Over in Brussels, the EC’s chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas has confirmed that talks with Athens are now on ice until Greece has voted on its future on Sunday.
Eleni Varvitsiotis @Elbarbie - No further talks till Sunday,we will take into consideration the results of #referendum #Greeks r voting for their future says @MargSchinas
Tsipras appears to be on his own now, having done his best to annoy both Lagarde and Merkel (women issues?) – Doubt we’ll hear much more from the Greek elite, apart from noise, until the Referendum result on Sunday. – Bring on the Bank queues and empty shelves.
And the empty petrol stations and the hospitals without medication (a significant problem already).
Will this be enough to change the vote? I hope so. Yes is a step towards a difficult future but No is a step off a cliff.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
The "Arabs" are complaining that their "Western Allies" are not doing enough to fight IS but I don't see their boots on the ground doing the dirty work.
Yes, and when we do intervene, everyone is all rainbows and kittens about it. "The West" has just become a whipping boy for all the world's ills. I suppose we've moved on from "colonialism", so that's something.
I recall when there was the initial recent coup in the Central African Republic that there were reporters on the ground being told by people they were angry that France hadn't done more to stabilise things and take responsibility (or words to that effect, it was severla years ago but that sentiment was crystal clear), which to my mind rather misses the point of independence. I'm not saying former powers no longer have interests in and influence in former colonies and possessions, and so itbeing in everyone's interests for them not to ignore matters, but being accused, essentially, of shirking responsibilities that belong to the independent nation struck me as a bit much
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!". What with all this red button stuff there should be an option to choose to view without the commentary but still with the sound of the balls and spectators.
Over in Brussels, the EC’s chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas has confirmed that talks with Athens are now on ice until Greece has voted on its future on Sunday.
Eleni Varvitsiotis @Elbarbie - No further talks till Sunday,we will take into consideration the results of #referendum #Greeks r voting for their future says @MargSchinas
Tsipras appears to be on his own now, having done his best to annoy both Lagarde and Merkel (women issues?) – Doubt we’ll hear much more from the Greek elite, apart from noise, until the Referendum result on Sunday. – Bring on the Bank queues and empty shelves.
And the empty petrol stations and the hospitals without medication (a significant problem already).
Will this be enough to change the vote? I hope so. Yes is a step towards a difficult future but No is a step off a cliff.
Only a No vote will start the Greek equivalent of the walk of shame that the Greeks must do. I'm not religious, but a bit of old testament damnation is in order to my mind before they can start to come out the other side.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!". What with all this red button stuff there should be an option to choose to view without the commentary but still with the sound of the balls and spectators.
You can't be serious?
In all 'seriousness' Dan Maskell or John Barrett would probably be my idea of a commentator, but well, times have moved on.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
Here is a good article on exactly the point you make
Mr. Rentool, given Labour's strength and Conservative weakness in London, would any seats changing hands help the Lib Dems bounce back? Could Greens realistically aspire to winning a seat or two in London?
I can only see us losing seats to the Conservatives in London as a result of being pro-Heathrow.
If Zac isn't a candidate for major, and the Conservatives put up a pro-runway candidate against a pro-runway Tessa, then the Greens could get a good vote share and gain an extra seat on the assembly.
On another point - Heathrow is only a hub for One World. There is no reason why Gatwick can't be a hub for Star Alliance and/or SkyTeam. Look at the US - each allaiance has its own set of hubs.
The report rejects that possibility in the following terms:
"For Gatwick expansion to deliver connectivity benefits closer in scale to those from Heathrow, substantial changes would need to be seen, such as an airline alliance moving to the airport, low-cost carriers making significant incursions into the long-haul sector or the structured use of low-cost networks as ‘feeder’ services for long-haul carriers. None of these is impossible, but they would be a risky basis for any long-term infrastructure decision " Page 22 of the Report.
It would be much less costly and politically divisive to use some of the money saved by expanding at Gatwick to encourage Star Alliance or SkyTeam to use Gatwick as a hub and thereby get similar long-haul benefits to Heathrow. It would dramatically change the analysis but is rejected as "a risky basis for any long-term infrastructure decision"!
This is a joke given the other risky assumptions made in the analysis.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
Some of the cakes the TMS team get delivered do sound lovely though !
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
It is understood that around three layers of management will be cut, while some of the BBC's divisions will be reduced...
Lord Hall announced the reductions to its 18,000-strong workforce today amid growing pressure from the Government to slash costs.
The BBC is expected to publish a green paper detailing its future plans in the coming weeks.
The proposed steps are:
- To reduce the number of divisions. First by joining up technology teams across digital, engineering and worldwide. Further changes are also possible.
- To reduce the number of layers from the top to the bottom of the organisation. In some places there are currently 10 layers of people and management and this will be cut to a maximum of seven in the future.
- To reduce management roles in all areas of the BBC. A simpler organisation will 'inevitably' require fewer managers, especially at senior levels.
- To simplify and standardise procedures across the BBC particularly looking at how professional and support areas such as marketing and communication, finance, HR, IT support and legal are structured and can be simplified.
As a west London resident, I'm not sure there is huge opposition to the expansion of Heathrow among locals. I'd imagine, for example, that in the relatively poor district of Hounslow, which is very dependent on Heathrow for jobs, the recommendation for a third runway is pretty welcome.
Another anecdote on NIMBYism: here in North Acton there's some very vocal opposition to a developer's plans to rebuild the Friary Park estate by replacing the currently rather dilapidated houses with high rises; the plans would increase the amount of available - and possibly even affordable - accommodation locally. But everywhere you go there are placards and flyers opposing the development. Feelings were running so high that at the 2015 General Election, a local resident, Jonathan Notley stood as an independent candidate in Ealing Central and Acton to oppose the development. He managed to secure 125 votes ...
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
The "Arabs" are complaining that their "Western Allies" are not doing enough to fight IS but I don't see their boots on the ground doing the dirty work.
Yes, and when we do intervene, everyone is all rainbows and kittens about it. "The West" has just become a whipping boy for all the world's ills. I suppose we've moved on from "colonialism", so that's something.
I recall when there was the initial recent coup in the Central African Republic that there were reporters on the ground being told by people they were angry that France hadn't done more to stabilise things and take responsibility (or words to that effect, it was severla years ago but that sentiment was crystal clear), which to my mind rather misses the point of independence. I'm not saying former powers no longer have interests in and influence in former colonies and possessions, and so itbeing in everyone's interests for them not to ignore matters, but being accused, essentially, of shirking responsibilities that belong to the independent nation struck me as a bit much
I still remain unconvinced that we really need to have the type of hub airport that expansion implies. But it has become identified as Progress, so Labour should back it enthusiastically.
The BBC reports that "The Airports Commission has backed a third Heathrow runway, saying it will add £147bn in economic growth by 2050." Wow - that's a big number!!
But it is a serious misreporting of the Report which says (page 24) "The overall effect COULD be to increase GDP by 0.65-0.75% by 2050, amounting with carbon emissions traded to £131-147 billion in present value terms over the 60 years following expansion. This compares to £89 billion in GDP impacts from expansion at Gatwick."
Note that the increase in GDP is over the 60 years following expansion - say by 2090 not 2050.
If you look at the difference in benefit with Gatwick it is £42b-£58b OVER 60 YEARS! That is less than a £1b a year starting from 2030. And for that Cameron is going to split the cabinet? I don't think so.
Furthermore, the disbenefit to Londoners of the extra noise and pollution is not costed in. Nor, as the independent reviewers point out in their report, is the impact on demand of the recovery of the cost of the scheme from air passengers in increased fares (as it is privately funded). The results are very demand sensitive so this is a serious flaw in the analysis. If it was factored in, it would further reduce the benefits.
If the noise and air pollution costs are not factored in, it's a joke of an analysis.
Although the disbenefit of noise and air pollution costs to local inhabitants are not factored in, the benefits to passengers of saving time is factored in at £54.98/hour for business passengers and £6.03/hour for leisure.
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
Oh, I agree. I think Tennis got a bit silly when some games had 3 commentators on them
Quite frankly, the fact IS continue to promote themselves as an IS, should be endlessly repeated - if that gets people angry that IS are besmirching both terms, then good, verbalise that, let's not pretend a synonym for it, or alternate name means that claim is not made and believed by many in the world. No, use it, and have people continually challenging and ridiculing its use.
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
So presumably the BBC should stop using the term "Democratic Republic of Congo" too?
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
And the BBC policy on this terrorist group, I mean militant fighters....
"Lord Hall said that the word Daesh risked giving the 'impression of support' for the group's opponents and 'would not preserve the BBC's impartiality'."
Where the f##k does impartiality come into this? We must be fair to the them, otherwise...well..otherwise....
Mr. MJW, if you're after a northern hub airport, then Yorkshire's the only place to do it, because of its central location.
Manchester is probably the only northern airport big enough and far enough along with plans to expand comparatively quickly and cost effectively (there are already major expansion plans on the table).
It makes more strategic sense to develop a major hub in the Midlands at Birmingham as it's close enough to both Manchester and London to be a viable long-haul airport for those cities (with the right rail links).
Heathrow could then become a kind of super City Airport, serving short-haul destinations as well as places like New York, Miami and the Middle East.
The problem I'd have with that is that it would still be too South-centric still and wouldn't be much good if you were outside Manchester, plus would tourists and businessmen really be happy with an airport 100 miles from London or Manchester? It wouldn't do much to create a real rival conurbation to London in the North West and Yorkshire - plus you're still pretty screwed if you're in the North East, which at least eventually if you extended HS up so it went all the way up would put you in reach of Manc. With that investment in the North West and Yorks you could transform the area and at least start to solve one of our major problems which is that we're reliant on an overheated London and South East economy for cash to subsidise regions which can't access the kind of continual inward business investment which London gets.
And that North West/S&W Yorks region would have everything - obviously its big name football clubs, the Peak and Lake District etc for quality of life. If, you got the airport and transport links right you could make a compelling pitch to any CEO why you'd be far better locating there than having your 'London office' in Bracknell or Basingstoke at increased cost. The cheaper office space would also be rather good for start-ups.
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
So presumably the BBC should stop using the term "Democratic Republic of Congo" too?
Although everyone knows that a "Democratic Republic" is neither a Republic or a Democracy, so we're pretty safe on that one.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
And the BBC policy on this terrorist group, I mean militant fighters....
"Lord Hall said that the word Daesh risked giving the 'impression of support' for the group's opponents and 'would not preserve the BBC's impartiality'."
Where the f##k does impartiality come into this? We must be fair to the them, otherwise...well..otherwise....
I don't see a problem with referring to them as the Islamic State, it's what they call themselves after all. They have most of the attributes of a state: they control territory, have a government, judicial system, are fighting wars involving pitched battles against enemy countries rather than just asymmetric warfare, have an immigration policy etc etc. I note Channel 4 News has started prefixing it with "so-called" although "self-proclaimed" would be more accurate.
I don't recall anyone saying the BBC shouldn't refer to the IRA on the grounds it isn't an army.
I also don't understand the Syria thing. What about Libya? The Tunisian murderer was apparently trained in a camp in Libya. Is it still operational? If so we should make it cease to exist as violently and bloodily as we are able, preferably by the weekend. We should also be able to do something about IS's coastal Libyan enclaves. Short of turning Ar-Raqqah into a glass car park, or revisiting Dresden on it, we can't probably do anything much about IS's core territory, but we can bite when they stick their paws out to strike elsewhere.
Kicking the can down the road has much to recommend it politically. In the case of Heathrow it could postpone an unpopular decision until the collapse of Western Civilization makes the question redundant. Whether it could help Greece over the weekend, though, is another matter.
Re the BBC - only they could talk with a straight face about cutting 10 layers of management to 7. Even if they 'achieve' such a 'draconian' reduction what's the betting the salaries in the 7 layers end up exceeding those of the previous 10?
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
Oh, I agree. I think Tennis got a bit silly when some games had 3 commentators on them
Quite frankly, the fact IS continue to promote themselves as an IS, should be endlessly repeated - if that gets people angry that IS are besmirching both terms, then good, verbalise that, let's not pretend a synonym for it, or alternate name means that claim is not made and believed by many in the world. No, use it, and have people continually challenging and ridiculing its use.
I couldn't care less whether the use of "IS" is offensive to Muslims or not. What should offend them is what IS barbarians do not what they are called. And if they are that offended they can do something about these people like, for istance, declaring them heretic and fighting them rather than blaming everyone else for their rise and going to fight for them.
The fact that some of them seem to worry more about the appearance of things than the reality is what is concerning. If we were to call it the "Fluffy Peter Rabbit State" it would still be a bunch of psychopathic barbarians.
The former environment minister was asked to attend a meeting with officials from the parliamentary fees office to discuss details of another claim relating to £28,834 of work on the kitchen and bathroom at his London flat.
He told them that the work was necessary because he was “living in a slum”, though his second home, off Regent’s Park, is in one of the most fashionable areas of the capital. He was eventually reimbursed for £15,329.
On one occasion he asked a civil servant “why are you querying these expenses?” and on another threatened to make a complaint unless a dispute was settled by noon on the day in question. In one document, an official in the fees office noted that invoices Sir Gerald had submitted took him to “within 6p” of his annual limit. He also claimed £1,262 for a gas bill that was £1,055 in credit.
Between 2001 and 2008 the Manchester Gorton MP, one of the Labour party’s longest-serving members, claimed a total of £115,109 in additional costs allowances on his London flat, which he owns outright. In June 2006, he submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen Beovision 40in LCD television. The maximum amount MPs are allowed to claim for TVs is £750.
Re the BBC - only they could talk with a straight face about cutting 10 layers of management to 7. Even if they 'achieve' such a 'draconian' reduction what's the betting the salaries in the 7 layers end up exceeding those of the previous 10?
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, or at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
It's the Top Gear-isation of sports. Broadcasters think the action is just a backdrop to the matey banter of the commentators.
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
Oh, I agree. I think Tennis got a bit silly when some games had 3 commentators on them
Quite frankly, the fact IS continue to promote themselves as an IS, should be endlessly repeated - if that gets people angry that IS are besmirching both terms, then good, verbalise that, let's not pretend a synonym for it, or alternate name means that claim is not made and believed by many in the world. No, use it, and have people continually challenging and ridiculing its use.
I couldn't care less whether the use of "IS" is offensive to Muslims or not. What should offend them is what IS barbarians do not what they are called. And if they are that offended they can do something about these people like, for istance, declaring them heretic and fighting them rather than blaming everyone else for their rise and going to fight for them.
The fact that some of them seem to worry more about the appearance of things than the reality is what is concerning. If we were to call it the "Fluffy Peter Rabbit State" it would still be a bunch of psychopathic barbarians.
That is in fact what I was trying to say - it's not that I don't care that calling IS what they call themselves might offend some Muslims, but I don't care to the extent I will sheild their feelings by making an inconsequential linguistic change, and in fact to continue to use it I would hope would stir anger in the appropriate direction, those who have adopted the name. Us not using the term won't stop hundreds of thousands, conservatively, thinking IS is perfecrly right to it. To reduce that number that do think that will require other peopel to get angry enough at them using it to do something to stop them.
Speaking in the Commons today, Mr Grayling added: ‘I have a different view of what impartiality means to the BBC.‘During the second world war the BBC was a beacon of fact it was not expected to be impartial between Britain and Germany. ‘Today it should be a beacon of fact, it is not expected to be impartial about the threat to the security and lives of the people of this country.’
It comes after David Cameron criticised BBC presenter John Humphrys for referring to the group as Islamic State in the wake of the Tunisian terror attack.
There are four terms used to refer to the terror group. They are ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State or IS, and Daesh.
ISIS stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and is most commonly used. It has thrown up problems with companies named after the Egyptian goddess of the same name.
ISIL is shortened from The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is what the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, uses when speaking of the group. Historically, the undefined region surrounding Syria is called Levant. IS or the Islamic State is how the terrorists describe themselves.
Daesh is the word used by the French government when referring to the group. It began referring to them as such after claiming any reference to Islam could cause offence to other Muslims.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
Oh, I agree. I think Tennis got a bit silly when some games had 3 commentators on them
I couldn't care less whether the use of "IS" is offensive to Muslims or not. What should offend them is what IS barbarians do not what they are called. And if they are that offended they can do something about these people like, for istance, declaring them heretic and fighting them rather than blaming everyone else for their rise and going to fight for them.
The fact that some of them seem to worry more about the appearance of things than the reality is what is concerning. If we were to call it the "Fluffy Peter Rabbit State" it would still be a bunch of psychopathic barbarians.
That is in fact what I was trying to say - it's not that I don't care that calling IS what they call themselves might offend some Muslims, but I don't care to the extent I will sheild their feelings by making an inconsequential linguistic change, and in fact to continue to use it I would hope would stir anger in the appropriate direction, those who have adopted the name. Us not using the term won't stop hundreds of thousands, conservatively, thinking IS is perfecrly right to it. To reduce that number that do think that will require other peopel to get angry enough at them using it to do something to stop them.
Agreed. To be honest, whenever I hear of some Muslims being "offended" I tend to zone out. This permanent state of trigger happy cry baby sensitivity is enormously tiresome and lost my sympathy some time ago. The only proper response is to tell the person or group to grow up.
I feel that way about most people claiming "offence" which is a form of passive aggression more usually seen in over-indulged adolescents. It should be ignored. It is not a fitting state of mind in any self-respecting adult.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
I couldn't care less whether the use of "IS" is offensive to Muslims or not. What should offend them is what IS barbarians do not what they are called. And if they are that offended they can do something about these people like, for istance, declaring them heretic and fighting them rather than blaming everyone else for their rise and going to fight for them.
The fact that some of them seem to worry more about the appearance of things than the reality is what is concerning. If we were to call it the "Fluffy Peter Rabbit State" it would still be a bunch of psychopathic barbarians.
That is in fact what I was trying to say - it's not that I don't care that calling IS what they call themselves might offend some Muslims, but I don't care to the extent I will sheild their feelings by making an inconsequential linguistic change, and in fact to continue to use it I would hope would stir anger in the appropriate direction, those who have adopted the name. Us not using the term won't stop hundreds of thousands, conservatively, thinking IS is perfecrly right to it. To reduce that number that do think that will require other peopel to get angry enough at them using it to do something to stop them.
Agreed. To be honest, whenever I hear of some Muslims being "offended" I tend to zone out. This permanent state of trigger happy cry baby sensitivity is enormously tiresome and lost my sympathy some time ago. The only proper response is to tell the person or group to grow up.
I feel that way about most people claiming "offence" which is a form of passive aggression more usually seen in over-indulged adolescents. It should be ignored. It is not a fitting state of mind in any self-respecting adult.
"Short of turning Ar-Raqqah into a glass car park, or revisiting Dresden on it, we can't probably do anything much about IS's core territory, but we can bite when they stick their paws out to strike elsewhere."
Why wouldn't we want to do a Dresden on IS's core territory? Isn't that exactly what's needed? Flattening the areas they control and eliminating as many of the bastards as we can.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
Oh, I agree. I think Tennis got a bit silly when some games had 3 commentators on them
That is in fact what I was trying to say - it's not that I don't care that calling IS what they call themselves might offend some Muslims, but I don't care to the extent I will sheild their feelings by making an inconsequential linguistic change, and in fact to continue to use it I would hope would stir anger in the appropriate direction, those who have adopted the name. Us not using the term won't stop hundreds of thousands, conservatively, thinking IS is perfecrly right to it. To reduce that number that do think that will require other peopel to get angry enough at them using it to do something to stop them.
Agreed. To be honest, whenever I hear of some Muslims being "offended" I tend to zone out. This permanent state of trigger happy cry baby sensitivity is enormously tiresome and lost my sympathy some time ago. The only proper response is to tell the person or group to grow up.
I feel that way about most people claiming "offence" which is a form of passive aggression more usually seen in over-indulged adolescents. It should be ignored. It is not a fitting state of mind in any self-respecting adult.
Very well said. When did "not being offended" become some sort of ghastly quasi human right?
I would imagine that most Muslims should actually be offended about a bunch of medieval sadists carrying out barbaric crimes while invoking the Koran as the rationale for those crimes.
The problems with the government's proposals are fundamental, and are as follows: New Standing Order 83J would require the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify whether or not a Bill would fall within the legislative competence of the devolved assemblies. This is a complicated question of law, which can only be determined by the courts. It is a cardinal constitutional principle inherent in the separation of powers that statutory construction is a question exclusively for the courts. The New Standing Orders do not remove Scottish votes on certified Bills from the second or third reading. A Bill to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, for example, which was supported by the majority of English MPs could not pass if enough Scottish MPs were persuaded to vote against it. The new Standing Orders therefore would offer no remedy in respect of laws already imposed on England solely by the votes of Scottish MPs. Nor can proposals for new laws for England supported by a majority of English MPs pass without the consent of whole the House of Commons. The basic principle is that a majority of English MPs have to pass a legislative consent motion in respect of a certified Bill. Yet new Standing Order 83M(9) provides that such a consent motion may only be moved by a Minister of the Crown. This gives the government an unnecessary veto on the progress of certified Bills. There are grave problems with the provision of the proposed new Standing Order 83Q(2) on statutory instruments. It provides that a motion on a certified statutory instrument is deemed to have been defeated unless approved by a majority of the House of Commons and a majority of English MPs. This creates absurd and capricious consequences. Suppose the fictional Hunting Act 2015 is expressed to come into force on a day X, unless there is a resolution of the House of Commons to the contrary. The Hunting Act 2015 would come into force even if a majority of English MPs voted that it should not. Suppose, however, the Act provided that it was to come into force on a day specified in a statutory instrument to be approved by the House of Commons. Then the Act could not come into force unless a majority of English MPs so voted. Standing Orders 83Q and 83R also provide that certified motions under an Act of Parliament are deemed to be defeated unless approved by a majority of English MPs. This is an invitation to litigation, since every Act passed to date has been premised on the basis that a resolution of the House of Commons means the approval of a majority of its members, not a double majority specified in the Standing Order, and it is a cardinal principle that Acts of Parliament may only be amended by subsequent Acts of Parliament, rather than Standing Orders of either House. In short, while premised on a sound principle, the government's proposals are an utter mess which do not deliver "English votes for English laws".
Basically, Cameron (at the behest of the US) is trying to bomb Syria into regime change again. If this goes ahead, there will be a de-facto no fly zone, the 'rebels' (there are no rebels left, merely non-Syrian Islamists) will be advantaged, and there will no doubt be mission creep, the Syrian regime will cross some 'red line', real or imagined, and regular Syrian forces will be attacked. We're being encouraged to take a grossly simplistic view of ISIS as a nail to Western intervention's hammer. ISIS serves this purpose well, which is no doubt why they were completely unhindered by US airstrikes when they marched on Mosul, despite being complete sitting ducks riding through the desert on their ridiculous Honda trucks.
The following questions are being studiously avoided: -What is ISIS' religious philosophy, from where does it originate, and how is it propogated? -How are ISIS getting constant supplies of weapons? -How are ISIS getting constant supplies of men? -How and where are ISIS' recruits being trained? -How and from whom are ISIS getting constant monetary funding? -If selling oil is a source of their funding, who is buying?
Once we answer these, we answer the problem of ISIS. But we don't want to answer the problem of ISIS, we want ISIS to put the frighteners on people so they agree to military action in Syria.
New experience: it's 20 degrees and I'm shivering. That hasn't happened before, at least not in this country. Might have happened on holiday somewhere.
"Short of turning Ar-Raqqah into a glass car park, or revisiting Dresden on it, we can't probably do anything much about IS's core territory, but we can bite when they stick their paws out to strike elsewhere."
Why wouldn't we want to do a Dresden on IS's core territory? Isn't that exactly what's needed? Flattening the areas they control and eliminating as many of the bastards as we can.
That's my view too. If IS is an existential threat, as Cammo says, we should seek to destroy it utterly. Instead our leaders are pussies and want to treat it as you would a minor annoyance, with both hands tied behind your back. If they don't want to have to flatten Raqqah they should be seeking out and destroying targets of opportunity. At the very least we should be seeking vengeance on a 100-1 basis for Sousse:
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
Hmmm, how soon we forget.
A significant force in the various Peshmerga fighting forces are ex-PKK terrorists, who made the IRA look like fluffy bunnies.
Very well said. When did "not being offended" become some sort of ghastly quasi human right?
I would imagine that most Muslims should actually be offended about a bunch of medieval sadists carrying out barbaric crimes while invoking the Koran as the rationale for those crimes.
You'd have thought so and most probably most Muslims do feel that way. Certainly, those that I know do - and very strongly.
But I think there is a big difference between "honour" cultures and "shame" cultures which, very broadly, could be - and this is a huge generalisation, of course - correlated with the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Western world has the concept of "shame" i.e. you do bad things and are ashamed. The blame is borne by the individual In the Islamic world, maintaining "honour" is very very important so anyone or anything which besmirches that honour is attacked - hence a woman who is raped is no longer honourable even though she has done nothing wrong. The honour of the family is more important than the culpability or innocence of any one individual. So the appearance of things assumes or seems to assume a much greater importance than the reality.
You can see an example of this when a Muslim is found to have committed an evil act the response of some is to say that he cannot have been a real Muslim as if that is the end of the matter. By not calling him a Muslim, by putting him outside the group, the group's amour propre is preserved and any difficult questions about whether his Muslim-ness may or may not have had anything to do with what he did is not addressed.
This constant evasion is both infuriating and ultimately self-defeating. Others will join the dots even if you don't. And paint a picture you may not like. And if you don't join in the debate you can't be surprised if your voice isn't heard.
Basically, Cameron (at the behest of the US) is trying to bomb Syria into regime change again. If this goes ahead, there will be a de-facto no fly zone, the 'rebels' (there are no rebels left, merely non-Syrian Islamists) will be advantaged, and there will no doubt be mission creep, the Syrian regime will cross some 'red line', real or imagined, and regular Syrian forces will be attacked. We're being encouraged to take a grossly simplistic view of ISIS as a nail to Western intervention's hammer. ISIS serves this purpose well, which is no doubt why they were completely unhindered by US airstrikes when they marched on Mosul, despite being complete sitting ducks riding through the desert on their ridiculous Honda trucks.
The following questions are being studiously avoided: -What is ISIS' religious philosophy, from where does it originate, and how is it propogated? -How are ISIS getting constant supplies of weapons? -How are ISIS getting constant supplies of men? -How and where are ISIS' recruits being trained? -How and from whom are ISIS getting constant monetary funding? -If selling oil is a source of their funding, who is buying?
Once we answer these, we answer the problem of ISIS. But we don't want to answer the problem of ISIS, we want ISIS to put the frighteners on people so they agree to military action in Syria.
Two fairly recent Observer articles shed some light on some of your questions:
In response to John M who said: "I would imagine that most Muslims should actually be offended about a bunch of medieval sadists carrying out barbaric crimes while invoking the Koran as the rationale for those crimes.
You'd have thought so and most probably most Muslims do feel that way. Certainly, those that I know do - and very strongly.
But I think there is a big difference between "honour" cultures and "shame" cultures which, very broadly, could be - and this is a huge generalisation, of course - correlated with the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Western world has the concept of "shame" i.e. you do bad things and are ashamed. The blame is borne by the individual In the Islamic world, maintaining "honour" is very very important so anyone or anything which besmirches that honour is attacked - hence a woman who is raped is no longer honourable even though she has done nothing wrong. The honour of the family is more important than the culpability or innocence of any one individual. So the appearance of things assumes or seems to assume a much greater importance than the reality.
You can see an example of this when a Muslim is found to have committed an evil act the response of some is to say that he cannot have been a real Muslim as if that is the end of the matter. By not calling him a Muslim, by putting him outside the group, the group's amour propre is preserved and any difficult questions about whether his Muslim-ness may or may not have had anything to do with what he did is not addressed.
This constant evasion is both infuriating and ultimately self-defeating. Others will join the dots even if you don't. And paint a picture you may not like. And if you don't join in the debate you can't be surprised if your voice isn't heard.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
Yes, quite bizarre and vile how the DM are applauding mass summary execution. We can expect more of this lauding of Islamist 'rebel' groups as time goes on.
Here's my take on airports: Let's try to make it a commercial decision. We seem to be in the arena of wanting a government to decide something that is better decided by a free market. I think what the government should do is grant national-level (ie can over rule local) planning approval for each of Heathrow3, Gatwick2, Stansted2, etc. And then simply do nothing. If the owners of the airports are so convinced they'll make money then let them get after it. We would almost certainly then see 2 or 3 competing projects and a significant increase in capacity.
New experience: it's 20 degrees and I'm shivering. That hasn't happened before, at least not in this country. Might have happened on holiday somewhere.
Likewise in the Russian winter -5 degrees can feel like an unusually warm day.
Speaking in the Commons today, Mr Grayling added: ‘I have a different view of what impartiality means to the BBC.‘During the second world war the BBC was a beacon of fact it was not expected to be impartial between Britain and Germany. ‘Today it should be a beacon of fact, it is not expected to be impartial about the threat to the security and lives of the people of this country.’
It comes after David Cameron criticised BBC presenter John Humphrys for referring to the group as Islamic State in the wake of the Tunisian terror attack.
There are four terms used to refer to the terror group. They are ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State or IS, and Daesh.
ISIS stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and is most commonly used. It has thrown up problems with companies named after the Egyptian goddess of the same name.
ISIL is shortened from The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is what the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, uses when speaking of the group. Historically, the undefined region surrounding Syria is called Levant. IS or the Islamic State is how the terrorists describe themselves.
Daesh is the word used by the French government when referring to the group. It began referring to them as such after claiming any reference to Islam could cause offence to other Muslims.
Two former Greek Prime Ministers have today called for the people to vote YES at the upcoming referendum - Antonis Samaras says that Sunday’s referendum is not a choice between bad Europeans and good Greeks, but between the euro and the drachma.
We won’t let Antonis Tsipras take us back to the drachma, says Samaras. That would be disastrous - it would kill the economy, and also kill the hopes of the Greek people.
Meanwhile, Kostas Karamanlis, has just called for people to vote YES to preserve the country’s place in Europe. Karamanlis who was PM from 2004-2009, warned that a No result would be the first step towards leaving the eurozone.
Meanwhile again, Athens will be rather crowded tomorrow night, Syriza has called on Greeks to attend a NO rally tomorrow at 7:30pm local time, with a ‘Yes’ rally also taking place in the adjacent square. - Should be entertaining…!
And finally, Greek PM Tsipras, has said the other day he will resign if it is a YES vote on Sunday - also announced today, his Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, has said he would resign if it’s a NO vote. – Whatever the result, there will be major changes within the Greek government come Monday morning.
Very well said. When did "not being offended" become some sort of ghastly quasi human right?
I had the same thought when there was that ruling about the 'beach body' advert yesterday - more than anything else, as cultures shift what offends individuals and groups may well change, and it's impossible to predict what some people will be offended by, so while the really big offensive things ar generally easier to spot, the idea that when someone is offended you deny everyone the right to ignore it, like it, or get angry and move on about it, and insteadd try to remove it, is entirely unworkable, and unnecessary
In response to John M who said: "I would imagine that most Muslims should actually be offended about a bunch of medieval sadists carrying out barbaric crimes while invoking the Koran as the rationale for those crimes.
You'd have thought so and most probably most Muslims do feel that way. Certainly, those that I know do - and very strongly.
But I think there is a big difference between "honour" cultures and "shame" cultures which, very broadly, could be - and this is a huge generalisation, of course - correlated with the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Western world has the concept of "shame" i.e. you do bad things and are ashamed. The blame is borne by the individual In the Islamic world, maintaining "honour" is very very important so anyone or anything which besmirches that honour is attacked - hence a woman who is raped is no longer honourable even though she has done nothing wrong. The honour of the family is more important than the culpability or innocence of any one individual. So the appearance of things assumes or seems to assume a much greater importance than the reality.
You can see an example of this when a Muslim is found to have committed an evil act the response of some is to say that he cannot have been a real Muslim as if that is the end of the matter. By not calling him a Muslim, by putting him outside the group, the group's amour propre is preserved and any difficult questions about whether his Muslim-ness may or may not have had anything to do with what he did is not addressed.
This constant evasion is both infuriating and ultimately self-defeating. Others will join the dots even if you don't. And paint a picture you may not like. And if you don't join in the debate you can't be surprised if your voice isn't heard.
If Muslims are offended, surely it is by the Islamic State which has adopted that name, and not by those who report it.
As ever the DM are showing why we've ended up in this mess, I'm sure if we went back a couple of years they would be running articles highlighting forces which are now ISIS executing Syrian soldiers. I doubt whether Jaysh Al-Islam, which calls itself the 'Army of Islam', are a group of moderates, for all we know they could be even worse.
There are alot of factions and nutjobs out there - IS is the biggest, Iran and Saudi in with alot of proxies too. The Kurds seem like a decent enough bunch, mind.
Hmmm, how soon we forget.
A significant force in the various Peshmerga fighting forces are ex-PKK terrorists, who made the IRA look like fluffy bunnies.
It's a real mess over there. It's a shame we didn't act when we could.
No more terrorists than the so-called Free Syrian Army that you argue we should have put into power. The designation is entirely arbitrary.
You do not seem to recognise the world has changed in the couple of years since Miliband's treachery. The FSA has been largely (although not wholly - it is still part of the Southern Front) defeated.
Which is a shame, because they were the best hope for Syria.
Very well said. When did "not being offended" become some sort of ghastly quasi human right?
I had the same thought when there was that ruling about the 'beach body' advert yesterday - more than anything else, as cultures shift what offends individuals and groups may well change, and it's impossible to predict what some people will be offended by, so while the really big offensive things ar generally easier to spot, the idea that when someone is offended you deny everyone the right to ignore it, like it, or get angry and move on about it, and insteadd try to remove it, is entirely unworkable, and unnecessary
Offence is just a lazy shortcut.
A beheading video might still be bad news because it glorifies violence. Or the beach body advert because it sends a harmful message to young women.
But we have to identify the problem not rely on the "outrage".
What do Labour possibly have to gain from opposing EVEL?
They have exactly the same number of Scottish MPs as the Tories. This puts them at no relative disadvantage. Their path back to power is going to be through England, not Scotland, and it's the English voters they need to win back to do that.
Throwing words around today like 'racist' and invoking Magna Carta are completely insane. Labour should be supporting this, and suggesting improvements.
They are a long long way from understanding what they have to do to get back into power.
What do Labour possibly have to gain from opposing EVEL?
They have exactly the same number of Scottish MPs as the Tories. This puts them at no relative disadvantage. Their path back to power is going to be through England, not Scotland, and it's the English voters they need to win back to do that.
Throwing words around today like 'racist' and invoking Magna Carta are completely insane. Labour should be supporting this, and suggesting improvements.
They are a long long way from understanding what they have to do to get back into power.
As was seen yesterday with the airport report. If the govt offered a vote on the proposal of a new runway at LHR tomorrow, you can bet that Labour would be whipped to vote against dispite their words of support yesterday. The Syria vote will take a long time to be forgotten.
a propos noise nuisance and Wimbledon, why can't the tv commentators be advised to emulate Dan Maskell and only comment when they have something to say? Silence would be golden, at most a Maskellian "oh my!".
I think Cricket has been like that forever though - maybe not quite so much matey banter as general banter between overs and deliveries, but certainly rambling in nature.
With cricket that style suits the game - especially on radio. Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles. There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
Oh, I agree. I think Tennis got a bit silly when some games had 3 commentators on them
I refuse to accept the premise that being offended should form the basis of any sort of action at al, certainly by public authorities.
You can choose to take offence or not. It is a personal matter. If someone says something to me I don't like I can deal with it. Good manners do not need to be monitored by the police.
If someone in public life says something that is rude or insensitive or hurtful then it is possible for the person so hurt to say so in reply or not, as they wish. Silent disdain is often a better response, frankly. It is not necessary and demeaning for everyone else to rush in claiming some sort of outraged victim status as if that gives them some sort of moral brownie points. Who, in heaven's name, wants to be a victim - even by proxy?
In response to John M who said: "I would imagine that most Muslims should actually be offended about a bunch of medieval sadists carrying out barbaric crimes while invoking the Koran as the rationale for those crimes.
If Muslims are offended, surely it is by the Islamic State which has adopted that name, and not by those who report it.
That's my hope - the government does not appear to want to risk it.
Very well said. When did "not being offended" become some sort of ghastly quasi human right?
I had the same thought when there was that ruling about the 'beach body' advert yesterday - more than anything else, as cultures shift what offends individuals and groups may well change, and it's impossible to predict what some people will be offended by, so while the really big offensive things ar generally easier to spot, the idea that when someone is offended you deny everyone the right to ignore it, like it, or get angry and move on about it, and insteadd try to remove it, is entirely unworkable, and unnecessary
Only fat ugly people were 'offended' by that advert and I am offended by the sight of fat ugly people - so it's quite circular and efficient.
Speaking in the Commons today, Mr Grayling added: ‘I have a different view of what impartiality means to the BBC.‘During the second world war the BBC was a beacon of fact it was not expected to be impartial between Britain and Germany. ‘Today it should be a beacon of fact, it is not expected to be impartial about the threat to the security and lives of the people of this country.’
It comes after David Cameron criticised BBC presenter John Humphrys for referring to the group as Islamic State in the wake of the Tunisian terror attack.
There are four terms used to refer to the terror group. They are ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State or IS, and Daesh.
ISIS stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and is most commonly used. It has thrown up problems with companies named after the Egyptian goddess of the same name.
ISIL is shortened from The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is what the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, uses when speaking of the group. Historically, the undefined region surrounding Syria is called Levant. IS or the Islamic State is how the terrorists describe themselves.
Daesh is the word used by the French government when referring to the group. It began referring to them as such after claiming any reference to Islam could cause offence to other Muslims.
Only the Foreign Office could be still using the word 'Levant' :-)
They should just go the whole hog and call it Phoenicia, the Levant is just some Johnny-come-lately neologism. I'm sure the estimable Mr Dancer would support that.
Ⓑig Ⓑloody Ⓒheek @BBCPropaganda Jeremy Corbyn wants to ban employers making people work in warm places. So that would be an end to coal mining, then. #BBCDP
How about enforcing current regulations regarding temperature in the workplace (or removing exemptions if they exist)?
Surprising as it may sound, that while there is a regulation against working in an office or shop with too low a temperature, there is not one on a too high temperature .
Comments
Will this be enough to change the vote? I hope so. Yes is a step towards a difficult future but No is a step off a cliff.
In all 'seriousness' Dan Maskell or John Barrett would probably be my idea of a commentator, but well, times have moved on.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/feb/13/channel-nine-destroying-cricket-legacy
I often turn off commentary when watching sport, occasionally even F1.
Other sports have a different tempo and require different styles.
There's no one-size-fits-all for commentary.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9571842/sorry-but-you-cant-take-the-islam-out-of-islamic-state/
Another anecdote on NIMBYism: here in North Acton there's some very vocal opposition to a developer's plans to rebuild the Friary Park estate by replacing the currently rather dilapidated houses with high rises; the plans would increase the amount of available - and possibly even affordable - accommodation locally. But everywhere you go there are placards and flyers opposing the development. Feelings were running so high that at the 2015 General Election, a local resident, Jonathan Notley stood as an independent candidate in Ealing Central and Acton to oppose the development. He managed to secure 125 votes ...
Actually they want to take the *State* out of "Islamic State". It's not a "state". It's a bunch of barbarians and thugs who are seeking to overthrow the elected government of Iraq and to seize control of Syria from the current incumbent.
"Lord Hall said that the word Daesh risked giving the 'impression of support' for the group's opponents and 'would not preserve the BBC's impartiality'."
Where the f##k does impartiality come into this? We must be fair to the them, otherwise...well..otherwise....
And that North West/S&W Yorks region would have everything - obviously its big name football clubs, the Peak and Lake District etc for quality of life. If, you got the airport and transport links right you could make a compelling pitch to any CEO why you'd be far better locating there than having your 'London office' in Bracknell or Basingstoke at increased cost. The cheaper office space would also be rather good for start-ups.
Mr Redwood points it out re: the 2010-2015 Gov't back in 2012 http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2012/12/31/debt-and-deficit-2/
ISIS is a good compromise.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/616568820065505280
I don't recall anyone saying the BBC shouldn't refer to the IRA on the grounds it isn't an army.
I also don't understand the Syria thing. What about Libya? The Tunisian murderer was apparently trained in a camp in Libya. Is it still operational? If so we should make it cease to exist as violently and bloodily as we are able, preferably by the weekend. We should also be able to do something about IS's coastal Libyan enclaves. Short of turning Ar-Raqqah into a glass car park, or revisiting Dresden on it, we can't probably do anything much about IS's core territory, but we can bite when they stick their paws out to strike elsewhere.
Delenda est res publica islamica.
Re the BBC - only they could talk with a straight face about cutting 10 layers of management to 7. Even if they 'achieve' such a 'draconian' reduction what's the betting the salaries in the 7 layers end up exceeding those of the previous 10?
The fact that some of them seem to worry more about the appearance of things than the reality is what is concerning. If we were to call it the "Fluffy Peter Rabbit State" it would still be a bunch of psychopathic barbarians.
There really is no limit to the amount of 'it' that labour does not get, right now.
Playing Sean Kelly bingo during Le Tour de France on Eurosport is much fun.
I feel that way about most people claiming "offence" which is a form of passive aggression more usually seen in over-indulged adolescents. It should be ignored. It is not a fitting state of mind in any self-respecting adult.
Why wouldn't we want to do a Dresden on IS's core territory? Isn't that exactly what's needed? Flattening the areas they control and eliminating as many of the bastards as we can.
I would imagine that most Muslims should actually be offended about a bunch of medieval sadists carrying out barbaric crimes while invoking the Koran as the rationale for those crimes.
New Standing Order 83J would require the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify whether or not a Bill would fall within the legislative competence of the devolved assemblies. This is a complicated question of law, which can only be determined by the courts. It is a cardinal constitutional principle inherent in the separation of powers that statutory construction is a question exclusively for the courts.
The New Standing Orders do not remove Scottish votes on certified Bills from the second or third reading. A Bill to repeal the Hunting Act 2004, for example, which was supported by the majority of English MPs could not pass if enough Scottish MPs were persuaded to vote against it. The new Standing Orders therefore would offer no remedy in respect of laws already imposed on England solely by the votes of Scottish MPs. Nor can proposals for new laws for England supported by a majority of English MPs pass without the consent of whole the House of Commons.
The basic principle is that a majority of English MPs have to pass a legislative consent motion in respect of a certified Bill. Yet new Standing Order 83M(9) provides that such a consent motion may only be moved by a Minister of the Crown. This gives the government an unnecessary veto on the progress of certified Bills.
There are grave problems with the provision of the proposed new Standing Order 83Q(2) on statutory instruments. It provides that a motion on a certified statutory instrument is deemed to have been defeated unless approved by a majority of the House of Commons and a majority of English MPs. This creates absurd and capricious consequences. Suppose the fictional Hunting Act 2015 is expressed to come into force on a day X, unless there is a resolution of the House of Commons to the contrary. The Hunting Act 2015 would come into force even if a majority of English MPs voted that it should not. Suppose, however, the Act provided that it was to come into force on a day specified in a statutory instrument to be approved by the House of Commons. Then the Act could not come into force unless a majority of English MPs so voted.
Standing Orders 83Q and 83R also provide that certified motions under an Act of Parliament are deemed to be defeated unless approved by a majority of English MPs. This is an invitation to litigation, since every Act passed to date has been premised on the basis that a resolution of the House of Commons means the approval of a majority of its members, not a double majority specified in the Standing Order, and it is a cardinal principle that Acts of Parliament may only be amended by subsequent Acts of Parliament, rather than Standing Orders of either House.
In short, while premised on a sound principle, the government's proposals are an utter mess which do not deliver "English votes for English laws".
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1be16708-1f29-11e5-ab0f-6bb9974f25d0.html#axzz3eiUYWMMf
The following questions are being studiously avoided:
-What is ISIS' religious philosophy, from where does it originate, and how is it propogated?
-How are ISIS getting constant supplies of weapons?
-How are ISIS getting constant supplies of men?
-How and where are ISIS' recruits being trained?
-How and from whom are ISIS getting constant monetary funding?
-If selling oil is a source of their funding, who is buying?
Once we answer these, we answer the problem of ISIS. But we don't want to answer the problem of ISIS, we want ISIS to put the frighteners on people so they agree to military action in Syria.
Delenda est res publica islamica
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/08/isis-islamic-state-ideology-sharia-syria-iraq-jordan-pilot
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/16/isis-salafi-menace-jihadist-homeland-syria
You'd have thought so and most probably most Muslims do feel that way. Certainly, those that I know do - and very strongly.
But I think there is a big difference between "honour" cultures and "shame" cultures which, very broadly, could be - and this is a huge generalisation, of course - correlated with the Christian and Islamic worlds. The Western world has the concept of "shame" i.e. you do bad things and are ashamed. The blame is borne by the individual In the Islamic world, maintaining "honour" is very very important so anyone or anything which besmirches that honour is attacked - hence a woman who is raped is no longer honourable even though she has done nothing wrong. The honour of the family is more important than the culpability or innocence of any one individual. So the appearance of things assumes or seems to assume a much greater importance than the reality.
You can see an example of this when a Muslim is found to have committed an evil act the response of some is to say that he cannot have been a real Muslim as if that is the end of the matter. By not calling him a Muslim, by putting him outside the group, the group's amour propre is preserved and any difficult questions about whether his Muslim-ness may or may not have had anything to do with what he did is not addressed.
This constant evasion is both infuriating and ultimately self-defeating. Others will join the dots even if you don't. And paint a picture you may not like. And if you don't join in the debate you can't be surprised if your voice isn't heard.
Iowa
Hillary Clinton - 52%
Bernie Sanders - 33%
Joe Biden - 7%
Martin O'Malley - 3%
Clinton's lead is down significantly from the last Iowa poll.
Two former Greek Prime Ministers have today called for the people to vote YES at the upcoming referendum - Antonis Samaras says that Sunday’s referendum is not a choice between bad Europeans and good Greeks, but between the euro and the drachma.
We won’t let Antonis Tsipras take us back to the drachma, says Samaras. That would be disastrous - it would kill the economy, and also kill the hopes of the Greek people.
Meanwhile, Kostas Karamanlis, has just called for people to vote YES to preserve the country’s place in Europe. Karamanlis who was PM from 2004-2009, warned that a No result would be the first step towards leaving the eurozone.
Meanwhile again, Athens will be rather crowded tomorrow night, Syriza has called on Greeks to attend a NO rally tomorrow at 7:30pm local time, with a ‘Yes’ rally also taking place in the adjacent square. - Should be entertaining…!
And finally, Greek PM Tsipras, has said the other day he will resign if it is a YES vote on Sunday - also announced today, his Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, has said he would resign if it’s a NO vote. – Whatever the result, there will be major changes within the Greek government come Monday morning.
I had the same thought when there was that ruling about the 'beach body' advert yesterday - more than anything else, as cultures shift what offends individuals and groups may well change, and it's impossible to predict what some people will be offended by, so while the really big offensive things ar generally easier to spot, the idea that when someone is offended you deny everyone the right to ignore it, like it, or get angry and move on about it, and insteadd try to remove it, is entirely unworkable, and unnecessary
Which is a shame, because they were the best hope for Syria.
A beheading video might still be bad news because it glorifies violence. Or the beach body advert because it sends a harmful message to young women.
But we have to identify the problem not rely on the "outrage".
They have exactly the same number of Scottish MPs as the Tories. This puts them at no relative disadvantage. Their path back to power is going to be through England, not Scotland, and it's the English voters they need to win back to do that.
Throwing words around today like 'racist' and invoking Magna Carta are completely insane. Labour should be supporting this, and suggesting improvements.
They are a long long way from understanding what they have to do to get back into power.
New Thread
.
I refuse to accept the premise that being offended should form the basis of any sort of action at al, certainly by public authorities.
You can choose to take offence or not. It is a personal matter. If someone says something to me I don't like I can deal with it. Good manners do not need to be monitored by the police.
If someone in public life says something that is rude or insensitive or hurtful then it is possible for the person so hurt to say so in reply or not, as they wish. Silent disdain is often a better response, frankly. It is not necessary and demeaning for everyone else to rush in claiming some sort of outraged victim status as if that gives them some sort of moral brownie points. Who, in heaven's name, wants to be a victim - even by proxy?
They should just go the whole hog and call it Phoenicia, the Levant is just some Johnny-come-lately neologism. I'm sure the estimable Mr Dancer would support that.