Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
In other news I’m attempting for the first time, to cook yams. I’ve passed them so many times, scruffy old things alongside the shinier but more dangerous looking cassava, but never thought to try them.
I plucked a reasonably straight and unpockmarked puna yam from the pile at one of the many grocers on Deptford high street - recently unfairly disrespected by Leon who has never visited, and would feel right at home among the at least a dozen shops and restaurants from indochina (mainly Vietnam - Deptford has one of if not the largest Viet community in London).
They are chopped and currently boiling. The starch scum in the pan smells and looks unnervingly like cum.
Going to roast them with tonight’s toad in the hole. I’ll let you know how they turn out.
I might be tempted to dry Yam Chips, which is number 24.
I have half the yam left (they’re big buggers) so might have a go at chips later this week.
Yams now parboiled and in the oven, and no longer smelling cummy, but with somewhat phallic looking sausages below awaiting the batter mix.
Oh by the way what that website calls yams are not yams, they’re sweet potatoes. The murricans call sweet potatoes “yams” for reasons best known to themselves.
In USA yams and sweet potatoes are two different things.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
In other news I’m attempting for the first time, to cook yams. I’ve passed them so many times, scruffy old things alongside the shinier but more dangerous looking cassava, but never thought to try them.
I plucked a reasonably straight and unpockmarked puna yam from the pile at one of the many grocers on Deptford high street - recently unfairly disrespected by Leon who has never visited, and would feel right at home among the at least a dozen shops and restaurants from indochina (mainly Vietnam - Deptford has one of if not the largest Viet community in London).
They are chopped and currently boiling. The starch scum in the pan smells and looks unnervingly like cum.
Going to roast them with tonight’s toad in the hole. I’ll let you know how they turn out.
You're not selling the idea to me tbh.
Never tried them and now most certainly never will.
I doubt they're a patch on turnips.
Simply ejaculate into a pan of boiled turnips to give the illusion of cooking yams.
Goes LOOOONG way toward explaining lack of enthusiasm for English cuisine. ESPECIALLY outside of England.
Meanwhile in the latest Dan Neidle expose, Michelle Mone is having a rant without seemingly doing anything to challenge what she and her husband are about to be accused of:
Dan Neidle has become obsessed about my husband’s business interests.
It’s all a bit creepy. Who is he & who has decided he is the legal & moral authority on all things HMRC?
Let me tell you. Mr Neidle is former Head of Tax at Clifford Chance, a huge global law firm…
I have huge respect for Dan. He seems utterly fearless. As someone in the same line of business as him I have nowhere near the courage (and not just because I’m still working: I wouldn’t do this after retirement either).
So, Farage stands and gets elected for ReFuk. On entering parliament he immediately defects to the Tories and announces his intention to stand for the leadership.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
While I would NOT characterize UK's actions viz-a-viz China as typically "correct" do think recognition of Peoples Republic by UK was NOT totally incorrect.
In other news I’m attempting for the first time, to cook yams. I’ve passed them so many times, scruffy old things alongside the shinier but more dangerous looking cassava, but never thought to try them.
I plucked a reasonably straight and unpockmarked puna yam from the pile at one of the many grocers on Deptford high street - recently unfairly disrespected by Leon who has never visited, and would feel right at home among the at least a dozen shops and restaurants from indochina (mainly Vietnam - Deptford has one of if not the largest Viet community in London).
They are chopped and currently boiling. The starch scum in the pan smells and looks unnervingly like cum.
Going to roast them with tonight’s toad in the hole. I’ll let you know how they turn out.
You're not selling the idea to me tbh.
Never tried them and now most certainly never will.
I doubt they're a patch on turnips.
Simply ejaculate into a pan of boiled turnips to give the illusion of cooking yams.
Goes LOOOONG way toward explaining lack of enthusiasm for English cuisine. ESPECIALLY outside of England.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
As with North vs South Korea, and, back in the day, East vs West Germany, the choice between autocracy and democracy ought to be no choice at all.
In other news I’m attempting for the first time, to cook yams. I’ve passed them so many times, scruffy old things alongside the shinier but more dangerous looking cassava, but never thought to try them.
I plucked a reasonably straight and unpockmarked puna yam from the pile at one of the many grocers on Deptford high street - recently unfairly disrespected by Leon who has never visited, and would feel right at home among the at least a dozen shops and restaurants from indochina (mainly Vietnam - Deptford has one of if not the largest Viet community in London).
They are chopped and currently boiling. The starch scum in the pan smells and looks unnervingly like cum.
Going to roast them with tonight’s toad in the hole. I’ll let you know how they turn out.
You're not selling the idea to me tbh.
Never tried them and now most certainly never will.
I doubt they're a patch on turnips.
Simply ejaculate into a pan of boiled turnips to give the illusion of cooking yams.
Goes LOOOONG way toward explaining lack of enthusiasm for English cuisine. ESPECIALLY outside of England.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
Meanwhile in the latest Dan Neidle expose, Michelle Mone is having a rant without seemingly doing anything to challenge what she and her husband are about to be accused of:
Dan Neidle has become obsessed about my husband’s business interests.
It’s all a bit creepy. Who is he & who has decided he is the legal & moral authority on all things HMRC?
Let me tell you. Mr Neidle is former Head of Tax at Clifford Chance, a huge global law firm…
I have huge respect for Dan. He seems utterly fearless. As someone in the same line of business as him I have nowhere near the courage (and not just because I’m still working: I wouldn’t do this after retirement either).
Lady Moan is being mentored - telepathically anyway - by her role model Donald Trump.
Including the generalized 21st-century Republican attack on all tax collecting based on income. AND all enforcement of same.
So, Farage stands and gets elected for ReFuk. On entering parliament he immediately defects to the Tories and announces his intention to stand for the leadership.
And if the Tories are fools, they will choose him and go down to the kind of defeat that ends them as any coherent political force forever.
So, bring on the former Russia Today presenter, being hyped by the bad boy of Brexit and frequent guest at the Russian Embassy, Aaron Banks.
Meanwhile in the latest Dan Neidle expose, Michelle Mone is having a rant without seemingly doing anything to challenge what she and her husband are about to be accused of:
Dan Neidle has become obsessed about my husband’s business interests.
It’s all a bit creepy. Who is he & who has decided he is the legal & moral authority on all things HMRC?
Let me tell you. Mr Neidle is former Head of Tax at Clifford Chance, a huge global law firm…
I have huge respect for Dan. He seems utterly fearless. As someone in the same line of business as him I have nowhere near the courage (and not just because I’m still working: I wouldn’t do this after retirement either).
That means they're in deeper shit than I thought. Dan wouldn't go after them for legal tax "structuring" and he will be the man that knows precisely where the line is given his past employment
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Isn't it reciprocal, with Taiwan claiming sovereignty over the mainland too?
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
As with North vs South Korea, and, back in the day, East vs West Germany, the choice between autocracy and democracy ought to be no choice at all.
Somebody ought to pass this information on to any US citizens planning to vote for donald Trump.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
In other news I’m attempting for the first time, to cook yams. I’ve passed them so many times, scruffy old things alongside the shinier but more dangerous looking cassava, but never thought to try them.
I plucked a reasonably straight and unpockmarked puna yam from the pile at one of the many grocers on Deptford high street - recently unfairly disrespected by Leon who has never visited, and would feel right at home among the at least a dozen shops and restaurants from indochina (mainly Vietnam - Deptford has one of if not the largest Viet community in London).
They are chopped and currently boiling. The starch scum in the pan smells and looks unnervingly like cum.
Going to roast them with tonight’s toad in the hole. I’ll let you know how they turn out.
You're not selling the idea to me tbh.
Never tried them and now most certainly never will.
I doubt they're a patch on turnips.
Simply ejaculate into a pan of boiled turnips to give the illusion of cooking yams.
Goes LOOOONG way toward explaining lack of enthusiasm for English cuisine. ESPECIALLY outside of England.
British cuisine. We’re talking turnips here.
Americans think that, after scones and (maybe) English breakfast tea, turnips ARE high point of British cuisine.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
Or better still, give me a column.
Really, they should credit this site.
They should.
It is by no means the first time a lazy journalist has lifted material from here.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
Or better still, give me a column.
Really, they should credit this site.
Your lawyers can best advise on terms & conditions.
Heck, you can assemble your team from those bellying up to the PB bar!
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
I’m not letting this amazing sudden returning memory DIE just coz of a new thread
So. FPT
Just had a vivid memory of me age 23, wearing sort of Hitler Youth black shorts - with braces - inhabiting a £2 a night hostel on the wild bank of the Nile at Luxor, a hostel which was actually part of some ancient temple, so you woke up in the morning and stared at Anubis staring back at you. Superb
I was with three friends and we were all equally insane and we spent every day chasing down opium until we found a good supplier, and that kept us zonked for a week, opiated to fuck, the only problem was that the hostel owner/opium dealer really really wanted to have gay sex with my very handsome best friend Trevor, and, failing that, me (less handsome but still pretty enough, back then)
So we had to spend the whole time begging him to sell us more opium while at the same time coming up with excuses why we would not let him sodomise us (or bugger him, I don’t know if he batted or bowled)
THAT, my PB friends, is a true story
Second post in and you are attempting to hijack the thread. A record I suspect even for @Leon .
@MarqueeMark commandeered the last thread beautifully. He achieved a parallel conversation and interesting diversion on the state of comedy with steely guile.
Two tips for you: it wasn't all about him and who these days is interested in the procurement of class A drugs? The accomplishment of which is neither big nor clever.
"Steely guile"? Oo-er.
Have now finished over 4,000 lines of moth records on my spreadsheet for 2023. I think steering the conversation on this thread towards moths might be a greater challenge.
Although reminiscences of fash knickerbockers with braces is probably preferable to bigging up the ego of Nigel Farage.
Theory: Britain started going downhill when the army gave up wearing redcoats
Up until then we were unbeatable. After that…. Decline
It wasn't the army that was unbeatable. But, largely, the navy - plus allying with as many others as possible.
It was neither, until the NU10k and all the plebs started being allowed to vote and get into government positions we were top nation. The empire was under the direction of sons of nobles and public school boys directing the dregs in redcoats.
Everyone who wanted a more equal society is to blame for the downturn in our nations fortunes. Notice we still had colonies until those weird lefty Labour people got elected after the war. There is a clear correlation between how many wars and colonies we lost compared to how many people we allowed to vote.
I am so very glad to see that the idea of accountability in high office is upsetting to some people.
Hopefully we can move from upset at the idea, to upset at the actualité.
I’m not letting this amazing sudden returning memory DIE just coz of a new thread
So. FPT
Just had a vivid memory of me age 23, wearing sort of Hitler Youth black shorts - with braces - inhabiting a £2 a night hostel on the wild bank of the Nile at Luxor, a hostel which was actually part of some ancient temple, so you woke up in the morning and stared at Anubis staring back at you. Superb
I was with three friends and we were all equally insane and we spent every day chasing down opium until we found a good supplier, and that kept us zonked for a week, opiated to fuck, the only problem was that the hostel owner/opium dealer really really wanted to have gay sex with my very handsome best friend Trevor, and, failing that, me (less handsome but still pretty enough, back then)
So we had to spend the whole time begging him to sell us more opium while at the same time coming up with excuses why we would not let him sodomise us (or bugger him, I don’t know if he batted or bowled)
THAT, my PB friends, is a true story
I believe you, I mean nobody is shocked that you dressed like the Hitler Youth.
I’m a bit shocked he didn’t pick a tonier outfit than the Hitler Youth. The SD?
Bit hot and sweaty for the climate. DAK, or at a pinch the loose overalls of the OT or the Fallschirmjaeger.
They must have had a summer uniform, surely?
SD? No idea, my boyhood model army didn't get beyond the Afrika Korps and paratroops! But now you mention it the army did have a tropical/summer uniform used in the Mediterranean summer as well as North Africa, so yes I should think so - just use the appropriate badges.
According to Wiki the SD wore Waffen SS uniforms and they did indeed have a white summer tunic.
One learns something new on PB daily. Never thought of the SS in white (except in the mess).
You often see pix of Hermann Goering in a white tunic, he probably thought it made him look less fat.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Good Lord!
I feel I owe an apology for praising the er.. borrower.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
Iran beating Palestine 4-1 in the Asian Cup. Five bookings after just an hour, thought they were meant to be friends
Human solidarity aside, there's unlikely to be much friendship. Iranians booed the Palestinian flag at a match on 8 October, as they saw it as a political statement by their own awful regime that bears a lot of responsibility for all the death in the region.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
As with North vs South Korea, and, back in the day, East vs West Germany, the choice between autocracy and democracy ought to be no choice at all.
In addition, the Chinese government declares that democracy would lead to chaos and that it is unsuited to Chinese people. Taiwan gives the lie to that.
Those with a long memory will recall the same arguments being presented in the 80s for Africa, Eastern Europe and other places - democracy, apparently, was unsuitable for these places.
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
The Democrats' problem is VP Harris. If Biden goes, they either run her (and she's even less popular than Biden) or they ditch her (in which case there will be an outcry
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
Or better still, give me a column.
Really, they should credit this site.
Your lawyers can best advise on terms & conditions.
Heck, you can assemble your team from those bellying up to the PB bar!
As a start, you should get a large chunk of what he was paid for that column.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
The Democrats' problem is VP Harris. If Biden goes, they either run her (and she's even less popular than Biden) or they ditch her (in which case there will be an outcry
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
Not just the imagination - Trump has captured the levers of power within the Republican Party at national, state and local levels.
Typical indeed traditional for sitting POTUS if somewhat less so for those defeated for re-election, and still eligible for re-electon.
About last pre-Trump example I can recall is Grover Cleveland. Herbert Hoover tried in 1932 & 1936, no dice. Jimmy Carter never tried after 1980, same for George Bush the Elder after 1992.
I’m not letting this amazing sudden returning memory DIE just coz of a new thread
So. FPT
Just had a vivid memory of me age 23, wearing sort of Hitler Youth black shorts - with braces - inhabiting a £2 a night hostel on the wild bank of the Nile at Luxor, a hostel which was actually part of some ancient temple, so you woke up in the morning and stared at Anubis staring back at you. Superb
I was with three friends and we were all equally insane and we spent every day chasing down opium until we found a good supplier, and that kept us zonked for a week, opiated to fuck, the only problem was that the hostel owner/opium dealer really really wanted to have gay sex with my very handsome best friend Trevor, and, failing that, me (less handsome but still pretty enough, back then)
So we had to spend the whole time begging him to sell us more opium while at the same time coming up with excuses why we would not let him sodomise us (or bugger him, I don’t know if he batted or bowled)
THAT, my PB friends, is a true story
I believe you, I mean nobody is shocked that you dressed like the Hitler Youth.
I’m a bit shocked he didn’t pick a tonier outfit than the Hitler Youth. The SD?
Bit hot and sweaty for the climate. DAK, or at a pinch the loose overalls of the OT or the Fallschirmjaeger.
They must have had a summer uniform, surely?
SD? No idea, my boyhood model army didn't get beyond the Afrika Korps and paratroops! But now you mention it the army did have a tropical/summer uniform used in the Mediterranean summer as well as North Africa, so yes I should think so - just use the appropriate badges.
According to Wiki the SD wore Waffen SS uniforms and they did indeed have a white summer tunic.
One learns something new on PB daily. Never thought of the SS in white (except in the mess).
You often see pix of Hermann Goering in a white tunic, he probably thought it made him look less fat.
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
The Democrats' problem is VP Harris. If Biden goes, they either run her (and she's even less popular than Biden) or they ditch her (in which case there will be an outcry
Incumbents have been challenged before, no?
Joe Biden is being challenged for 2024 Democratic nomination by Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips.
Both are on the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot this year - unlike Joe who is a write-in candidate.
AND all three are on ballot for upcoming March 2024 Washington State presidential primary.
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
There is no enthusiasm for any particular Democrat who could replace him. If Biden were ten years younger, there would be no question that he should be the candidate, given his record is pretty good if you are the median Democrat, i.e. the left-most 15-25% of the USA. However, inflation seems to have hit the actual median vote a lot harder in terms of vote intention, and of course, he's not 10 years younger, he's 81.
Sir Keir is leaning very heavily into using ‘serve’ & ‘service’ whenever possible, he’s saying it ever such a lot. Labour are obviously trying to cast themselves as ego-less & humble, just grateful for the opportunity to do good, against the heartless, selfish arrogant Tories who take power for granted
Obviously I find it completely nauseating and insincere, but I suppose it must have been focus grouped.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
I lived and worked there for seven years so no danger of that. Positions haven't changed much.
Speaking of Taiwan election, know a doctor practicing in Seattle, who is of Chinese/Taiwanese heritage. She's a mossback = born and raised in Western Washington. Her father was of Chinese stock, her mother part Chinese & part indigenous Taiwanese.
Her mother lives with doctor & daughter's average White guy husband; their little girl is bi-lingual.
Doc's grandmother still lives in Taiwan. And am wondering, how did she vote?
AND also her mother, and maybe herself, as I'm pretty sure my friend has dual citizenship.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
Maybe irrelevant to the diplomatic question, but until Taiwan became a democracy about 1990, it too was a pretty nasty regime with a hundred thousand political prisoners held under harsh conditions and tens of thousands of executions and extra judicial killings. Chiang Kai-shek previously ran probably the most monumentally corrupt government there has ever been
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Isn't it reciprocal, with Taiwan claiming sovereignty over the mainland too?
Indeed.
Does the Taiwanese government make a claim on mainland China any more? It seems to me that they are not interested in having anything to do with China.
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Not exactly. Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
In the case of Finland, despite all the “Finlandisation”, through the Cold War, there was fairly subtle support for Finland. Which is, in part, why Finland is a liberal democracy and was never subsumed into the East Blok.
Certainly, the USSR assumed that in a war with the West, Finland was effectively a NATO country to be attacked.
Sir Keir is leaning very heavily into using ‘serve’ & ‘service’ whenever possible, he’s saying it ever such a lot. Labour are obviously trying to cast themselves as ego-less & humble, just grateful for the opportunity to do good, against the heartless, selfish arrogant Tories who take power for granted
Obviously I find it completely nauseating and insincere, but I suppose it must have been focus grouped.
I can’t see why Starmer has got himself into this situation unless he really, really wanted to. As ex-DPP he’d be a highly respected lawyer, textbook author, newspaper columnist or whatever. I can’t see the same about some …most ….. of the rest of Labour’s Front Bench, though.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
Maybe irrelevant to the diplomatic question, but until Taiwan became a democracy about 1990, it too was a pretty nasty regime with a hundred thousand political prisoners held under harsh conditions and tens of thousands of executions and extra judicial killings. Chiang Kai-shek previously ran probably the most monumentally corrupt government there has ever been
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Isn't it reciprocal, with Taiwan claiming sovereignty over the mainland too?
Indeed.
Does the Taiwanese government make a claim on mainland China any more? It seems to me that they are not interested in having anything to do with China.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
Mao would have finished Formosa off in 1949/1950, had he been able to do so.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
Maybe irrelevant to the diplomatic question, but until Taiwan became a democracy about 1990, it too was a pretty nasty regime with a hundred thousand political prisoners held under harsh conditions and tens of thousands of executions and extra judicial killings. Chiang Kai-shek previously ran probably the most monumentally corrupt government there has ever been
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Isn't it reciprocal, with Taiwan claiming sovereignty over the mainland too?
Indeed.
Does the Taiwanese government make a claim on mainland China any more? It seems to me that they are not interested in having anything to do with China.
Taiwan only properly became a democracy in the mid 90's. It had the longest period of Martial Law in history. 1947-87.
Couple that with occupation by Japan (1895-1945), during which time all the natural resources were stolen under conditions close to slavery and it's really quite remarkable the strides made. Second point. The DPP claim to be Taiwanese. But officially they are still the Republic of China. Control of the Mainland is part of the constitution.
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
The Democrats' problem is VP Harris. If Biden goes, they either run her (and she's even less popular than Biden) or they ditch her (in which case there will be an outcry
Incumbents have been challenged before, no?
Joe Biden is being challenged for 2024 Democratic nomination by Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips.
Both are on the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot this year - unlike Joe who is a write-in candidate.
AND all three are on ballot for upcoming March 2024 Washington State presidential primary.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
The problem was we were bankrupt - we had left the Indian Sub-Continent in less than favourable circumstances and there was frankly nothing we could do to stop Mao and given the CCP had agreed to respect the 99-year lease on Hong Kong agreed with a previous Chinese Government - we had no pretext for any other action.
As to whether we'd have benefitted economically from refusing to recognise the Beijing Government since 1949 and continuing to recognise only the Taipei Government as the legitimate Government of China, I think we both know the answer to that.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
Strangely one of the few leaders that stuck with Chiang Kai-shek until the very end was Joseph Stalin
Chiang was actually fairly left wing, espousing the ideals of the early Chinese Republic. Indeed after the flight to Taiwan he implemented a programme of land and business reform that redistributed wealth considerably more widely.
He was aided by both US aid, and also by the fact that Taiwan had been Japanese for decades and had a better educated population and less systematic corruption than he had had to deal with on the mainland, where he never really had ever established full control over the warlords.
@Casino_Royale I am very concerned by your final sentence. The USA is far from perfect but it's a free democracy and the only serious Western power checking the expansionism of repressive autocracies in Russia, Iran and China in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan respectively. And we've seen what happens to people that fall under its wing.
I hope you revisit your view.
Thanks for a considered and thoughtful response. I am by no means certain in my view and am not by any means lauding China. Instead, I am conveying a deeply pessimistic outlook whereby a Trump win (or someone of his ilk) means that the role that USA currently plays checking the expansionism of autocracies is lost. And even if not Trump, when I see how blindly partisan USA politics is I find it hard to imagine them continuing to be a free democracy over the next 20 years. I fervently hope I am wrong because I want democracy to win out.
One of the big problems as I see it is that the opponents of the USA have such an open goal to aim at. US policy in Central and South America; its role in toppling leftist democracies in Africa and supporting autocrats in their place; it’s blunderous attempts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan; its blatant attempt to control oil fields in Iraq. All give fodder to those who want to cosy up to Russia and China in smaller countries.
Lastly I am not sure that we can speak of China in the same tone as we do of Russia and Iran. Taiwan, for example; it is clearly Chinese, just a different brand of Chinese politics from the revolutionary mainland. China invading Taiwan, to a neutral observer, is nothing like the USA invading Iraq or staging a coup in Tanzania, for example. Nor is it like Iran funding terror groups, nor again is it like Russia invading Ukraine although I can see this is a more subtle distinction.
Please don’t misunderstand me-I am not arguing for a minute that China invading Taiwan would be a good thing, simply that I don’t think it would be worse than what the USA did in Iraq.
I am deeply concerned about the future and looking for the least worst option. Perhaps selfishly, of the options available I feel Chinese global dominance is least likely to end up with me or one of my kids being conscripted into a global war. To restate once more - if USA emerges from its current morass still a functioning but imperfect democracy, then let’s stick with them.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
The problem was we were bankrupt - we had left the Indian Sub-Continent in less than favourable circumstances and there was frankly nothing we could do to stop Mao and given the CCP had agreed to respect the 99-year lease on Hong Kong agreed with a previous Chinese Government - we had no pretext for any other action.
As to whether we'd have benefitted economically from refusing to recognise the Beijing Government since 1949 and continuing to recognise only the Taipei Government as the legitimate Government of China, I think we both know the answer to that.
Maybe you missed my earlier post characterising our action as "realism"?
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
Maybe irrelevant to the diplomatic question, but until Taiwan became a democracy about 1990, it too was a pretty nasty regime with a hundred thousand political prisoners held under harsh conditions and tens of thousands of executions and extra judicial killings. Chiang Kai-shek previously ran probably the most monumentally corrupt government there has ever been
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Isn't it reciprocal, with Taiwan claiming sovereignty over the mainland too?
Indeed.
Does the Taiwanese government make a claim on mainland China any more? It seems to me that they are not interested in having anything to do with China.
Taiwan only properly became a democracy in the mid 90's. It had the longest period of Martial Law in history. 1947-87.
Couple that with occupation by Japan (1895-1945), during which time all the natural resources were stolen under conditions close to slavery and it's really quite remarkable the strides made. Second point. The DPP claim to be Taiwanese. But officially they are still the Republic of China. Control of the Mainland is part of the constitution.
One reason that Beijing backs the Kuomintang . . . on Taiwan that is.
For @Gardenwalker, maybe what you find dislikable about Sir Keir is his habit of smirking, in a slightly Alan Partridge style, when he’s disagreeing with the questioner after being pulled up for some double standard, broken pledge or whatever. I think it’s a prelude to losing his rag
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
Mao would have finished Formosa off in 1949/1950, had he been able to do so.
Prevented mostly by the Korean War, which shored up US support for Taiwan, and diverted the Red Army.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
Mao would have finished Formosa off in 1949/1950, had he been able to do so.
Prevented mostly by the Korean War, which shored up US support for Taiwan, and diverted the Red Army.
That certainly helped, but I'm not sure Mao had the naval forces to successfully invade across the strait.
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
Mao would have finished Formosa off in 1949/1950, had he been able to do so.
Prevented mostly by the Korean War, which shored up US support for Taiwan, and diverted the Red Army.
One reason why, when the People's Republic intervened - to put it mildly - in the Korean War, the troops it fielded against UN/US/UK/etc. forces were"volunteers" and NOT officially part of the People's Liberation Army.
For @Gardenwalker, maybe what you find dislikable about Sir Keir is his habit of smirking, in a slightly Alan Partridge style, when he’s disagreeing with the questioner after being pulled up for some double standard, broken pledge or whatever. I think it’s a prelude to losing his rag
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
Is that the same Frank Luntz who is 'best known for developing talking points and other messaging for Republican causes.'?
Or who spectacularly mis-forecast the 2022 midterms?
Slightly on topic. Taiwan is a fascinating place. Plenty go for business, but almost nobody for pleasure. It's got rainforest. The highest mountain east of the Himalayas. Beaches. Ultra modern cities and crookbacked women in conical hats transplanting rice. Natural hot springs. Loads of history too. Weather isn't great, mind.
Is this example of ill wind blowing a bit of good, at least for the North Wales tourism and hospitality sector?
OR is it yet more bad news, as more and more eager yet clueless outlanders, clog the highways and byways from Beddgelert to Craig-y-Don and back, seeking to buy stamps in sub-postoffices defunct since before the Profumo Scandal, let alone the PO Scandal?
For @Gardenwalker, maybe what you find dislikable about Sir Keir is his habit of smirking, in a slightly Alan Partridge style, when he’s disagreeing with the questioner after being pulled up for some double standard, broken pledge or whatever. I think it’s a prelude to losing his rag
@Casino_Royale I am very concerned by your final sentence. The USA is far from perfect but it's a free democracy and the only serious Western power checking the expansionism of repressive autocracies in Russia, Iran and China in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan respectively. And we've seen what happens to people that fall under its wing.
I hope you revisit your view.
Thanks for a considered and thoughtful response. I am by no means certain in my view and am not by any means lauding China. Instead, I am conveying a deeply pessimistic outlook whereby a Trump win (or someone of his ilk) means that the role that USA currently plays checking the expansionism of autocracies is lost. And even if not Trump, when I see how blindly partisan USA politics is I find it hard to imagine them continuing to be a free democracy over the next 20 years. I fervently hope I am wrong because I want democracy to win out.
One of the big problems as I see it is that the opponents of the USA have such an open goal to aim at. US policy in Central and South America; its role in toppling leftist democracies in Africa and supporting autocrats in their place; it’s blunderous attempts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan; its blatant attempt to control oil fields in Iraq. All give fodder to those who want to cosy up to Russia and China in smaller countries.
Lastly I am not sure that we can speak of China in the same tone as we do of Russia and Iran. Taiwan, for example; it is clearly Chinese, just a different brand of Chinese politics from the revolutionary mainland. China invading Taiwan, to a neutral observer, is nothing like the USA invading Iraq or staging a coup in Tanzania, for example. Nor is it like Iran funding terror groups, nor again is it like Russia invading Ukraine although I can see this is a more subtle distinction.
Please don’t misunderstand me-I am not arguing for a minute that China invading Taiwan would be a good thing, simply that I don’t think it would be worse than what the USA did in Iraq.
I am deeply concerned about the future and looking for the least worst option. Perhaps selfishly, of the options available I feel Chinese global dominance is least likely to end up with me or one of my kids being conscripted into a global war. To restate once more - if USA emerges from its current morass still a functioning but imperfect democracy, then let’s stick with them.
The USA withdrew from Iraq; its objective was not annexation. China, Russia and Iran use their muscle to intimidate, silence, bully, oppress or seek revenge against anyone they like, without any scruples or justice.
If our primary goal is peace and avoiding any sort of conflict at all costs then might will make right, and we will have to suffer what we must.
Frank Luntz believes that Donald Trump will be the next US President. However did it come to this?
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
Is that the same Frank Luntz who is 'best known for developing talking points and other messaging for Republican causes.'?
Or who spectacularly mis-forecast the 2022 midterms?
The trouble is that Taiwan pulls the rug from under the feet of those who praise the 'success' of communist China. A bit like a free democratic Ukraine being a permanent sore for a chauvinistic authoritarian Russia.
It is hard to see peaceful co-existence given the ideological differences.
And yet they've managed 75 years of it.
Due to outside support for Taiwan and the cost/risk to China of invading. Please be under no illusions.
Mao would have finished Formosa off in 1949/1950, had he been able to do so.
Prevented mostly by the Korean War, which shored up US support for Taiwan, and diverted the Red Army.
One reason why, when the People's Republic intervened - to put it mildly - in the Korean War, the troops it fielded against UN/US/UK/etc. forces were"volunteers" and NOT officially part of the People's Liberation Army.
Many were late defections from either KMT forces or warlords. Hence human wave attacks, as the Communists were not particularly wanting them to return.
By August 1948, however, the Communists' victories caused the British government to begin preparing for a Communist takeover of the country. It kept open consulates in CCP-controlled areas and rejected the Nationalists' requests that British citizens assist in the defence of Shanghai.
By December, the government concluded that although British property in China would likely be nationalised, British traders would benefit in the long run from a stable, industrialising Communist China.
Retaining Hong Kong was especially important; although the CCP promised to not interfere with its rule, Britain reinforced the Hong Kong Garrison during 1949.
When the victorious Communist government declared on 1 October 1949 that it would exchange diplomats with any country that ended relations with the Nationalists, Britain—after discussions with other Commonwealth members and European countries—formally recognised the People's Republic of China in January 1950.
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Seriously, what else could we have done at the time?
Well, I wasn't alive then and I haven't made a special study of it. I do seem to remember a fair amount of rhetoric had been flying around a few years earlier about standing up for the rights of small countries. Though admittedly that had already gone by the board where Finland was concerned.
Maybe irrelevant to the diplomatic question, but until Taiwan became a democracy about 1990, it too was a pretty nasty regime with a hundred thousand political prisoners held under harsh conditions and tens of thousands of executions and extra judicial killings. Chiang Kai-shek previously ran probably the most monumentally corrupt government there has ever been
Slightly odd article from the BBC on tge Taiwanese election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67974541 " China sees any statement of support towards the DPP as lending legitimacy to politicians, which Beijing sees as a gang of separatists hoping to turn Taiwan into an independent sovereign nation."
Are we not supposed to see Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation then, BBC?
Strangely, no. The official position, endorsed by governments around the world, is that there is only one China, which includes the Province of Taiwan, Jinmen and Matsu. The only difference being in who is the legitimate government. The current government of Taiwan does not claim independence. That's why they aren't in the UN. Of course, de facto they are. But nobody says that.
Isn't it reciprocal, with Taiwan claiming sovereignty over the mainland too?
Indeed.
Does the Taiwanese government make a claim on mainland China any more? It seems to me that they are not interested in having anything to do with China.
Map of ROC territorial claims:
Note that Republic of China still claims (formerly that is formally "independent") Russian Republic of Tuva, on ground it is part of Mongolia which ROC also claims.
As matter of political/diplomatic strategy, policy of maintaining maximum Chinese claims AND wherever possible exceeding claims by People's Republic, thus displaying superior Chinese nationalist (small n) credentials.
Is this example of ill wind blowing a bit of good, at least for the North Wales tourism and hospitality sector?
OR is it yet more bad news, as more and more eager yet clueless outlanders, clog the highways and byways from Beddgelert to Craig-y-Don and back, seeking to buy stamps in sub-postoffices defunct since before the Profumo Scandal, let alone the PO Scandal?
We welcome all holiday makers to North Wales as our economy is very dependent on the revenue
Though they would need a mortgage for a book of first class stamps !!!!!!!
Is this example of ill wind blowing a bit of good, at least for the North Wales tourism and hospitality sector?
OR is it yet more bad news, as more and more eager yet clueless outlanders, clog the highways and byways from Beddgelert to Craig-y-Don and back, seeking to buy stamps in sub-postoffices defunct since before the Profumo Scandal, let alone the PO Scandal?
We welcome all holiday makers to North Wales as our economy is very dependent on the revenue
Though they would need a mortgage for a book of first class stamps !!!!!!!
Slightly on topic. Taiwan is a fascinating place. Plenty go for business, but almost nobody for pleasure. It's got rainforest. The highest mountain east of the Himalayas. Beaches. Ultra modern cities and crookbacked women in conical hats transplanting rice. Natural hot springs. Loads of history too. Weather isn't great, mind.
I watch an embarrassing amount of cookery shows (both TV and YT) and I've still yet to happen on someone visiting Taiwan. I'm not sure if it's just rubbish or if there is sensitivity towards the Chinese market. I'm guessing the latter though.
For @Gardenwalker, maybe what you find dislikable about Sir Keir is his habit of smirking, in a slightly Alan Partridge style, when he’s disagreeing with the questioner after being pulled up for some double standard, broken pledge or whatever. I think it’s a prelude to losing his rag
The Emir of Qatar “DESPERATELY Wanted that meeting with me” - Get you Mr Popular!
At least that Israel Palestine thing should be cleared up soon now though
Looks like LAB 38% CON 32% bigger swings in the marginals LAB 340 seats maj 30
Which coincidentally somebody predicted in the PB competition. Now, I wonder who that was?...
In interests of completeness, transparency, democracy and mockery, respectful if not humbly demand you publish my answers along with other PB entrants?
Spoiled or not, yours truly may yet prove more prescient, than skeptics and scoffers are now willing to admit.
Particularly when it comes to Liberal Democrat leadership . . .
I think the 4/1 is tempting, certainly more so than the other Farage bets on offer. Maybe not quite tempting enough, but he’s got the name recognition and there’s plenty of time before the election for him to establish himself as the leading opponent to the Tories in the constituency.
It would make sense for Reform UK to throw everything at this. Having 1 MP did wonders for the Greens’ visibility, even if they’ve yet to increase that number.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
Or better still, give me a column.
Really, they should credit this site.
Your lawyers can best advise on terms & conditions.
Heck, you can assemble your team from those bellying up to the PB bar!
As a start, you should get a large chunk of what he was paid for that column.
A plagiarism case will need to show the exact same words being lifted. Getting your ideas from elsewhere is not actionable, is it?
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, arriving to a cold still south and a rather windy north:
..it is only now that the conscience of Westminster has been sufficiently stirred for the government to propose remedies. And only after the intense public outrage generated by the compelling ITV drama, Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
A mounting pile of evidence suggests the government-owned organisation and its corporate collaborator sought to conceal their own blunders to protect their brands, profits and the reputations of senior executives at the expense of innocent people.
Having let this go on for so long, politicians from Rishi Sunak downwards are falling over each other to try to blag a bogus halo by hailing the campaign led by Mr Bates and declaring that he deserves a knighthood. There’s less enthusiasm at Westminster for acknowledging a collective failure to wake up to this scandal much earlier.
An unusual feature of this scandal is that its taint is on more than one party. This is a large part of the explanation for why none was previously keen to give it the attention and profile that it deserved. Over the past 25 years, there have been 15 business secretaries, one Lib Dem, six Labour and eight Conservative. Politicians from all three parties have held ministerial responsibility for postal affairs. Tories chucking stones are doing so from glass houses.
The government expects a mass exoneration to take the heat out of public anger, but justice will not be properly done until there is condign punishment of all those responsible for inflicting devastating cruelty and hardship on so many innocent people. They endured it for so long because politicians who should have been alert to what was going on were asleep at the wheel of state.
That extract sums things up, almost perfectly.
Goodness me. I'm getting a teensy bit bored of journalists who have paid absolutely no attention to this until now copying what was said on here (yes, by me - and others) months ago.
Mrs PtP, who has suffered similarly from plagiarism, suggest you write to the editor and complain. You need an apology and assurance that in future you expect to be acknowledged as a source. The days when 'on-line' writings could be freely lifted are long gone.
PB is widely read and respected in political circles. Stealing from it will not go down well. Don't let it pass, or it will keep happening, and that's not fair on all contributors.
Let them know what you might reasonably charge a client and/or publication for your purloined work(s) you've previously self-published, on PB and elsewhere, based on your time (considerable) and (expertise (double ditto).
Or better still, give me a column.
Really, they should credit this site.
Your lawyers can best advise on terms & conditions.
Heck, you can assemble your team from those bellying up to the PB bar!
As a start, you should get a large chunk of what he was paid for that column.
A plagiarism case will need to show the exact same words being lifted. Getting your ideas from elsewhere is not actionable, is it?
Is this example of ill wind blowing a bit of good, at least for the North Wales tourism and hospitality sector?
OR is it yet more bad news, as more and more eager yet clueless outlanders, clog the highways and byways from Beddgelert to Craig-y-Don and back, seeking to buy stamps in sub-postoffices defunct since before the Profumo Scandal, let alone the PO Scandal?
We welcome all holiday makers to North Wales as our economy is very dependent on the revenue
Though they would need a mortgage for a book of first class stamps !!!!!!!
I stayed in Llandudno once it was really good 👍
I stayed in Rhyl once, but only as a "base" for visiting the nicer bits around, such as Llandudno, Snowdon, Conway and Chirk.
Slightly on topic. Taiwan is a fascinating place. Plenty go for business, but almost nobody for pleasure. It's got rainforest. The highest mountain east of the Himalayas. Beaches. Ultra modern cities and crookbacked women in conical hats transplanting rice. Natural hot springs. Loads of history too. Weather isn't great, mind.
I watch an embarrassing amount of cookery shows (both TV and YT) and I've still yet to happen on someone visiting Taiwan. I'm not sure if it's just rubbish or if there is sensitivity towards the Chinese market. I'm guessing the latter though.
The food is everywhere and divine. By far the best and most varied Chinese.
Comments
Just sayin'
I always had a lurking fear that the UK's actions might not have been entirely correct. But now I'm not in any doubt.
Dan Neidle has become obsessed about my husband’s business interests.
It’s all a bit creepy. Who is he & who has decided he is the legal & moral authority on all things HMRC?
Let me tell you. Mr Neidle is former Head of Tax at Clifford Chance, a huge global law firm…
https://x.com/michellemone/status/1746564304982126896?s=46
I have huge respect for Dan. He seems utterly fearless. As someone in the same line of business as him I have nowhere near the courage (and not just because I’m still working: I wouldn’t do this after retirement either).
Western government take a weird 'Schroedinger's state' view of Taiwan.
The international law position is as clear as mud.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
And the reality is that mainland China's historical claims on the island are extremely weak.
Really, they should credit this site.
He'll be wearing his Gazza Strip.
Including the generalized 21st-century Republican attack on all tax collecting based on income. AND all enforcement of same.
So, bring on the former Russia Today presenter, being hyped by the bad boy of Brexit and frequent guest at the Russian Embassy, Aaron Banks.
It is by no means the first time a lazy journalist has lifted material from here.
Heck, you can assemble your team from those bellying up to the PB bar!
In some ways I find the Republican situation easier to understand than the Democrat one. Like it or not Trump has captured the imagination of a substantial minority of the US public. That's it and there's no point trying to rationalise it. But what explains the clinging to Biden on the other side? Nearly 82 years old and looking not a day younger, poor poll ratings and a public that would like him to stand down. And yet there is no enthusiasm to ditch him.
Hopefully we can move from upset at the idea, to upset at the actualité.
I feel I owe an apology for praising the er.. borrower.
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202310090589
Those with a long memory will recall the same arguments being presented in the 80s for Africa, Eastern Europe and other places - democracy, apparently, was unsuitable for these places.
Typical indeed traditional for sitting POTUS if somewhat less so for those defeated for re-election, and still eligible for re-electon.
About last pre-Trump example I can recall is Grover Cleveland. Herbert Hoover tried in 1932 & 1936, no dice. Jimmy Carter never tried after 1980, same for George Bush the Elder after 1992.
Both are on the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot this year - unlike Joe who is a write-in candidate.
AND all three are on ballot for upcoming March 2024 Washington State presidential primary.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/14/humza-yousaf-brother-in-law-charged-with-drugs-offences/
Obviously I find it completely nauseating and insincere, but I suppose it must have been focus grouped.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1746612610345127994?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Positions haven't changed much.
Her mother lives with doctor & daughter's average White guy husband; their little girl is bi-lingual.
Doc's grandmother still lives in Taiwan. And am wondering, how did she vote?
AND also her mother, and maybe herself, as I'm pretty sure my friend has dual citizenship.
Certainly, the USSR assumed that in a war with the West, Finland was effectively a NATO country to be attacked.
I can’t see the same about some …most ….. of the rest of Labour’s Front Bench, though.
It had the longest period of Martial Law in history.
1947-87.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)#:~:text=The White Terror (Chinese: 白色,Kuomintang (KMT)-ruled government.
Couple that with occupation by Japan (1895-1945), during which time all the natural resources were stolen under conditions close to slavery and it's really quite remarkable the strides made.
Second point. The DPP claim to be Taiwanese. But officially they are still the Republic of China.
Control of the Mainland is part of the constitution.
Wasn't this the one with the light plane crash?
A possible turning point in history missed there.
He sounds more sensible, and is at least in Congress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Phillips
As to whether we'd have benefitted economically from refusing to recognise the Beijing Government since 1949 and continuing to recognise only the Taipei Government as the legitimate Government of China, I think we both know the answer to that.
He was aided by both US aid, and also by the fact that Taiwan had been Japanese for decades and had a better educated population and less systematic corruption than he had had to deal with on the mainland, where he never really had ever established full control over the warlords.
@Casino_Royale I am very concerned by your final sentence. The USA is far from perfect but it's a free democracy and the only serious Western power checking the expansionism of repressive autocracies in Russia, Iran and China in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan respectively. And we've seen what happens to people that fall under its wing.
I hope you revisit your view.
Thanks for a considered and thoughtful response. I am by no means certain in my view and am not by any means lauding China. Instead, I am conveying a deeply pessimistic outlook whereby a Trump win (or someone of his ilk) means that the role that USA currently plays checking the expansionism of autocracies is lost. And even if not Trump, when I see how blindly partisan USA politics is I find it hard to imagine them continuing to be a free democracy over the next 20 years. I fervently hope I am wrong because I want democracy to win out.
One of the big problems as I see it is that the opponents of the USA have such an open goal to aim at. US policy in Central and South America; its role in toppling leftist democracies in Africa and supporting autocrats in their place; it’s blunderous attempts to root out terrorism in Afghanistan; its blatant attempt to control oil fields in Iraq. All give fodder to those who want to cosy up to Russia and China in smaller countries.
Lastly I am not sure that we can speak of China in the same tone as we do of Russia and Iran. Taiwan, for example; it is clearly Chinese, just a different brand of Chinese politics from the revolutionary mainland. China invading Taiwan, to a neutral observer, is nothing like the USA invading Iraq or staging a coup in Tanzania, for example. Nor is it like Iran funding terror groups, nor again is it like Russia invading Ukraine although I can see this is a more subtle distinction.
Please don’t misunderstand me-I am not arguing for a minute that China invading Taiwan would be a good thing, simply that I don’t think it would be worse than what the USA did in Iraq.
I am deeply concerned about the future and looking for the least worst option. Perhaps selfishly, of the options available I feel Chinese global dominance is least likely to end up with me or one of my kids being conscripted into a global war. To restate once more - if USA emerges from its current morass still a functioning but imperfect democracy, then let’s stick with them.
It really does show how beautiful a part of the country my wife and I and our family live in
Breathtaking North Wales showcased by Mr Bates vs The Post Office
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/breathtaking-north-wales-locations-made-28439098#ICID=Android_DailyPostNewsApp_AppShare
https://x.com/bbcpolitics/status/1746512589046067312?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The Emir of Qatar “DESPERATELY Wanted that meeting with me” - Get you Mr Popular!
At least that Israel Palestine thing should be cleared up soon now though
Or who spectacularly mis-forecast the 2022 midterms?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Midterm_election_2022
Taiwan is a fascinating place.
Plenty go for business, but almost nobody for pleasure.
It's got rainforest. The highest mountain east of the Himalayas. Beaches. Ultra modern cities and crookbacked women in conical hats transplanting rice. Natural hot springs. Loads of history too.
Weather isn't great, mind.
OR is it yet more bad news, as more and more eager yet clueless outlanders, clog the highways and byways from Beddgelert to Craig-y-Don and back, seeking to buy stamps in sub-postoffices defunct since before the Profumo Scandal, let alone the PO Scandal?
If our primary goal is peace and avoiding any sort of conflict at all costs then might will make right, and we will have to suffer what we must.
Otherwise, we will have to stand up to it.
Since then he's been seen as something of a sage here.
David Cameron, "I'm now responsible for our relationship with the EU.. I hated leaving in 2016 but I think it was the right thing to do"
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1746476569554502098?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
As matter of political/diplomatic strategy, policy of maintaining maximum Chinese claims AND wherever possible exceeding claims by People's Republic, thus displaying superior Chinese nationalist (small n) credentials.
Six held over plot to disrupt London Stock Exchange
Six people have been arrested on suspicion of a plot to disrupt the London Stock Exchange.
The Met Police said information suggested activists from the Palestine Action group were intending to target the exchange on Monday,
The force said it was believed those involved were planning to cause damage and "lock on" in an effort to stop the building opening for trading.
Arrests were made in London, Liverpool and Brighton on Sunday.
All six people are currently in custody.
The Met said it was "mindful of the suggestion that this was one part of a planned week of action".
Though they would need a mortgage for a book of first class stamps !!!!!!!
Spoiled or not, yours truly may yet prove more prescient, than skeptics and scoffers are now willing to admit.
Particularly when it comes to Liberal Democrat leadership . . .
It would make sense for Reform UK to throw everything at this. Having 1 MP did wonders for the Greens’ visibility, even if they’ve yet to increase that number.
A subpostmaster in the early 2000s describing a Horizon error happening in front of PO/Fujitsu investigators.