Immigrants from Romanian communes where most people are severe alcoholics are in London selling industrial strength (60%+) black market alcohol from London slums
The poor folks of Boston (MA) have had 69 inches of snow in the last 30 days, a record, and are expecting 5-8" more today. The situation is so bad that they are running out of places to dispose of it, and their snow clearing budget for the year is a distant memory. Before you ask, they can't just dump it into the harbor - sensitive shellfish beds etc. They are developing a permit system to allow it to be dumped on beaches.
I wonder how long it will be before some talking head says that this is more proof of global warming, or as I noticed at the Obama /Merkel presser today, it's now called climate change.
At a time of increasing crises in eastern Europe / middle east / north africa / afghanistan etc, they take time to discuss climate change - really?
It's at the bottom of the issues list for American voters, but a real big deal for Obama, for some reason.
On 5th March there will be a by-election in Selhurst ward in Croydon, caused by the death of Councillor Gerry Ryan (Labour). It will be the first by-election in Croydon without me as a candidate since 8th December 1994.
Robert Fox in the Evening Standard tonight reporting that talk in Whitehall is that the Conservatives plan to cut Defence by a further 10-30% if they win in May.
Deeply worrying.
If that were true and they came out and said so, I'd be seriously tempted to vote for them. The time of Britain ruling the waves is long past, and we need to husband our financial resources accordingly. We live in one of the very safest spots on the entire planet. Why are we wasting so much money and risking the blood of our young men and women on fights on the other side of the world?
Very encouraging, still toeing the neo intervensionist line from Washington in word, but at least no longer in deed, as under Blair. The reason Merkel excluded the UK in Moscow is we are seen as a shill for DC and would only seek to undermine any discussions.
30% cuts is some 13 billion. There is no doubt the MoD are making cuts to the people who supply them and for instance run their facilities. That called efficiency savings and the MoD certainly need to make them - but thats not defence budget cuts. Unfortunately for your ambitions the UK is building 2 huge aircraft carriers and buying fighter jets transport planes and refuelling planes oh and new helicopters - all ideal for interventions.
Merkel still needs to take the USA into account ''Merkel to meet Obama amid growing US scepticism over Ukraine peace talks. German and US leaders face potential split over arming of Ukrainian fighters to combat Russian-backed separatists'' http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/09/merkel-to-meet-obama-to-resolve-ukrainian-differences ''“[Vladimir Putin] is leaving the global community with no choice but to continue to either put more sanctions in place or to provide additional assistance to Ukraine,” US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. “Hopefully he will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself.”'
Canvassing anecdote from the weekend: a group of 8 of us were fanned out along a road doing alternate houses, when two mildly tipsy teenagers appeared, each with a can of lager, one of them with a small child on his shoulders. He grabbed the day's canvass records (including lots of personal data) and started walking off. I politely asked for them back and reached out for them. He stared at me menacingly, and said "Don't TOUCH me, I'm carrying a child. You're not having them." The other lad slurred affably, "Yeah, iss my son". I asked for the records back again, and this time he said, "Course you can." and handed them over.
The child didn't seem at risk - his bearer was only very mildly drunk and steady on his feet, and both of them were clearly protective of him. But what should we have done if he'd simply walked off? Actually risking a scuffle with the child involved wasn't worth it, thoug we outnumbered them 8-2. Giving up the day's work would have been a risk to the constituents listed with addresses and in some cases phone numbers (and annoying too). Calling 999 seemed OTT and by the time the police turned up he'd probably have gone. Suggestions?
Walk with him and talk him into submission
Charles,
as someone who has had his fair share of spats with you over the years re banking, can I just say that your post this morning on where have things gone wrong was one of the more uplifting things I've seen from a banker in ages.
While we often disagree of the mechanics, on the principles I suspect we have more common ground than it appears. So keep going, the UK needs sound ethical bankers like yourself.
You don't start well with a post-imperalist cliche, that is both silly and dated. I see you've now switched it from "Britannia rules the waves" to 'Britain (no longer being) the force that it once was'. That is irrefutable but I reject the core thrust of your argument. This is about us maintaining a basic (and credible) core defence capability.
Second, how we allocate our financial resources is a choice. We could easily fund our armed forces properly at 2.5% GDP if we chose to do so. The politicians are prioritising funding other government departments (such as international development, health and education) at the expense of its core duty to defend us. I think that's grossly irresponsible.
It is neither.
You presuppose that 2.5% of GDP is the proper level of defence spending, which begs the question of what it is we should be trying to do.
Our security is not exclusively geographically localised. But it's a pretty big part of it. While we certainly have interests around the world, we can project power into few parts of it in practice and have not been able to for some time. This is a race we cannot win, so we should stop trying.
Germany, one of the world's great export nations, gets by without being a huge military power. There are other ways of dealing with the matter.
And why is Britain a country that is somehow expected to join the charge into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria whenever there's a problem? We don't have to be Robin to the USA's Batman.
Your idea of a core defence capability is an expensive luxury. It baffles me why the right are so blind to addressing this one obvious area where spending could profitably be trimmed further.
We live in a safe place, because we're part of a successful nuclear-armed alliance. As such, it's reasonable that we should pull our weight, rather than leaving everything up to the Americans. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe's share of NATO militiary expenditure has gone from one half to one quarter, which leaves the US, understandably, pretty pissed off.
Your idea of a core defence capability is an expensive luxury. It baffles me why the right are so blind to addressing this one obvious area where spending could profitably be trimmed further.
The proper level of defence spending is that commensurate with funding the objectives contained within the 1998 SDR, which laid out a very good roadmap for the security of the UK in the 21st Century. It envisaged a rebalancing away from maintaining a force in continental Europe, and towards a global expeditionary capability.
Successive governments have refused to properly fund it. However, the 2010 SDSR cut below critical-mass. We now routinely have no ships available to dispatch, we cannot protect our nuclear submarines with maritime surveillance, we have no serviceable aircraft carrier and are desperately short of fighter jets. The army resembles little more than a militia.
That is dangerous. This isn't about winning a race. It's about stopping other races from even starting by staying in the game. Because if we don't, others will, and they will be calling the shots for us. The security of both Germany and Japan are both at the mercy of major international political events. And the types of nations that do that don't tend to be the pleasant ones.
The West really needs to learn that nowhere is it written in stone that democracy, liberalism and freedom will ultimately reign supreme. Neither is even its existing maintenance guaranteed. The USA is retreating from Europe and re-orientating East. If we want to be safe, we need to step up to the mark.
The time for that has never been more important than now. We have a terrorist state training jihadists by the thousands, right on our doorstep, and an increasingly aggressive Kremlin challenging the boundaries of Western resolve to defend Eastern European democracies. Both have emerged in the last five years. I don't even want to contemplate what might come up in the next five.
Your idea of defence as an optional extra is dangerously irresponsible. It baffles me how erstwhile intelligent people like yourself can be so naive - to think that it either doesn't matter, or we can rely on others to do it for us - and to think such rash decisions (if taken) will have no effect on our future security or prosperity.
The police force appear to be in a death spiral. Moral at rock bottom, inability to recruitment half decent candidates, lack of promotion, etc., etc. It used to be they were expected to know the law inside out. Now it seems like they make it up as they go along. I do not know a single former police officer who has recommended joining. This does not bode well for the future.
The head of the Wiltshire plod is under investigation.
Immigrants from Romanian communes where most people are severe alcoholics are in London selling industrial strength (60%+) black market alcohol from London slums
Did they say where the "beds in sheds" were? I assumed Hounslow/Southall/Slough but didn't hear them mention it.
Immigrants from Romanian communes where most people are severe alcoholics are in London selling industrial strength (60%+) black market alcohol from London slums
Your idea of a core defence capability is an expensive luxury. It baffles me why the right are so blind to addressing this one obvious area where spending could profitably be trimmed further.
The proper level of defence spending is that commensurate with funding the objectives contained within the 1998 SDR, which laid out a very good roadmap for the security of the UK in the 21st Century. It envisaged a rebalancing away from maintaining a force in continental Europe, and towards a global expeditionary capability.
Successive governments have refused to properly fund it. However, the 2010 SDSR cut below critical-mass. We now routinely have no ships available to dispatch, we cannot protect our nuclear submarines with maritime surveillance, we have no serviceable aircraft carrier and are desperately short of fighter jets. The army resembles little more than a militia.
That is dangerous. This isn't about winning a race. It's about stopping other races from even starting by staying in the game. Because if we don't, others will, and they will be calling the shots for us. The security of both Germany and Japan are both at the mercy of major international political events. And the types of nations that do that don't tend to be the pleasant ones.
The West really needs to learn that nowhere is it written in stone that democracy, liberalism and freedom will ultimately reign supreme. Neither is even its existing maintenance guaranteed. The USA is retreating from Europe and re-orientating East. If we want to be safe, we need to step up to the mark.
The time for that has never been more important than now. We have a terrorist state training jihadists by the thousands, right on our doorstep, and an increasingly aggressive Kremlin challenging the boundaries of Western resolve to defend Eastern European democracies. Both have emerged in the last five years. I don't even want to contemplate what might come up in the next five.
Your idea of defence as an optional extra is dangerously irresponsible. It baffles me how erstwhile intelligent people like yourself can be so naive - to think that it either doesn't matter, or we can rely on others to do it for us - and to think such rash decisions (if taken) will have no effect on our future security or prosperity.
I don't regard defence as an optional extra. I regard the level of defence that you desire as an optional extra.
Your description of ISIL as "right on our doorstep" is a case in point. It is roughly 2,500 miles in a straight line from London to Kobane. I find my doorstep a little closer at hand. The jihadis are deeply worrying, of course. But we don't have a military solution for ISIL on current levels of defence spending. We need to look for other solutions.
Immigrants from Romanian communes where most people are severe alcoholics are in London selling industrial strength (60%+) black market alcohol from London slums
Romanians or gypsies?
Looked like gypsies to be honest, but couldn't be sure.. they were drinking brandy at 9am with no heating or electricity in their homes.. much like the slums in London the programmes said
Romanian slum dwellings and Bangladeshi crooked elections in London.. ah mass immigration
Got to love the Greeks, I am convinced they are trying to shame the Germans into coughing up the reparation money they owe, and the rest of Europe will be nagging the Germans to pay up and save the Euro.
The West really needs to learn that nowhere is it written in stone that democracy, liberalism and freedom will ultimately reign supreme. Neither is even its existing maintenance guaranteed. The USA is retreating from Europe and re-orientating East. If we want to be safe, we need to step up to the mark.
The time for that has never been more important than now. We have a terrorist state training jihadists by the thousands, right on our doorstep, and an increasingly aggressive Kremlin challenging the boundaries of Western resolve to defend Eastern European democracies. Both have emerged in the last five years. I don't even want to contemplate what might come up in the next five.
Your idea of defence as an optional extra is dangerously irresponsible. It baffles me how erstwhile intelligent people like yourself can be so naive - to think that it either doesn't matter, or we can rely on others to do it for us - and to think such rash decisions (if taken) will have no effect on our future security or prosperity.
Tony Blair (pause for people to boo hiss) was interesting on this, I think. He was seriously tempted to give up Trident, so long as we put the money into a credible intervention force, with sealift, air cover and commandos - his view was that the prioritry should be to be credible in the situatiuons that arise from time to time where Britain might want to be involved, as the higher priority than guarding against a hypotethical nuclear adversary. In the end he decided that giving up Trident would send the wrong signals, but you might have felt he was thinking on the right general lines.
I've become more isolationist myself, partly because of the Iraq debacle. I'm no longer confident that we will achieve positive results by distant intervention, and with constantly shifting factions in trouble spots, if we aren't sure which side we most want to kill, we're probably better off not getting into it.
3 key differences with 1992, one, as these polls show the Tories were polling at 38% or more in all the final polls, more than they won even in 2010 and far more than they are presenty polling. Second, UKIP was not around in 1992 winning more than 10% of the vote and splitting the Tory vote in the process. Third, David Cameron is a reasonably competent PM, but rather an arrogant toff, John Major was a state educated boy from Brixton who people generally liked and was prepared to get on his soap box and spread his message. John Major the Movie was on of the great party political broadcasts of all time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp94BNovs0o
3 key differences with 1992, one, as these polls show the Tories were polling at 38% or more in all the final polls, more than they won even in 2010 and far more than they are presenty polling. Second, UKIP was not around in 1992 winning more than 10% of the vote and splitting the Tory vote in the process. Third, David Cameron is a reasonably competent PM, but rather an arrogant toff, John Major was a state educated boy from Brixton who people generally liked and was prepared to get on his soap box and spread his message. John Major the Movie was on of the great party political broadcasts of all time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp94BNovs0o
Is Major the one who had the controversy as to whether he tucked his shirt into his underpants?
3 key differences with 1992, one, as these polls show the Tories were polling at 38% or more in all the final polls, more than they won even in 2010 and far more than they are presenty polling. Second, UKIP was not around in 1992 winning more than 10% of the vote and splitting the Tory vote in the process. Third, David Cameron is a reasonably competent PM, but rather an arrogant toff, John Major was a state educated boy from Brixton who people generally liked and was prepared to get on his soap box and spread his message. John Major the Movie was on of the great party political broadcasts of all time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp94BNovs0o
Is Major the one who had the controversy as to whether he tucked his shirt into his underpants?
Wasn't the underpants thingy a piece of Alistair Campbell spin?
Also worth considering the 2010 election. We had polls with three parties more or less level-pegging. It didn't work out that way on the day. The SNP or UKIP poll share could yet subside (I don't think the SNP will lose out. UKIP might).
Also worth considering the 2010 election. We had polls with three parties more or less level-pegging. It didn't work out that way on the day. The SNP or UKIP poll share could yet subside (I don't think the SNP will lose out. UKIP might).
Mr Goodwin made the point that a party that leads on a particular issue, as UKIP does on immigration, (and the EU?) will not fade.
Thanks - the only two things I know about John Major are the underpants thing and the cones hotline. Ah - make that 3 - Private Eye used to publish his diary, a la Adrian Mole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major The media (particularly The Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell) used the allegation by Alastair Campbell that he had observed Major tucking his shirt into his underpants to caricature him wearing his pants outside his trousers
May I trouble the PB Brains Trust for some assistance on a small linguistic puzzle?
I named the dog I recently acquired Cherry (see avatar), because it is a nice name and I liked the little word play, 'cherry' being cockney rhyming slang for dog.
Although the slang usage isn't much in vogue these days I was in no doubt it was authentic if somewhat archaic because as a kid I heard it regularly, usually when my Dad was 'off to the cherries', i.e. going to the greyhound racing at Clapton, or Walthamstow. Cherry was evidently short for cherriog, rhyming with dog. Although I heard the word cherriog often, I never saw it written down, and had no idea what it meant (except as cockney for dog.) During an idle moment (probably when I should have been studying) I tried looking the word up, but with limited success. I remember references to a cherry pip and a small keg of beer, but I wasn't convinced. I have never heard a cherry pip called anything but a cherry pip, and small kegs of beer are always known, as far as I am aware, as small kegs of beer. Maybe I got the spelling wrong. Anyway, I never pursued it.
Now we have the internet and checking this kind of thing ought to be easy, but when I look up cockney for 'dog' it confirms 'cherry' as a traditional usage, but all the sources I found stated that it was short for Cherry Hog(g). Which is all fine and dandy, except that nobody can say what a Cherry Hogg is.
I've exhausted all the usual search engines and spent more time than is sane on this research project. My two vol Oxford English Dictionary helped not one jot.
Anybody out there in PB Land have an answer, or know somebody who might? I'm so frustrated by the dead-end I have reached I am ready to make a small payment or donation for assistance in solving this riddle.
If anybody has a (serious) suggestion, I'd be grateful if they would contact me via Vanilla, or my personal email arklebar@gmail.com
TimB He also won more votes than any PM in history in 1992, he was basically a bit like Bush Snr, to whom he was close, a centrist gentleman after Thatcher and Reagan who did OK, won one election, but ultimately lost out to the more charismatic Blair and Clinton
Comments
I worry about Dr P - his upbringing in Denmark has made him too soft for the British way of life.
Immigrants from Romanian communes where most people are severe alcoholics are in London selling industrial strength (60%+) black market alcohol from London slums
I wonder how long it will be before some talking head says that this is more proof of global warming, or as I noticed at the Obama /Merkel presser today, it's now called climate change.
At a time of increasing crises in eastern Europe / middle east / north africa / afghanistan etc, they take time to discuss climate change - really?
It's at the bottom of the issues list for American voters, but a real big deal for Obama, for some reason.
Merkel still needs to take the USA into account
''Merkel to meet Obama amid growing US scepticism over Ukraine peace talks.
German and US leaders face potential split over arming of Ukrainian fighters to combat Russian-backed separatists''
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/09/merkel-to-meet-obama-to-resolve-ukrainian-differences
''“[Vladimir Putin] is leaving the global community with no choice but to continue to either put more sanctions in place or to provide additional assistance to Ukraine,” US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. “Hopefully he will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself.”'
as someone who has had his fair share of spats with you over the years re banking, can I just say that your post this morning on where have things gone wrong was one of the more uplifting things I've seen from a banker in ages.
While we often disagree of the mechanics, on the principles I suspect we have more common ground than it appears. So keep going, the UK needs sound ethical bankers like yourself.
Successive governments have refused to properly fund it. However, the 2010 SDSR cut below critical-mass. We now routinely have no ships available to dispatch, we cannot protect our nuclear submarines with maritime surveillance, we have no serviceable aircraft carrier and are desperately short of fighter jets. The army resembles little more than a militia.
That is dangerous. This isn't about winning a race. It's about stopping other races from even starting by staying in the game. Because if we don't, others will, and they will be calling the shots for us. The security of both Germany and Japan are both at the mercy of major international political events. And the types of nations that do that don't tend to be the pleasant ones.
The West really needs to learn that nowhere is it written in stone that democracy, liberalism and freedom will ultimately reign supreme. Neither is even its existing maintenance guaranteed. The USA is retreating from Europe and re-orientating East. If we want to be safe, we need to step up to the mark.
The time for that has never been more important than now. We have a terrorist state training jihadists by the thousands, right on our doorstep, and an increasingly aggressive Kremlin challenging the boundaries of Western resolve to defend Eastern European democracies. Both have emerged in the last five years. I don't even want to contemplate what might come up in the next five.
Your idea of defence as an optional extra is dangerously irresponsible. It baffles me how erstwhile intelligent people like yourself can be so naive - to think that it either doesn't matter, or we can rely on others to do it for us - and to think such rash decisions (if taken) will have no effect on our future security or prosperity.
Besides, if they were discussing important topics, they would be covering Bruce Jenner's alleged sex change.
Obviously you want a low key trial to evaluate the product.
So what's the best place to have a police department evaluate it?
Yup - Ferguson Missouri.
http://rt.com/usa/229311-ferguson-police-less-lethal/
Lord Ashcroft's polls are not what they seem http://tgr.ph/1xZA3Ov
http://www.channel4.com/news/lynette-white-cardiff-five-corruption-trial-collapse-inquiry-theresa-may
"The euro is like a house of cards. If you pull away the Greek card, they all come down,” says Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11400778/Greeces-leaders-stun-Europe-with-escalating-defiance.html
Your description of ISIL as "right on our doorstep" is a case in point. It is roughly 2,500 miles in a straight line from London to Kobane. I find my doorstep a little closer at hand. The jihadis are deeply worrying, of course. But we don't have a military solution for ISIL on current levels of defence spending. We need to look for other solutions.
Romanian slum dwellings and Bangladeshi crooked elections in London.. ah mass immigration
Great strategy if that is what they are doing.
I've become more isolationist myself, partly because of the Iraq debacle. I'm no longer confident that we will achieve positive results by distant intervention, and with constantly shifting factions in trouble spots, if we aren't sure which side we most want to kill, we're probably better off not getting into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp94BNovs0o
Also worth considering the 2010 election. We had polls with three parties more or less level-pegging. It didn't work out that way on the day. The SNP or UKIP poll share could yet subside (I don't think the SNP will lose out. UKIP might).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qpB7JEsk8o
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=steve+bell+major&rlz=1C1VFKB_enGB624GB624&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&imgil=CTCLPPlgORtDdM%3A%3B9nSmNpDxoVxg7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.theguardian.com%252Fcommentisfree%252Fcartoon%252F2013%252Fnov%252F11%252Fjohn-major-conservative-party-steve-bell-cartoon&source=iu&pf=m&fir=CTCLPPlgORtDdM%3A%2C9nSmNpDxoVxg7M%2C_&usg=__xzbCEI6gHpnKS5DGa22QHniWoxU=&ved=0CDkQyjc&ei=HRXZVLW4NtPlav3cgYAI#imgdii=_&imgrc=CTCLPPlgORtDdM%3A;9nSmNpDxoVxg7M;http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F11%2F11%2F1384208385898%2FSteve-Bell-12.11.13-002.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2Fcartoon%2F2013%2Fnov%2F11%2Fjohn-major-conservative-party-steve-bell-cartoon;512;380
twitter.com/stephentall/status/564720951867494400
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/564690402843037697
The Sunday Post reported he [Salmond] also spent almost £800 on “subsistence” at the Peninsula
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10978937/Alex-Salmond-finally-publishes-five-star-hotel-list.html
So £1.30 vs £800.......
The media (particularly The Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell) used the allegation by Alastair Campbell that he had observed Major tucking his shirt into his underpants to caricature him wearing his pants outside his trousers
I named the dog I recently acquired Cherry (see avatar), because it is a nice name and I liked the little word play, 'cherry' being cockney rhyming slang for dog.
Although the slang usage isn't much in vogue these days I was in no doubt it was authentic if somewhat archaic because as a kid I heard it regularly, usually when my Dad was 'off to the cherries', i.e. going to the greyhound racing at Clapton, or Walthamstow. Cherry was evidently short for cherriog, rhyming with dog. Although I heard the word cherriog often, I never saw it written down, and had no idea what it meant (except as cockney for dog.) During an idle moment (probably when I should have been studying) I tried looking the word up, but with limited success. I remember references to a cherry pip and a small keg of beer, but I wasn't convinced. I have never heard a cherry pip called anything but a cherry pip, and small kegs of beer are always known, as far as I am aware, as small kegs of beer. Maybe I got the spelling wrong. Anyway, I never pursued it.
Now we have the internet and checking this kind of thing ought to be easy, but when I look up cockney for 'dog' it confirms 'cherry' as a traditional usage, but all the sources I found stated that it was short for Cherry Hog(g). Which is all fine and dandy, except that nobody can say what a Cherry Hogg is.
I've exhausted all the usual search engines and spent more time than is sane on this research project. My two vol Oxford English Dictionary helped not one jot.
Anybody out there in PB Land have an answer, or know somebody who might? I'm so frustrated by the dead-end I have reached I am ready to make a small payment or donation for assistance in solving this riddle.
If anybody has a (serious) suggestion, I'd be grateful if they would contact me via Vanilla, or my personal email arklebar@gmail.com
Thanks