish ambassador, or the Earl of Devon, there would be people there who could attest to it.
I disagree
One of the reasons the Holocaust is so vivid in our minds and so utterly uncontested (apart from a few total nutters) is because there is ample horrific visual evidence. Photos in the thousands. Photos of ghettoes and pogroms, photos of Auschwitz and Belsen. Photos of piled bodies and gas chambers
Contrast that with the Armenian genocide. There we have almost zero photographic evidence, even tho maybe 2 million died. It was just before the era of mass camera ownership and the Turks did a great job of keeping it all quiet
Go look for photos of this appalling crime and you’ll be amazed at the paucity. A handful
And that is one reason it is almost forgotten
You get something similar with the Soviet gulags. Not many photos and the Russian government has made its archives inaccessible again. So easy for people not to realise the full horror of what happened to people there.
In short, the most likely explanation is a misfiring rocket launched from Gaza. Very unlikely that 500 people were killed based on the damage done. Plus where are the injured? I don't know if anyone was killed last night in the demonstrations outside the embassies in Lebanon and Tehran. I hope not.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
I suspect that whoever wins will have much less impact. Most of the public won’t notice. Others will see one day’s headlines.
Obviously, people in parties do pay more attention, but even then, the Labourites who like cooperation with the LibDems will still like cooperation with the LibDems and those who don’t will still not. Any Tories who think winning on ~30% because they got lucky on a split opposition vote is a big success or a winning strategy for the general election is a fool. Sure, milk the headlines if you win, but don’t get carried away!
Here is - no joke - virtually the only photo of the Armenian genocide in action (there is no gore)
It shows Armenians being marched out of a town - into the deserts where they were killed in their thousands: starved, drowned, pushed over cliffs. Dozens of children were tied together and thrown in rivers
It was an unspeakable crime yet we have about four photos and this is one
So we forget. We don’t even learn in the first place
Sadly, people never cared very much about the Armenians. European governments cared far more about Greeks or Bulgarians being massacred by Turks (not so much about Turks being massacred by Greeks and Bulgarians), because they were classically educated. It wasn't about the lack of photography.
Again. I disagree
Imagine if we had thousands of photos of THIS:
"At least 150,000 Armenians passed through Erzindjan from June 1915, where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site at the nearby Kemah gorge.[172] Thousands of Armenians were killed near Lake Hazar, pushed by paramilitaries off the cliffs.[168] More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, one of the deadliest areas during the genocide. Arriving convoys, having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands, would have found gorges already filled with corpses from previous convoys"
It would be seared in the collective consciousness. We do not have photos; it is not seared
And the lack of photos is no coincidence:
"The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists and photographers from documenting the atrocities, threatening them with arrest"
Even now referring to the Armenian genocide can get you into trouble in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel-winning Turkish novelist, can vouch for that.
Even now the Turks are openly contemptuous of Armenians - as are the Georgians and the Azeris. It is perplexing
Only Mother Russia seems to care about them, and even Russia shrugged at Nagorno Karabakh
I dunno what the Armenians have done to engender such hatred, apart from be quite commercially successful (but nothing like the success of Jewish people)
Turkey / Azerbijan and Armenia are on opposite sides of the Muslim / Christian Orthodox cultural tectonic plates for one thing - and there is a lot of Turkey vs Armenia history up to and including genocide.
But it's more complex than that, and not a history I know anything of at all - especially Georgia vs Armenia.
The only history I have read even superficially is little pieces of personal accounts of Armenian immigrants to the USA.
Can anyone elucidate?
I have a theory that one driver of Armenophobia (I hope that word exists) is sexual jealousy of beautiful Armenian women
I know, it sounds mad. But there is documentary evidence to back it up. One of the charges levelled at Armenians was that "their women steal our men" - and of course being Christian Armenian women were more liberated than Muslim women - showing their hair, etc
Other genocides have also been driven by sexual jealousy. It was a factor in the Rwandan genocide
"Hutu propaganda played an important role in both the genocide and the gender-specific violence. It often depicted Tutsi women as "a sexually seductive 'fifth column' in league with the Hutus' enemies". The brutality of the sexual violence, and complicity of Hutu women in the attacks, suggested that the propaganda was effective at mobilizing both females and males to participate in the genocide"
It is hugely sad, and I don't really know why some peoples' sufferings elicit widespread sympathy and other peoples' sufferings don't.
I have a sense that without the Holocaust, Jewish suffering (in pogroms, riots, expulsions etc.) would have been met with a shrug. Reading Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe, it's not even the case that the Holocaust was seen as such a big deal, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The attitude of the Communists in the East, and Western allies in Germany was very much along the lines of "Yes, Jews suffered horribly at Nazi hands, but so did lots of people."
How many people in the West know anything about the Taiping Rebellion? Hardly anybody does, yet it may be the second or third largest conflict in human history, and it was every bit as murderous as the Second World War with many massacres of civilians. Nor was it that long ago, the late 19th century, not in antiquity.
The world has a long track record of forgetting awful things, that's if the world even pays any attention in the first place.
I hadn’t even heard of it, until I read Flashman. Both the Taipings and the Qing practised appalling levels of cruelty (and the Qing acted similarly in putting down other rebellions.)
In short, the most likely explanation is a misfiring rocket launched from Gaza. Very unlikely that 500 people were killed based on the damage done. Plus where are the injured? I don't know if anyone was killed last night in the demonstrations outside the embassies in Lebanon and Tehran. I hope not.
He was just on WATO about 20 mins ago - sadly I don’t think many people really listen to Radio4 at 1pm for the potential lie to be crushed.
I also don’t see certain news outlets rushing to put out this sort of analysis as quickly as they announced the Israelis carried out a strike on a hospital killing 500.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
We do however, see a lot of entitlement on the other side of the argument.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
AI will be used on a mass scale to produce fakes you won't so easily be able to spot.
Israeli war cabinet approves broad assault in Gaza; full backing from President Biden for Israeli actions (via @amirbohbot); ministers okay evacuation of Israeli communities within 5 km of Lebanon border (via @N12News)
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
I bet I could fool you. This is not a personal insult, I bet I could fool anyone. I've tried showing Midjourney images to people and they don't know if they are real or not. This is not cause I am a genius, it's because Midjourney is incredible (and other newer better models arrive all the time)
In short, the most likely explanation is a misfiring rocket launched from Gaza. Very unlikely that 500 people were killed based on the damage done. Plus where are the injured? I don't know if anyone was killed last night in the demonstrations outside the embassies in Lebanon and Tehran. I hope not.
He was just on WATO about 20 mins ago - sadly I don’t think many people really listen to Radio4 at 1pm for the potential lie to be crushed.
I also don’t see certain news outlets rushing to put out this sort of analysis as quickly as they announced the Israelis carried out a strike on a hospital killing 500.
The BBC conspiracy thickens, hiding stuff on their main lunchtime news programme the duplicitous barstewards.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
The Hiroshima bomb didn't produce a crater because it was an *air burst*. It was specifically configured to detonate well above ground level to minimise radioactive fall-out; the Americans assumed, correctly, that the blast wave and fireball generated by the bomb would do enough damage.
Dumb conventional bombs, as used by the IAF on Gaza, just detonate on contact. They leave a very large and obvious crater at the point of impact. There is no such crater at the hospital site, and the damage to surrounding structures is far lighter than would be the case if a bomb landed in the car park as Palestinian sources are claiming.
Something blew up in the car park, but the damage footprint and lack of crater strongly suggest either a vehicle went bang (possibly being used to transport explosives, Hamas have form there) or a rocket of some kind landed and set fire to parked vehicles, causing multiple small explosions.
(incidentally, the pictures I've seen do not suggest an explosion anywhere near powerful enough to cause 500 casualties - a few dozen maybe, if the car park was crowded)
The evidence points to Israel's story on this being correct, and I'm sure Western intel agencies have reached the same conclusion and told their leaders such.
It is hugely sad, and I don't really know why some peoples' sufferings elicit widespread sympathy and other peoples' sufferings don't.
I have a sense that without the Holocaust, Jewish suffering (in pogroms, riots, expulsions etc.) would have been met with a shrug. Reading Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe, it's not even the case that the Holocaust was seen as such a big deal, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The attitude of the Communists in the East, and Western allies in Germany was very much along the lines of "Yes, Jews suffered horribly at Nazi hands, but so did lots of people."
How many people in the West know anything about the Taiping Rebellion? Hardly anybody does, yet it may be the second or third largest conflict in human history, and it was every bit as murderous as the Second World War with many massacres of civilians. Nor was it that long ago, the late 19th century, not in antiquity.
The world has a long track record of forgetting awful things, that's if the world even pays any attention in the first place.
In short, the most likely explanation is a misfiring rocket launched from Gaza. Very unlikely that 500 people were killed based on the damage done. Plus where are the injured? I don't know if anyone was killed last night in the demonstrations outside the embassies in Lebanon and Tehran. I hope not.
But it is a significantly larger blast than previous photos would suggest - the impact crater is apparently 10m from the location of the flipped car & directly in between two grassy areas that were full of people.
500 deaths? Seems unlikely. 500 killed+injured given the area was packed with people? That seems plausible to me. If it was a failed Hamas missile then burning fuel & debris may well have fallen over a much wider area too, causing more casualties.
It’s a classic case of the game of telephone played out in real time in the middle of a warzone. Like the 40 beheaded babies, there is something terrible at the bottom that people felt compelled to share & was amplified rapidly into something even worse.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
I bet I could fool you. This is not a personal insult, I bet I could fool anyone. I've tried showing Midjourney images to people and they don't know if they are real or not. This is not cause I am a genius, it's because Midjourney is incredible (and other newer better models arrive all the time)
I'd post an example on here but it is VERBOTEN
Images, though, can be geolocated and time stamped. You can fake that, of course, but you can't make the fake match reality.
A fake might be visually convincing, but that's all it is. And making a series of fakes consistent with checkable reality becomes exponentially more difficult.
Dan Hodges claiming that Keir Starmer is under A LOT of pressure to change Labour's stance on the Gazan war. To what though? A ceasefire? Those calling for a ceasefire without the release of hostages make me angry.
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece. Heavy rain in the UK is hardly a new turn of events.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
We do however, see a lot of entitlement on the other side of the argument.
We do. But then if the Lib Dems want to position themselves unquestioningly as Labour's little helpers, that's not too surprising.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Yes the LibDems were in first immediately Nadine said she was resigning with a large number of activists canvassing and delivering. They were odds on favourite for several weeks. Then Labour barged in late, no doubt feeling entitled to it, and have probably gifted this seat to the Tories.
I do think that the LibDems can only win a seat like this if Labour let them on the grounds that many Tories will vote LibDem but will not countenance Labour. This appeared to be happening here, as it did in Somerton and Frome. And then Labour came late to the party and have given it to the Tories.
Looks more like my neighbours driveway, which they are currently digging it up to replace some bricks.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
The issue is that we were told early on that Israel had dropped bombs there. If Israel had dropped one of their bombs then there would have been a massive crater. We were also told the hospital had collapsed and yet it still seems to be standing. Lies from the very start. Just like Hamas lied when they said they don't attack civilians. Why should anyone trust a single word Hamas says?
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
Im left wondering why the BBC should be impartial about beheadings and innocent people being burned alive. What exactly is there to be impartial about ?
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
I think terrorism is harder to define than you suggest.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece. Heavy rain in the UK is hardly a new turn of events.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
Different rivers. This isn't a lowland English vale.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
I bet I could fool you. This is not a personal insult, I bet I could fool anyone. I've tried showing Midjourney images to people and they don't know if they are real or not. This is not cause I am a genius, it's because Midjourney is incredible (and other newer better models arrive all the time)
I'd post an example on here but it is VERBOTEN
Quite possibly you could with the latest ones. But in a while - probably a short while - familiarity would mean that spotting the subtle cues would become easier.
Looks more like my neighbours driveway, which they are currently digging it up to replace some bricks.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
The issue is that we were told early on that Israel had dropped bombs there. If Israel had dropped one of their bombs then there would have been a massive crater. We were also told the hospital had collapsed and yet it still seems to be standing. Lies from the very start. Just like Hamas lied when they said they don't attack civilians. Why should anyone trust a single word Hamas says?
I don’t think we should trust what Hamas say. I wouldn’t trust the IDF much either, who have told plenty of lies in the past. We should avoid rushing to conclusions.
I am also quite sceptical of armchair “experts” on social media who have suddenly become so knowledgeable on explosion forensics, having recently been experts on drone warfare in Ukraine, or epidemiology during COVID-19…
I'm off to Perthshire on Monday. Nowhere better in Europe* for Autumn colours. I know this is far from the biggest concern, but I'm hoping the storm doesn't prematurely remove the goldens and browns from the trees.
*I have travelled nowhere near enough to know whether this is true, but it seems feasible.
It is fabulous. The hillside to the north and east of Perth is excellent already and will get better but the trees and walks around Dunkeld are hard to beat. Do the river walk there. So many different mature trees from all around the world.
This storm is looking ominous though. The woods near me haven’t recovered from the storm 3? years ago. In fact they won’t in my lifetime.
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
I think terrorism is harder to define than you suggest.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
It's certainly a term devalued by decades of subjective use. I don't remember many on here objecting to Zhelensky characterising Russian use of missiles and bombs as terrorism.
It is hugely sad, and I don't really know why some peoples' sufferings elicit widespread sympathy and other peoples' sufferings don't.
I have a sense that without the Holocaust, Jewish suffering (in pogroms, riots, expulsions etc.) would have been met with a shrug. Reading Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe, it's not even the case that the Holocaust was seen as such a big deal, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The attitude of the Communists in the East, and Western allies in Germany was very much along the lines of "Yes, Jews suffered horribly at Nazi hands, but so did lots of people."
How many people in the West know anything about the Taiping Rebellion? Hardly anybody does, yet it may be the second or third largest conflict in human history, and it was every bit as murderous as the Second World War with many massacres of civilians. Nor was it that long ago, the late 19th century, not in antiquity.
The world has a long track record of forgetting awful things, that's if the world even pays any attention in the first place.
I've certainly read and heard about such things in the Congo War, and pygmy people being regarded as a consumable and disposable resource who could be killed at will. It has been reported for example by the BBC.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
I bet I could fool you. This is not a personal insult, I bet I could fool anyone. I've tried showing Midjourney images to people and they don't know if they are real or not. This is not cause I am a genius, it's because Midjourney is incredible (and other newer better models arrive all the time)
I'd post an example on here but it is VERBOTEN
Quite possibly you could with the latest ones. But in a while - probably a short while - familiarity would mean that spotting the subtle cues would become easier.
But the "subtle cues" are disappearing. eg hands
Like human artists, AI finds hands hard. Even now it often gets them wrong, sometimes absurdly so - six fingers and the like
But now the latest models are mastering hands. All of these glitches will be ironed out, there won't be any visual cues
Here is - no joke - virtually the only photo of the Armenian genocide in action (there is no gore)
It shows Armenians being marched out of a town - into the deserts where they were killed in their thousands: starved, drowned, pushed over cliffs. Dozens of children were tied together and thrown in rivers
It was an unspeakable crime yet we have about four photos and this is one
So we forget. We don’t even learn in the first place
Sadly, people never cared very much about the Armenians. European governments cared far more about Greeks or Bulgarians being massacred by Turks (not so much about Turks being massacred by Greeks and Bulgarians), because they were classically educated. It wasn't about the lack of photography.
Again. I disagree
Imagine if we had thousands of photos of THIS:
"At least 150,000 Armenians passed through Erzindjan from June 1915, where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site at the nearby Kemah gorge.[172] Thousands of Armenians were killed near Lake Hazar, pushed by paramilitaries off the cliffs.[168] More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, one of the deadliest areas during the genocide. Arriving convoys, having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands, would have found gorges already filled with corpses from previous convoys"
It would be seared in the collective consciousness. We do not have photos; it is not seared
And the lack of photos is no coincidence:
"The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists and photographers from documenting the atrocities, threatening them with arrest"
How many people really cared about the Rwandan genocide, or ongoing massacres in Central Africa, despite the photographic evidence?
I can remember Richard Littlejohn at the time, writing an article along the lines of "If the MBongo tribe and the Mbango tribes want to wipe each other out, why should that bother me?"
True, but that's more an artifice of racial and cultural distance
The Armenians look, sound and come across as southern Europeans, and Europeans with a grand, ancient, Christian civilisation at that. If we had images of the genocide we would care about it more, I am sure of it
I've been to the Genocide museum in Yerevan. Even they don't have images, there are none. You encounter a lot of documents, eye witness accounts, reportage, but you have to work at the task, to get the sense of scale and horror. You have to read, basically
A picture tells a thousand words...
On my way out I went to the eternal flame of the Armenian people: a striking large shrine on a mountaintop, which cradles a fire which burns perpetually in the memory of the Armenian dead. I saw a young pretty Armenian mother with two small boys tentatively approach the flame and then lay two little bouquets of flowers. Then they just stood there. Them and me, and the flame, and the ancient, haunting Armenian church music which echoes around the shrine, 24/7
Unbearably moving; I had tears in my eyes
It is hugely sad, and I don't really know why some peoples' sufferings elicit widespread sympathy and other peoples' sufferings don't.
I have a sense that without the Holocaust, Jewish suffering (in pogroms, riots, expulsions etc.) would have been met with a shrug. Reading Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe, it's not even the case that the Holocaust was seen as such a big deal, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The attitude of the Communists in the East, and Western allies in Germany was very much along the lines of "Yes, Jews suffered horribly at Nazi hands, but so did lots of people."
Yes, I agree on that. For centuries everyone DID shrug at anti-Semitism, even - as we have discussed - civilised western Europeans of great intellect, from TS Eliot down. Jew hatred was acceptable, and pogroms were unfortunate but oh well weird stuff happens
It took the monumental, earth shaking horror of the Holocaust to change this, and it took a couple of decades after 1945 for it to really sink in
I have a theory that the reason the Holocaust stands out was the bureaucracy of it.
Genocide across the ages has usually been visceral; whipped up emotion from firebrands leading to out-of-control mobs taking matters into their own hands as the state looked on, whether approvingly or helplessly. Partly, that was simply because the state was too small to be able to control the emotions even if it'd wanted to.
Whereas the Holocaust was different. If wasn't carried out in hot blood but planned with all the administrative detail of a welfare state turned inside out. That feels uncomfortably close to home.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece. Heavy rain in the UK is hardly a new turn of events.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
When an upland river like the Dee is in full flood it can create a new gravel bank in minutes.
If you want to deepen the main channel then bring explosives.
The only trick available is not having the water run straight into the river in the first place.
Dan Hodges is spot on. It is very quiet on this topic this morning.
We have never seen a more graphic example of the double standards applied to Israel than the wave of condemnation that erupted when people thought the IDF were responsible for the hospital attack, followed by the silence accompanying the realisation it was Hamas or their proxies. https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1714578145532125638?s=20
As someone who was prepared to condemn Israel if the strike was from them, I’d say this is absolutely right.
If indeed the rockets came from the Palestinian side it only reinforces that the organisations purporting to fight for Palestinian freedom by firing rockets…at a Palestinian hospital need to be destroyed.
Not at it. It’s a failed rocket that fell well short of its target with catastrophic results. The scale of the explosions, however, seem to raise questions about what was being stored in the hospital.
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
I think terrorism is harder to define than you suggest.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
It's certainly a term devalued by decades of subjective use. I don't remember many on here objecting to Zhelensky characterising Russian use of missiles and bombs as terrorism.
Terrorism is, and always has been, a very politicised word. I am all in favour of journalists avoiding using it. The facts of what happened speak for themselves. If someone is only horrified by Hamas’s attacks on civilians if we call it “terrorism”, then there’s something very wrong with them.
Here is - no joke - virtually the only photo of the Armenian genocide in action (there is no gore)
It shows Armenians being marched out of a town - into the deserts where they were killed in their thousands: starved, drowned, pushed over cliffs. Dozens of children were tied together and thrown in rivers
It was an unspeakable crime yet we have about four photos and this is one
So we forget. We don’t even learn in the first place
Sadly, people never cared very much about the Armenians. European governments cared far more about Greeks or Bulgarians being massacred by Turks (not so much about Turks being massacred by Greeks and Bulgarians), because they were classically educated. It wasn't about the lack of photography.
Again. I disagree
Imagine if we had thousands of photos of THIS:
"At least 150,000 Armenians passed through Erzindjan from June 1915, where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site at the nearby Kemah gorge.[172] Thousands of Armenians were killed near Lake Hazar, pushed by paramilitaries off the cliffs.[168] More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, one of the deadliest areas during the genocide. Arriving convoys, having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands, would have found gorges already filled with corpses from previous convoys"
It would be seared in the collective consciousness. We do not have photos; it is not seared
And the lack of photos is no coincidence:
"The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists and photographers from documenting the atrocities, threatening them with arrest"
How many people really cared about the Rwandan genocide, or ongoing massacres in Central Africa, despite the photographic evidence?
I can remember Richard Littlejohn at the time, writing an article along the lines of "If the MBongo tribe and the Mbango tribes want to wipe each other out, why should that bother me?"
True, but that's more an artifice of racial and cultural distance
The Armenians look, sound and come across as southern Europeans, and Europeans with a grand, ancient, Christian civilisation at that. If we had images of the genocide we would care about it more, I am sure of it
I've been to the Genocide museum in Yerevan. Even they don't have images, there are none. You encounter a lot of documents, eye witness accounts, reportage, but you have to work at the task, to get the sense of scale and horror. You have to read, basically
A picture tells a thousand words...
On my way out I went to the eternal flame of the Armenian people: a striking large shrine on a mountaintop, which cradles a fire which burns perpetually in the memory of the Armenian dead. I saw a young pretty Armenian mother with two small boys tentatively approach the flame and then lay two little bouquets of flowers. Then they just stood there. Them and me, and the flame, and the ancient, haunting Armenian church music which echoes around the shrine, 24/7
Unbearably moving; I had tears in my eyes
It is hugely sad, and I don't really know why some peoples' sufferings elicit widespread sympathy and other peoples' sufferings don't.
I have a sense that without the Holocaust, Jewish suffering (in pogroms, riots, expulsions etc.) would have been met with a shrug. Reading Savage Continent, by Keith Lowe, it's not even the case that the Holocaust was seen as such a big deal, in the immediate aftermath of WWII. The attitude of the Communists in the East, and Western allies in Germany was very much along the lines of "Yes, Jews suffered horribly at Nazi hands, but so did lots of people."
Given that Russia lost an estimated 27 million, they have a bit of a point, and the express intention of the Hunger Plan is instructive too.
Looks more like my neighbours driveway, which they are currently digging it up to replace some bricks.
I’m unclear what the debate is here. The atom bomb over Hiroshima didn’t produce a crater, but it still killed a lot of people! Do any of these commentators or us here have relevant forensics experience as to what different explosions would produce?
The issue is that we were told early on that Israel had dropped bombs there. If Israel had dropped one of their bombs then there would have been a massive crater. We were also told the hospital had collapsed and yet it still seems to be standing. Lies from the very start. Just like Hamas lied when they said they don't attack civilians. Why should anyone trust a single word Hamas says?
I don’t think we should trust what Hamas say. I wouldn’t trust the IDF much either, who have told plenty of lies in the past. We should avoid rushing to conclusions.
I am also quite sceptical of armchair “experts” on social media who have suddenly become so knowledgeable on explosion forensics, having recently been experts on drone warfare in Ukraine, or epidemiology during COVID-19…
That's the point - you don't need to be a forensic explosives expert to see that there is no huge crater, the building is still standing and that there was a larger fire at Luton airport last week. Yet, despite this, many people just repeated the lies that they had been told unquestioningly.
Dan Hodges claiming that Keir Starmer is under A LOT of pressure to change Labour's stance on the Gazan war. To what though? A ceasefire? Those calling for a ceasefire without the release of hostages make me angry.
He could be less supine on der Hungerplan. His claim last week that Israel was justified in cutting off power and water to Gaza as part of defending itself is what riled a lot of people.
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
I think terrorism is harder to define than you suggest.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
International law makes exception for states to use proportionate violence, both internally and externally, under the rules of law. Those rules are the price paid for not being terrorists when engaging in the use of force.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Yes the LibDems were in first immediately Nadine said she was resigning with a large number of activists canvassing and delivering. They were odds on favourite for several weeks. Then Labour barged in late, no doubt feeling entitled to it, and have probably gifted this seat to the Tories.
I do think that the LibDems can only win a seat like this if Labour let them on the grounds that many Tories will vote LibDem but will not countenance Labour. This appeared to be happening here, as it did in Somerton and Frome. And then Labour came late to the party and have given it to the Tories.
So we agree that the Lib Dems tried to barge Labour aside first?
But really, one by-election makes little difference in the big picture and whether the Tories retain it or not matters far less than the vote share they end up with, as a pointer to 2024.
The SNP leader in Westminster calling for a ceasefire without also calling for the release of hostages.
They need to be much more careful about reassuring Scotland’s Jewish community. We all understand Humza's concern about his relatives in Gaza, which is all the more reason to be balanced. Refusing to fly the Israeli flag at Holyrood was not a good look and upset a lot of people.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
And to think some questioned my contention yesterday that the Libs had a sense of entitlement at by-elections.
This is one of the maddest posts I have seen on here for a while.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
No, its fluid dynamics which is considerably more complicated.
Except when you are dealing with the turbulent flow inside the rocket motor, of course.
Ah you see, fluid dynamics.
Modelling the boundries between turbulent and laminar flow in any system makes your head hurt. We have to do it for the drilling fluids in the well annulus or they won't carry the cuttings. Bloody horrible even when you have computers to help.
I had no idea about that! I learnt all about Re for animal mechanics and biophysics, but never had to apply it in action.
I'm off to Perthshire on Monday. Nowhere better in Europe* for Autumn colours. I know this is far from the biggest concern, but I'm hoping the storm doesn't prematurely remove the goldens and browns from the trees.
*I have travelled nowhere near enough to know whether this is true, but it seems feasible.
It is fabulous. The hillside to the north and east of Perth is excellent already and will get better but the trees and walks around Dunkeld are hard to beat. Do the river walk there. So many different mature trees from all around the world.
This storm is looking ominous though. The woods near me haven’t recovered from the storm 3? years ago. In fact they won’t in my lifetime.
Yes, we're staying just outside Dunkeld. We did the same trip last year. I loved it. I would describe the Tay there as 'muscular'; quite an awesome volume of water surging past. I'm hoping to do Ben Vrackie, if the kids are up to it; and also possibly the Falls of Bruar. We're also (following last year's recommendation by, I think, @Luckyguy1983 ) going to do the Enchanted Forest again. Hopefully schedule in a castle of some sort. But basically just spend a few days together as a family. The kids are absolutely running on empty leading up to half term - haven't needed a holiday as much as this in a long time!
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
BIt unfair on the lovely girls who faked the fairy photos - I think they are actually rather good.
But yes, faked photos have been around as long as photos. Never forget how people vanished in Soviet era photos.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Have you forgotten about Stalin doctoring photos in the 1930s?
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
I bet I could fool you. This is not a personal insult, I bet I could fool anyone. I've tried showing Midjourney images to people and they don't know if they are real or not. This is not cause I am a genius, it's because Midjourney is incredible (and other newer better models arrive all the time)
I'd post an example on here but it is VERBOTEN
Are these pictures you show people the *first* random one that gets spat out of the system, or do you curate them to pick the best?
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
I think terrorism is harder to define than you suggest.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
International law makes exception for states to use proportionate violence, both internally and externally, under the rules of law. Those rules are the price paid for not being terrorists when engaging in the use of force.
So, you agree that your definition was insufficient.
While I agree with those mentioning other doctored/faked photos, these were not nearly as easy as AI art will enable false photos. All that's needed is a text prompt.
Not being able to trust your own eyes will be the weirdest thing
For 150 years we’ve had the ultimate proof. “Look, here’s a photo. Shut up”
That is coming to an end. It will challenge how we perceive reality. We go back to a pre-photographic world of rumours and reports which are far more unreliable
Photographs have been doctored or faked as long as there have been photographs. Some of those, like the Cottingley fairies, look absurdly obvious to us now, but at the time were accepted quite widely. It's the same now - I'm already getting quite good at spotting AI generated photos.
I bet I could fool you. This is not a personal insult, I bet I could fool anyone. I've tried showing Midjourney images to people and they don't know if they are real or not. This is not cause I am a genius, it's because Midjourney is incredible (and other newer better models arrive all the time)
I'd post an example on here but it is VERBOTEN
Are these pictures you show people the *first* random one that gets spat out of the system, or do you curate them to pick the best?
If you look at the Daily Mail general coverage the defacto statement is Hamas a terrorist organisation, Hamas terrorists etc etc etc. They do from time to time mix it up with terms such as operatives, fighters etc, often within the same article. It called writing.
So they have no issue with making a claim that Hamas are terrorists.
The BBC on the other hand have tried to claim we don't use the term terrorism / terrorist, we don't judge etc, but they have and they do about other terrorist incidents, just not when it comes to Hamas, they only quote others.
By every definition of the word, what Hamas did to Israel was terrorism.
I don't know what the big deal is here. The BBC routinely say that Hamas are a designated 'terrorist organisation'.
What they don't do is colloquially call them 'terrorists' in the flow of their reporting. They call them Hamas, with that frequent rider, a designated terrorist organisation.
So you don't hear stuff like, "the Israelis are determined and well armed, but so are the terrorists".
Which imo we wouldn't want because it lacks gravitas.
Absolute rubbish. The specific objection is to the BBC's repeated use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists".
I don't see how that makes what I said rubbish. But sure you could very happily slip 'terrorists' into a story like that. For me the T word sits well in reporting of atrocities, less well in reporting of the war generally or the political and diplomacy aspects. Reflecting the duality of Hamas in a way. They are both a terrorist group and the government of Gaza.
Quite. So when they conduct conventional warfare then that should be reported as such, and when they carry out terrorist acts, that should also be described as such.
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
I think terrorism is harder to define than you suggest.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
International law makes exception for states to use proportionate violence, both internally and externally, under the rules of law. Those rules are the price paid for not being terrorists when engaging in the use of force.
So, you agree that your definition was insufficient.
Fine. Let me add the single word 'unlawful' before 'violence'.
The LDs are fighting for this seat very hard to make the point they are the the opposition party with the best chance of winning in a mostly rural seat because the vast majority of traditional, soft Tory voters are very unlikely to switch to Labour despite Keir Starmer's window dressing. I can confirm reports that I have heard from several LD canvassers that believe the result will be very close and they have a good chance of winning tomorrow.
What's the latest on who was responsible for the Gaza blast?
I'll hazard a wild guess that we remain where we were when it happened last night.
Nobody knows.
Er..... I would suggest things have moved on somewhat. Not least since we have the advantage of daylight. The evidence now seems to suggest it was most likely a Hamas rocket that misfired. Further analysis of the ground would probably help though. Will the UN be invited in?
Where were you canvassing? The independent is a reasonably well likely local councillor in the biggest town, where the commuters live. He won’t get much, but I’d bet what he gets is mostly lapsed Tories and standard LibDem targets. One of the reasons I thought they were stating form an even lower position than the council results and polls would suggest.
I think you overestimate the Libs and so would bring the others in a bit. But agree on order.
You may be right, of course. Flitwick was one of the 4 sessions (the other two were smaller towns and villages). I suppose I talked to about 60 people there and he wasn't mentioned. But it's a small sample so I might well have missed his strongest area.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Indeed. Crackers.
Yet it seems Labour are the ones getting most upset and having a sense of entitlement and that is after they did f*** all for weeks while the LDs worked it. Some Lab supporters really have no sense of irony when complaining about a political party having the nerve to challenge them in an election.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece. Heavy rain in the UK is hardly a new turn of events.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
When an upland river like the Dee is in full flood it can create a new gravel bank in minutes.
If you want to deepen the main channel then bring explosives.
The only trick available is not having the water run straight into the river in the first place.
A couple of stretches of the River Wear completely changed their course during flood events.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece. Heavy rain in the UK is hardly a new turn of events.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
When an upland river like the Dee is in full flood it can create a new gravel bank in minutes.
If you want to deepen the main channel then bring explosives.
The only trick available is not having the water run straight into the river in the first place.
A couple of stretches of the River Wear completely changed their course during flood events.
And have a look at the abstract for the modern paper on the 1829 floods, or even the contemporary account - I posted the links a little way below. They make that very point that you two do.
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece.
It is very difficult to see that this stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer. They ban dredg
Noting also the red weather alert for coastal areas between Dundee and Aberdeen. A red rain alert 32 hours in advance and 10 inches forecast is quite something.
The weather is moving up from Brittany now, trundles up the UK, out into the North Sea over Lothian then just drives onto the coast and Grampians.
No doubt the hills do see big rainfall numbers at times, this wouldn't be unheard of in Cumbria or Snowdonia, but a lot of the forecast focus of the rain here is at landfall and the easternmost upslopes.
Could be a bad one.
Worth remembering that, following the summer floods of 2007, the Met Office and CEH run a joint flood forecasting centre, which brings together meteorologists and hydrologists. So if they are using a red warning for rain and subsequent flooding impacts that will be based on an understanding of the current hydrological situation in the area, and how it's likely to react to the forecast rainfall.
Not a warning to take lightly.
Particularly not if you live in Ballater, which seems to take the brunt of flooding on the River Dee.
If this looks anything like Storm Frank (2015) it will be bad. Upper Deeside was cut off and it took a long time to repair the washed out roads.
If they dredged the rivers, it wouldn't happen nearly so often.
Slowing down the flow of water into rivers is the best way to prevent flooding. Along with not fecking up the climate, of course.
If the floor of the River rises consistently, it can hold less water. It's not rocket science.
Have a friend who works for SEPA and it looks like rocket science to me.
Inch Marshes saved a big chunk of Moray in the last few weeks.
People who work for the responsible agencies consistently downplay the importance of dredging, because dredging is strongly disfavoured in EU law (which they still apply, gold-plated, in the UK). Personally I've never seen a remotely convincing case that dredging is not an essential part of river maintenance to prevent flooding. Someone posted a long article in opposition to dredging the last time we had this debate and buried in the text was an admission that it would have worked to prevent the flooding dealt with in the piece. Heavy rain in the UK is hardly a new turn of events.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
When an upland river like the Dee is in full flood it can create a new gravel bank in minutes.
If you want to deepen the main channel then bring explosives.
The only trick available is not having the water run straight into the river in the first place.
I am sure that is true, and I am sure the usefulness of dredging is variable, but can we say with confidence that the river bed has not risen and the overall capacity of the river not decreased, during the time when dredging has been curtailed drastically?
The SNP leader in Westminster calling for a ceasefire without also calling for the release of hostages.
They need to be much more careful about reassuring Scotland’s Jewish community. We all understand Humza's concern about his relatives in Gaza, which is all the more reason to be balanced. Refusing to fly the Israeli flag at Holyrood was not a good look and upset a lot of people.
I've not heard an explanation of what is driving the market and there doesn't seem to have been any more constituency polling.
Ideas on what it might be:
- Genuine impressions from canvassing - Large and value taking bets skewing the market, whether just for betting purposes or individual politically motivated punters attempting to create a narrative of Labour drift - The slight downward oscillation of the Labour lead in GE polls. - An impression the Independent has been squeezed out and will not absorb as many Con votes as previously thought (though my thought here is that an Independent can also soak up Con -> Lab/LD switching behaviour, so it's more neutral than sometimes credited)
Anything else?
There is this apparent leaked Tory internal report:
In short, Tories expect their vote to halve to 30%. Not many direct to Labour switchers and lots of abstentions.
It could go any direction, but 30% is pretty unlikely to win.
FWIW from my 4 canvass sessions at the weekend:
* The Independent is nowhere - no discussion or interest whatever * There was a fair amount of tactical voting discussion and a dwindling pool of voters who said they'd decide when in the polling station. But voters saying they would definitely go LibDem were a rarity (I met two) and I'm entirely sure they are not in a position to win. * However, a LibDem council colleague tells me that LibDem members are being bombarded with messages saying the opposite, that they are poised to win, one more heave, and so on. It may be that the polling movement reflects that, or of course that I'm wrong. * Labour thinks we are close to winning, but I've yet to meet anyone who was privately prepared to make it a nailed-on prediction. The Tory leaked briefing does anticipate a Labour win in both seats. * Standing back from direct impressions, the Tories really should be favourites - the size of their majority can only be overcome if the electorate is clear that there is only one serious challenger. I don't think that there are many ex-Tories who will vote LibDem rather than Labour or the opposite out of principle - we are seen as awfully similar these days. But although I think we've edged the tactical vote battle, the flood of LibDem leaflets must be diluting that.
So IMO the odds should be something like Con 2, Lab 2.5, LD 6. But that's of course just my best guess.
Nick, I can confirm what your LD friend says. Lots of stuff coming out to members saying it is tight between LDs and Con and no mention of Lab, but take it with a pinch of salt because we would say that wouldn't we
I'm off to Perthshire on Monday. Nowhere better in Europe* for Autumn colours. I know this is far from the biggest concern, but I'm hoping the storm doesn't prematurely remove the goldens and browns from the trees.
*I have travelled nowhere near enough to know whether this is true, but it seems feasible.
It is fabulous. The hillside to the north and east of Perth is excellent already and will get better but the trees and walks around Dunkeld are hard to beat. Do the river walk there. So many different mature trees from all around the world.
This storm is looking ominous though. The woods near me haven’t recovered from the storm 3? years ago. In fact they won’t in my lifetime.
Yes, we're staying just outside Dunkeld. We did the same trip last year. I loved it. I would describe the Tay there as 'muscular'; quite an awesome volume of water surging past. I'm hoping to do Ben Vrackie, if the kids are up to it; and also possibly the Falls of Bruar. We're also (following last year's recommendation by, I think, @Luckyguy1983 ) going to do the Enchanted Forest again. Hopefully schedule in a castle of some sort. But basically just spend a few days together as a family. The kids are absolutely running on empty leading up to half term - haven't needed a holiday as much as this in a long time!
Blair Castle is great if you want to see a massive baronial (Ducal in this case) pile. Should fit in with Bruar quite well. So glad you enjoyed last year's visit - sure this one will be even better.
The SNP leader in Westminster calling for a ceasefire without also calling for the release of hostages.
They need to be much more careful about reassuring Scotland’s Jewish community. We all understand Humza's concern about his relatives in Gaza, which is all the more reason to be balanced. Refusing to fly the Israeli flag at Holyrood was not a good look and upset a lot of people.
and (b) Holyrood is the Corporate Body - not the SG?
It's remarkable how many folk who accuse the SNP of being obessed with a flag are obsessed with flags. The times I've seen tweets moaning about nasty nationalism from accounts emblazoned with a select set of flag emojis..
I have been a bit under the weather recently and on Monday I went to my GP who immediately sent me to A & E as a medical emergency with suspected DVT. I arrived at 5.30pm and was quickly triaged and at 6.30pm I had the all important bloods taken. I waited with my wife in A & E as the waiting times grew from originally 6 hours to 12 hours and at 3.00am I was asked for another blood test as the originally one had been incorrectly taken. It was only at 5.00am I saw a doctor who confirmed DVT and told me she was admitting me into hospital for an early ultra sound. At 7.00am I was summoned to a consultation room with several quite worried doctors and nurses arranging my immediate admission and at 10.30am I had my scan with confirmed an extensive upper leg DVT and treatment began immediately
I am home in quite some pain and know it will take upto 6 months to address the issue but I would just say that everyone in A & E were wonderful, as were the doctors and specialists who acted so quickly once the serious nature of the attack was realised and subsequently the hospital has confirmed that as I am now under their care I must contact them direct if I need to and they will admit me if required without going to A & E. This is very reassuring and hopefully I will in time make a full recovery
Some of the patients in A & E had been there for over 18 hours and as time went on through the night patients applauded when a fellow patient was finally called to the doctors
I tell this story because it is so obvious the issue is with the lack of staff and doctors and is applicable to all parts of the NHS, not just in England
I would just add that witnessing the appalling tragedy going on in Gaza I was reluctant to tell my story but it is a real experience of a patient in a medical emergency and hopefully politicians of whatever party must do something about it but I do have my doubts as there is no money
I should add I am not feeling particularly political at present as when faced with a really serious condition politics seems rather irrelevant
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
Sunak now doing fractionally better than Major 1997, then it was Labour 43% Con 30%.
Albeit he is still doing worse than Hague 2001 when it was Labour 40% Con 31%
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
I suspect that whoever wins will have much less impact. Most of the public won’t notice. Others will see one day’s headlines.
Obviously, people in parties do pay more attention, but even then, the Labourites who like cooperation with the LibDems will still like cooperation with the LibDems and those who don’t will still not. Any Tories who think winning on ~30% because they got lucky on a split opposition vote is a big success or a winning strategy for the general election is a fool. Sure, milk the headlines if you win, but don’t get carried away!
As a PR supporter who has advocated Lib-Lab cooperation for years and practiced it both as an MP and currently in council coalition, it does plenty to discourage me. If the Tories win the seat, as Barnesian revealingly hopes in the absence of an unlikely LibDem win, we will certainly blame the LibDems, and apparently they will blame us. Encourage cooperation? No.
But we should park the argument till Friday when we find out what actually happened, eh?
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Indeed. Crackers.
Yet it seems Labour are the ones getting most upset and having a sense of entitlement and that is after they did f*** all for weeks while the LDs worked it. Some Lab supporters really have no sense of irony when complaining about a political party having the nerve to challenge them in an election.
I have been extremely critical of Labour's sluggishness in Mid Beds – I'm amazed you have missed my posts on the matter given how often I have repeated the point.
Yet @Barnesian 's argument is so crackpot it is almost beyond normal criticism and, rather, worthy of mockery. He argues, with a straight face, that, as the Liberals cannot win by-elections unless Labour concedes them, Labour should concede them even when the Liberals are IN THIRD PLACE.
I mean, this is not clever tactical voting strategy but, rather, an exercise in sheer idiocy. Sure, give the main challenger a free pass (a la Somerton, where Labour wilfully handed over its deposit). But conceding the race to the third-place party, whoever it is, is stark raving bonkers.
So yes, Labour can and should be criticised for being laggardly in Mid Beds.
And, also yes, @Barnesian and his fellow travellers should be scorned for their sense of entitlement and outright hubris.
OT. If LibDems cost Labour the seat could have pretty negative consequences for Davey. A significant number of anti-Tory voters likely to reflexively vote Labour at the GE and not "risk" a LibDem vote even in seats where the LibDems are challengers. Not everyone is clued in sufficiently to realise where the value lies.
If LibDems don't win the seat, I hope the Tories win it rather than Labour.
It will make little difference to the current parliamentary arithmetic.
It will show Labour that barging the LibDems aside has consequences.
It will encourage more cooperation between Labour and LibDems on tactical voting.
It may encourage the Tories and reduce the number of Tory losses in the GE making a minority rather than majority Labour government more likely.
The Lib Dems were there to be barged aside, weren't they?
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
Indeed. Crackers.
Yet it seems Labour are the ones getting most upset and having a sense of entitlement and that is after they did f*** all for weeks while the LDs worked it. Some Lab supporters really have no sense of irony when complaining about a political party having the nerve to challenge them in an election.
Of course there are also some soft Tories who would consider voting LD but never vote Labour, especially in a Southern seat like Mid Bedfordshire
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition.
That's one absolute humdinger of an extrapolation from just one poll. If the next poll shows a 16 point lead will you be calling a Labour majority?
Labour lead down to 12 points with More in Common . Fieldwork 14 to 16 October
Lab 42 Con 30 Lib Dem 12 Reform 7 Green 6 SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
This is a swing of 12% since the general election, and Labour need a 10% swing to win a majority with the old boundaries. I think we're heading for a Lab/LD coalition, (which would hopefully introduce proportional representation).
Not if Labour make big gains from the SNP as the Rutherglen swing would suggest
I have been a bit under the weather recently and on Monday I went to my GP who immediately sent me to A & E as a medical emergency with suspected DVT. I arrived at 5.30pm and was quickly triaged and at 6.30pm I had the all important bloods taken. I waited with my wife in A & E as the waiting times grew from originally 6 hours to 12 hours and at 3.00am I was asked for another blood test as the originally one had been incorrectly taken. It was only at 5.00am I saw a doctor who confirmed DVT and told me she was admitting me into hospital for an early ultra sound. At 7.00am I was summoned to a consultation room with several quite worried doctors and nurses arranging my immediate admission and at 10.30am I had my scan with confirmed an extensive upper leg DVT and treatment began immediately
I am home in quite some pain and know it will take upto 6 months to address the issue but I would just say that everyone in A & E were wonderful, as were the doctors and specialists who acted so quickly once the serious nature of the attack was realised and subsequently the hospital has confirmed that as I am now under their care I must contact them direct if I need to and they will admit me if required without going to A & E. This is very reassuring and hopefully I will in time make a full recovery
Some of the patients in A & E had been there for over 18 hours and as time went on through the night patients applauded when a fellow patient was finally called to the doctors
I tell this story because it is so obvious the issue is with the lack of staff and doctors and is applicable to all parts of the NHS, not just in England
I would just add that witnessing the appalling tragedy going on in Gaza I was reluctant to tell my story but it is a real experience of a patient in a medical emergency and hopefully politicians of whatever party must do something about it but I do have my doubts as there is no money
I should add I am not feeling particularly political at present as when faced with a really serious condition politics seems rather irrelevant
Sorry to hear this. Very glad you're on the mend, and hope for a swifter recovery than you expect.
Comments
The world has a long track record of forgetting awful things, that's if the world even pays any attention in the first place.
But it's more complex than that, and not a history I know anything of at all - especially Georgia vs Armenia.
The only history I have read even superficially is little pieces of personal accounts of Armenian immigrants to the USA.
Can anyone elucidate or provide a reference, or Youtube history series I can watch as wallpaper?
Eg 14 times in this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67053011
(It's been interesting to me watching the lines put out by Indian newspapers wrt Russia's war on Ukraine, when I have run across it.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calouste_Gulbenkian
The Gulbenkian is my favourite museum.
It is some entitlement to think that the main opposition should go easy in an election it could win, merely to allow a much smaller party, which finished a considerable way back in third, to have a clearer run.
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1714535497958334678
In short, the most likely explanation is a misfiring rocket launched from Gaza. Very unlikely that 500 people were killed based on the damage done. Plus where are the injured? I don't know if anyone was killed last night in the demonstrations outside the embassies in Lebanon and Tehran. I hope not.
Obviously, people in parties do pay more attention, but even then, the Labourites who like cooperation with the LibDems will still like cooperation with the LibDems and those who don’t will still not. Any Tories who think winning on ~30% because they got lucky on a split opposition vote is a big success or a winning strategy for the general election is a fool. Sure, milk the headlines if you win, but don’t get carried away!
I know, it sounds mad. But there is documentary evidence to back it up. One of the charges levelled at Armenians was that "their women steal our men" - and of course being Christian Armenian women were more liberated than Muslim women - showing their hair, etc
Other genocides have also been driven by sexual jealousy. It was a factor in the Rwandan genocide
"Hutu propaganda played an important role in both the genocide and the gender-specific violence. It often depicted Tutsi women as "a sexually seductive 'fifth column' in league with the Hutus' enemies". The brutality of the sexual violence, and complicity of Hutu women in the attacks, suggested that the propaganda was effective at mobilizing both females and males to participate in the genocide"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Rwandan_genocide
See also various pogroms against the pale-skinned Chinese diaspora in south east Asia
I also don’t see certain news outlets rushing to put out this sort of analysis as quickly as they announced the Israelis carried out a strike on a hospital killing 500.
OTOH, it will also be used to verify or debunk.
https://x.com/israelradar_com/status/1714615573269659989
I'd post an example on here but it is VERBOTEN
Dumb conventional bombs, as used by the IAF on Gaza, just detonate on contact. They leave a very large and obvious crater at the point of impact. There is no such crater at the hospital site, and the damage to surrounding structures is far lighter than would be the case if a bomb landed in the car park as Palestinian sources are claiming.
Something blew up in the car park, but the damage footprint and lack of crater strongly suggest either a vehicle went bang (possibly being used to transport explosives, Hamas have form there) or a rocket of some kind landed and set fire to parked vehicles, causing multiple small explosions.
(incidentally, the pictures I've seen do not suggest an explosion anywhere near powerful enough to cause 500 casualties - a few dozen maybe, if the car park was crowded)
The evidence points to Israel's story on this being correct, and I'm sure Western intel agencies have reached the same conclusion and told their leaders such.
500 deaths? Seems unlikely. 500 killed+injured given the area was packed with people? That seems plausible to me. If it was a failed Hamas missile then burning fuel & debris may well have fallen over a much wider area too, causing more casualties.
It’s a classic case of the game of telephone played out in real time in the middle of a warzone. Like the 40 beheaded babies, there is something terrible at the bottom that people felt compelled to share & was amplified rapidly into something even worse.
A fake might be visually convincing, but that's all it is. And making a series of fakes consistent with checkable reality becomes exponentially more difficult.
Putin invites Biden to tea
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/18/russia-ukraine-putin-zelensky-war-latest-news-live/
Daily Octordle #632
9️⃣7️⃣
8️⃣4️⃣
3️⃣2️⃣
6️⃣5️⃣
Score: 44
The likes of John Simpson are wrong when they say that 'terrorist' is a loaded word; it is not - it's a description. Terrorism is not difficult to define: it's violence undertaken with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of further violence in the future.
To refuse to use the word 'terrorist' is itself to make an implicit judgement on the moral equivalence of the sides in question.
For some, and I'd include Simpson in this, 'impartiality' has become such an end in itself he no longer sees the absurdity in its tortuous application undermining the reporting itself.
It is very difficult to see that this policy stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer when the water runs short. They ban dredging and scream 'flooding' in the Winter. All down to the climate crisis of course.
They were odds on favourite for several weeks. Then Labour barged in late, no doubt feeling entitled to it, and have probably gifted this seat to the Tories.
I do think that the LibDems can only win a seat like this if Labour let them on the grounds that many Tories will vote LibDem but will not countenance Labour. This appeared to be happening here, as it did in Somerton and Frome. And then Labour came late to the party and have given it to the Tories.
If Israel bombs Gaza, they are using violence with the intent of forcing others to change their policies under threat of future violence. But I wouldn’t call what Israel is doing terrorism. All war is violence to change policies, but not all war is terrorism.
I am also quite sceptical of armchair “experts” on social media who have suddenly become so knowledgeable on explosion forensics, having recently been experts on drone warfare in Ukraine, or epidemiology during COVID-19…
This storm is looking ominous though. The woods near me haven’t recovered from the storm 3? years ago. In fact they won’t in my lifetime.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3869489.stm
I may have picked it up via a programme such as From Our Own Correspondent or one of the R4 or BBC WS documentary slots.
It is much as I thought.
More anon.
Like human artists, AI finds hands hard. Even now it often gets them wrong, sometimes absurdly so - six fingers and the like
But now the latest models are mastering hands. All of these glitches will be ironed out, there won't be any visual cues
Genocide across the ages has usually been visceral; whipped up emotion from firebrands leading to out-of-control mobs taking matters into their own hands as the state looked on, whether approvingly or helplessly. Partly, that was simply because the state was too small to be able to control the emotions even if it'd wanted to.
Whereas the Holocaust was different. If wasn't carried out in hot blood but planned with all the administrative detail of a welfare state turned inside out. That feels uncomfortably close to home.
https://archive.org/details/anaccountgreatf00laudgoog/page/n2/mode/2up
This is a modern assessment - free (may need joining up, but JSTOR is OK)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4640000
If you want to deepen the main channel then bring explosives.
The only trick available is not having the water run straight into the river in the first place.
The scale of the explosions, however, seem to raise questions about what was being stored in the hospital.
But really, one by-election makes little difference in the big picture and whether the Tories retain it or not matters far less than the vote share they end up with, as a pointer to 2024.
(a) about this
https://www.gov.scot/publications/first-minister-speech-service-solidarity-giffnock-synagogue/
and (b) Holyrood is the Corporate Body - not the SG?
This is one of the maddest posts I have seen on here for a while.
The Liberals are in THIRD place in the seat.
I'm hoping to do Ben Vrackie, if the kids are up to it; and also possibly the Falls of Bruar. We're also (following last year's recommendation by, I think, @Luckyguy1983 ) going to do the Enchanted Forest again. Hopefully schedule in a castle of some sort.
But basically just spend a few days together as a family. The kids are absolutely running on empty leading up to half term - haven't needed a holiday as much as this in a long time!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67083432
You explanation, in which you implied they would happily call them terrorists if it ever came up naturally, was, therefore, absolute rubbish.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko
But yes, faked photos have been around as long as photos. Never forget how people vanished in Soviet era photos.
Nobody knows.
https://www.ft.com/content/22be14ad-f5ad-4d57-b2fc-2ed4a48f21f5
The LDs are fighting for this seat very hard to make the point they are the the opposition party with the best chance of winning in a mostly rural seat because the vast majority of traditional, soft Tory voters are very unlikely to switch to Labour despite Keir Starmer's window dressing. I can confirm reports that I have heard from several LD canvassers that believe the result will be very close and they have a good chance of winning tomorrow.
Lab 42
Con 30
Lib Dem 12
Reform 7
Green 6
SNP 3
I think events in the Middle East are helping the Cons with attention away from domestic issues .
The combined Con and Reform at 37 would seriously worry Labour . I think a few weeks back I’d have backed Labour for both by-elections . Now I think they’re more likely to take Tamworth than Mid-Beds . The split votes there and drop in national lead might be too much of a climb . In Tamworth the Tory candidate might have harmed his hopes with Fxckgate.
It is very difficult to see that this stems from anything but a wish to alarm people about the changes in climate and make them more amenable to otherwise unacceptable curtailments of freedom and financial costs. They ban new reservoirs from being built, and scream 'drought' in the Summer. They ban dredg I am sure that is true, and I am sure the usefulness of dredging is variable, but can we say with confidence that the river bed has not risen and the overall capacity of the river not decreased, during the time when dredging has been curtailed drastically?
The right and wrong sorts of flags I suppose.
I have been a bit under the weather recently and on Monday I went to my GP who immediately sent me to A & E as a medical emergency with suspected DVT. I arrived at 5.30pm and was quickly triaged and at 6.30pm I had the all important bloods taken. I waited with my wife in A & E as the waiting times grew from originally 6 hours to 12 hours and at 3.00am I was asked for another blood test as the originally one had been incorrectly taken. It was only at 5.00am I saw a doctor who confirmed DVT and told me she was admitting me into hospital for an early ultra sound. At 7.00am I was summoned to a consultation room with several quite worried doctors and nurses arranging my immediate admission and at 10.30am I had my scan with confirmed an extensive upper leg DVT and treatment began immediately
I am home in quite some pain and know it will take upto 6 months to address the issue but I would just say that everyone in A & E were wonderful, as were the doctors and specialists who acted so quickly once the serious nature of the attack was realised and subsequently the hospital has confirmed that as I am now under their care I must contact them direct if I need to and they will admit me if required without going to A & E. This is very reassuring and hopefully I will in time make a full recovery
Some of the patients in A & E had been there for over 18 hours and as time went on through the night patients applauded when a fellow patient was finally called to the doctors
I tell this story because it is so obvious the issue is with the lack of staff and doctors and is applicable to all parts of the NHS, not just in England
I would just add that witnessing the appalling tragedy going on in Gaza I was reluctant to tell my story but it is a real experience of a patient in a medical emergency and hopefully politicians of whatever party must do something about it but I do have my doubts as there is no money
I should add I am not feeling particularly political at present as when faced with a really serious condition politics seems rather irrelevant
Albeit he is still doing worse than Hague 2001 when it was Labour 40% Con 31%
But we should park the argument till Friday when we find out what actually happened, eh?
Yet @Barnesian 's argument is so crackpot it is almost beyond normal criticism and, rather, worthy of mockery. He argues, with a straight face, that, as the Liberals cannot win by-elections unless Labour concedes them, Labour should concede them even when the Liberals are IN THIRD PLACE.
I mean, this is not clever tactical voting strategy but, rather, an exercise in sheer idiocy. Sure, give the main challenger a free pass (a la Somerton, where Labour wilfully handed over its deposit). But conceding the race to the third-place party, whoever it is, is stark raving bonkers.
So yes, Labour can and should be criticised for being laggardly in Mid Beds.
And, also yes, @Barnesian and his fellow travellers should be scorned for their sense of entitlement and outright hubris.