Good to see Jeremy Corbyn making a very clear statement to everyone he does not support the mandatory selection of MPs.Red Tory Lord Marsh took time off from his £300 a day sinecure to claim wrongly that he did.In fact,the Labour List article indicates a very collegiate and inclusive style of leadership.The Labour Chief Whip has been inspired by his leadership and is seeking to confront the Tory gerrymandering of the HoC.Constituency Boundary changes are the threat to Labour MPs,not JeremyCorbyn. It's called forming,storming and performing with everyone on the raft.Jeremy is unifying the Labour party.
I saw 15 minutes of "Star Wars" and found so dull I've had no desire to see any of the other sequels or prequel.
On a positive note, my parents once had as a near neighbour Stuart Freeborn, who created the design of Yoda and Chewbacca and he was the most delightful person you could meet.
The first 15 minutes? You mean the space battle scene where Princess Leia gets captured? Dull?????
I'm trying to think of any 15 minute period in Episode 4 where it can be described as dull, I've seen it enough times to know the whole film scene by scene (and probably most of the dialogue).
There is definitely not a period of 15 minutes were it is dull.
Its amazing how Lucas was such a good director for 4, 5 and 6 but sucked so badly for 1, 2 and 3.
I think the problem was expectation. The first film (#4) was genuinely world-changing - TV, which had been killing cinema, felt it was necessary to produce Battlestar Galactica to compete. I've read a very compelling argument that Star Wars saved cinema - it showed that the big screen could still pull the crowds in, and it was worth investing in big-screen feature films.
The second and third films were good, but lacked the complete storyline of the first (which was a self-contained story). Then, in the fifteen years between Episode IV and I, a whole subculture of stories evolved the universe. (*) It would have been impossible for Episode I to live up to the fans' expectations. It would have been impossible for Lucas to have replicated the success of the first three.
Now, with Episodes I,II and III having been damp squibs, expectations are slightly diluted. Fans hope, but they know the new films might not live up to their dreams.
BTW, I've read somewhere that the 'Episode IV' at the beginning of the first film was not in the original cinema release: it was added after it was shown the film was a success and that there would be a sequel. I don't have a time machine to know if its true.
(*) Many of which have been New York Times bestsellers. Star Wars fans were voracious for any official stories.
I saw 15 minutes of "Star Wars" and found so dull I've had no desire to see any of the other sequels or prequel.
On a positive note, my parents once had as a near neighbour Stuart Freeborn, who created the design of Yoda and Chewbacca and he was the most delightful person you could meet.
The first 15 minutes? You mean the space battle scene where Princess Leia gets captured? Dull?????
I'm trying to think of any 15 minute period in Episode 4 where it can be described as dull, I've seen it enough times to know the whole film scene by scene (and probably most of the dialogue).
There is definitely not a period of 15 minutes were it is dull.
Its amazing how Lucas was such a good director for 4, 5 and 6 but sucked so badly for 1, 2 and 3.
He didn't direct 5 or 6.
5 was Directed by Irvin Kerschner and 6 by Richard Marquand.
Ha, I didn't know that. 4 alone was still better than 1, 2, and 3.
Even in 4, as a relatively inexperienced director, he would have had little control over and final script and cut (although he claims otherwise it is very unlikely).
For example, the slowest part of the movie is the period between Obi Wan's introduction and the Escape From Mos Eisley. He wanted additional scenes in there (and one he recreated from found footge which looked both stupid and farcical for the Special Edition).
Staged introduction may dilute any immediate political impact, but it extends it further into the parliament.
Cynical Osbornism in a nutshell. Everything for political advantage no matter the cost to individuals on the ground. See also - the non-staged Dividend Tax, which would have been much fairer if phased in gradually. Both measures that are going to hit the new class of self-employed precariat that have been keeping the Tory tractor stats nicely cooked.
Ah, whataboutery. Of course. I didnt agree with Labour's suggestions either, but they arent in any position to put them into practice (I like to think once the party ahs been cleared out of its Blairites it will be a lot less authoritarian.) I repeat, do you think this is an effective, workable, justified piece of legislation?
It's not whataboutery. There's a cross-party (and indeed international) consensus that the damage, including deaths, caused by so-called 'legal highs' is a serious problem which any responsible government would have to address.
So, to answer your questions:
Justified? Most certainly. No responsible government could simply accept a position where potentially deadly and completely unregulated mind-altering drugs could be openly and legally sold to naive young people. You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? If so, then logically you must also believe that there should be zero regulation and licensing of all medical drugs. Big pharma could sell anything they liked without regulation. Good luck with that one.
Effective and workable? It's certainly a very difficult piece of legislation to get right. There seems to be some pretty grown-up discussion amongst MPs and in the Lords on the exact wording. I don't know whether they've got the optimal balance.
I saw 15 minutes of "Star Wars" and found so dull I've had no desire to see any of the other sequels or prequel.
On a positive note, my parents once had as a near neighbour Stuart Freeborn, who created the design of Yoda and Chewbacca and he was the most delightful person you could meet.
The first 15 minutes? You mean the space battle scene where Princess Leia gets captured? Dull?????
I'm trying to think of any 15 minute period in Episode 4 where it can be described as dull, I've seen it enough times to know the whole film scene by scene (and probably most of the dialogue).
There is definitely not a period of 15 minutes were it is dull.
Its amazing how Lucas was such a good director for 4, 5 and 6 but sucked so badly for 1, 2 and 3.
I think the problem was expectation. The first film (#4) was genuinely world-changing - TV, which had been killing cinema, felt it was necessary to produce Battlestar Galactica to compete. I've read a very compelling argument that Star Wars saved cinema - it showed that the big screen could still pull the crowds in, and it was worth investing in big-screen feature films.
The second and third films were good, but lacked the complete storyline of the first (which was a self-contained story). Then, in the fifteen years between Episode IV and I, a whole subculture of stories evolved the universe. (*) It would have been impossible for Episode I to live up to the fans' expectations. It would have been impossible for Lucas to have replicated the success of the first three.
Now, with Episodes I,II and III having been damp squibs, expectations are slightly diluted. Fans hope, but they know the new films might not live up to their dreams.
BTW, I've read somewhere that the 'Episode IV' at the beginning of the first film was not in the original cinema release: it was added after it was shown the film was a success and that there would be a sequel. I don't have a time machine to know if its true.
(*) Many of which have been New York Times bestsellers. Star Wars fans were voracious for any official stories.
Even with low expectations, the prequels would have fallen below them. 1 and 2 were just abysmally bad movies. 3 actually benefitted from low expectations after 1 and 2. It was very mediocre but because people were expecting another terrible episode, fans thought it was fairly good.
I personally think both 5 and 6 are better than 4.
Mr. Taffys, the true source of Vader's bitterness was his failure to get compensation for the accident at work, that wasn't his fault, which crippled him.
As a disabled man with ongoing acute medical needs, we ought to applaud his excellent professional achievements. Instead, he's constantly under attack, by his own children, insurgents, and even mocked by co-workers (see video) for his minority religious beliefs.
The appeal of Star Wars has completely passed me by. I saw the original aged 9 and was underwhelmed ("half an hour too long" was my view then). And I saw The Phantom Menace, which was unbelievably poor for a movie that had had so much money thrown at it.
I'd never make a good film producer.
Wholeheartedly agree. Watched the original when I was about 22 in the late night cinema after the pub and I think I fell asleep... Haven't seen any of the others
First film I saw at the cinema was Superman in 1979 and I walked out after 5 minutes saying it was boring... Never seen it or any of the sequels either
Nor any Star Trek in any form
Sci-Fi Shmi-Fi
I don't get Star Wars.
On the other hand, Indiana Jones and Back to the Future are works of genius.
To be fair I'm not much of a film watcher really... For someone growing up in the 80s there are an astounding number of 'classics' I've not seen.. Too hyperactive, I just liked playing sport
Star Wars (first 3) Indiana Jones Back to the future Ghostbusters Beverley hills cop Superman 1 2 and 3
And many, many more!
I've never seen a complete full-length cell-drawn animated Disney. Not Dumbo, 101 Dalmations, Aladdin, Snow White, Lady and the Tramp, Aladdin, etc. I've seen many of the electronic ones, though.
As a kid they just left me cold.
The exceptions are the Studio Ghibli ones, which Mrs J is a massive fan. Besides, Ghibli isn't really a Disney studio in spirit.
(BTW, if you want to see a great film, watch 'Spirited Away')
Oh I did love a cartoon... I think the film that i found most affecting as a child was an animated version of the lion the witch and the wardrobe... Aslan on the slab, horrific..
The first two films I saw were the champ and watership down and I cried my eyes out at both!
Agree about the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. We owned some land in Devon, part of which had an old stone sundial in it, with lions' faces on the four sides of the pedestal. When I was young I read the book, then went down to this overgrown, darkened glade to stare at the lions and dream.
I must only have been six or seven, yet it was possibly an important moment in my life. Unfortunately that sundial was later stolen.
I was the youngest in my family by four years, so by the time I was old enough to watch some of the feature-length cartoons, my siblings wanted to watch more mature material!
BTW, I've read somewhere that the 'Episode IV' at the beginning of the first film was not in the original cinema release: it was added after it was shown the film was a success and that there would be a sequel. I don't have a time machine to know if its true.
The written Trail at the start was always part of the movie but the "Episode IV" was indeed added after the final cut.
However, this could only have been done before it hit theatres given the nature of film distribution back then.
BTW, I've read somewhere that the 'Episode IV' at the beginning of the first film was not in the original cinema release: it was added after it was shown the film was a success and that there would be a sequel. I don't have a time machine to know if its true.
As far as I know it was always there but a big deal wasn't made of it at the time. In the same way episode 4 is now called A New Hope (which is what was written in the text) as a subtitle but its original title was just plain Star Wars. From the sequels on much more attention was paid to the individual titles names and episode numbers.
I believe from memory Episode 4 was originally including (along with the famous rolling text) not due to any intention of prequels but to give the impression of an on-going story.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Mr. Taffys, the true source of Vader's bitterness was his failure to get compensation for the accident at work, that wasn't his fault, which crippled him.
As a disabled man with ongoing acute medical needs, we ought to applaud his excellent professional achievements. Instead, he's constantly under attack, by his own children, insurgents, and even mocked by co-workers (see video) for his minority religious beliefs.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Ah, whataboutery. Of course. I didnt agree with Labour's suggestions either, but they arent in any position to put them into practice (I like to think once the party ahs been cleared out of its Blairites it will be a lot less authoritarian.) I repeat, do you think this is an effective, workable, justified piece of legislation?
It's not whataboutery. There's a cross-party (and indeed international) consensus that the damage, including deaths, caused by so-called 'legal highs' is a serious problem which any responsible government would have to address.
So, to answer your questions:
Justified? Most certainly. No responsible government could simply accept a position where potentially deadly and completely unregulated mind-altering drugs could be openly and legally sold to naive young people. You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? If so, then logically you must also believe that there should be zero regulation and licensing of all medical drugs. Good luck with that one.
Effective and workable? It's certainly a very difficult piece of legislation to get right. There seems to be some pretty grown-up discussion amongst MPs and in the Lords on the exact wording. I don't know whether they've got the optimal balance.
If only there were some organic products people could use to get high...
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
As a disabled man with ongoing acute medical needs, we ought to applaud his excellent professional achievements. Instead, he's constantly under attack, by his own children, insurgents, and even mocked by co-workers (see video) for his minority religious beliefs.
And don't forget the huge Infrastructure Investment he was involved in along with tens of thousands of highly paid construction jobs.
Until those plans were undone by a cowardly terrorist attack.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Quite. With its luxury food and drink industry, and tourism industry, Scotland stands to gain hugely from a good relationship with China, as the SNP knows. Only when the SNP do the 'kowtow' it's presumably a worthwhile endeavour, whereas when it's done at a UK level its somehow a subject for scorn and derision. Who'd have thunk?
I have posted this before.After his 10-minute rule bill,the odds over at WH at 16-1 are too big.He looks like a leader.Seema Malhotra is largey unpriced but Laddies have her at 66-1.She's getting plenty of airtime.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
Instead, he's constantly under attack, by his own children, insurgents, and even mocked by co-workers (see video) for his minority religious beliefs.''
LOL indeed.
That incident would have caused all sorts of problems for the death star HR department, if it had survived.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
The appeal of Star Wars has completely passed me by. I saw the original aged 9 and was underwhelmed ("half an hour too long" was my view then). And I saw The Phantom Menace, which was unbelievably poor for a movie that had had so much money thrown at it.
I'd never make a good film producer.
It's because your young self knew you would become a lawyer, and therefore you instinctively knew the wrong side won.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
We live in volatile times, see Canada.
Indeed you'll note I didn't say the voters would definitely back Osborne over Corbyn. No hubris. But the chasm is so massive between them I don't expect the public to abstain.
Ah, whataboutery. Of course. I didnt agree with Labour's suggestions either, but they arent in any position to put them into practice (I like to think once the party ahs been cleared out of its Blairites it will be a lot less authoritarian.) I repeat, do you think this is an effective, workable, justified piece of legislation?
It's not whataboutery. There's a cross-party (and indeed international) consensus that the damage, including deaths, caused by so-called 'legal highs' is a serious problem which any responsible government would have to address.
So, to answer your questions:
Justified? Most certainly. No responsible government could simply accept a position where potentially deadly and completely unregulated mind-altering drugs could be openly and legally sold to naive young people. You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? If so, then logically you must also believe that there should be zero regulation and licensing of all medical drugs. Big pharma could sell anything they liked without regulation. Good luck with that one.
Effective and workable? It's certainly a very difficult piece of legislation to get right. There seems to be some pretty grown-up discussion amongst MPs and in the Lords on the exact wording. I don't know whether they've got the optimal balance.
I agree there is a problem to be resolved, I disagree that this is the Bill to do it. It is an illiberal nightmare that wouldnt be out of place in a North Korea type Orwellian state. To put a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances as defined by anything that alters the activity of the brain - which includes a huge number of completely innocuous things that aren't novel designer highs imported from China - these do need controlling as many of them are far more dangerous than currently illegal drugs (which I am of course in favour of regulating rather than criminalising, as is the direction of travel across most of the civilised world) - is so ambiguous and all-encompassing that it basically leads to a huge number of citizens being at the risk of doing something illegal depending on the current whim of the state. Exactly the kind of dangerous legislation you'd find in a totalitarian state.
Im of the belief that if relatively safe psychoactives were properly regulated, people would go for these and such nonsensical authoritarian regulation would be completely unnecessary.
I thought Angela Eagle was going to combust on Sky earlier - her shouty shrieking made me flinch - she's not got the most attractive voice at the best of times, but I honestly can't recall what she was saying bar Evil Tories.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
62% of voters (and 76% of possible voters) didn't.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
62% of voters (and 76% of possible voters) didn't.
Non voters are utterly irrelevant so that's a meaningless garbage statistic and enough did.
To put a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances as defined by anything that alters the activity of the brain - which includes a huge number of completely innocuous things that aren't novel designer highs imported from China - these do need controlling as many of them are far more dangerous than currently illegal drugs (which I am of course in favour of regulating rather than criminalising, as is the direction of travel across most of the civilised world) - is so ambiguous and all-encompassing that it basically leads to a huge number of citizens being at the risk of doing something illegal depending on the current whim of the state.
Which is why there has been, as I said, some quite grown-up discussion on the exact wording, in particular around the concepts of 'novel' and 'synthetic'.
If you agree there's a problem to be resolved, then there's no avoiding the difficulty of exactly how to do so. Flinging around phrases such as 'nonsensical authoritarian regulation' is just childish. The government, MPs and Lords are doing their best to frame the regulation so as to address the harm without catching the harmless. As I said, it's not an easy one at all.
To put a blanket ban on all psychoactive substances as defined by anything that alters the activity of the brain - which includes a huge number of completely innocuous things that aren't novel designer highs imported from China - these do need controlling as many of them are far more dangerous than currently illegal drugs (which I am of course in favour of regulating rather than criminalising, as is the direction of travel across most of the civilised world) - is so ambiguous and all-encompassing that it basically leads to a huge number of citizens being at the risk of doing something illegal depending on the current whim of the state.
Which is why there has been, as I said, some quite grown-up discussion on the exact wording, in particular around the concepts of 'novel' and 'synthetic'.
If you agree there's a problem to be resolved, then there's no avoiding the difficulty of exactly how to do so. Flinging around phrases such as 'nonsensical authoritarian regulation' is just childish. The government, MPs and Lords are doing their best to frame the regulation so as to address the harm without catching the harmless. As I said, it's not an easy one at all.
This is a topic there seems to be more heat than light about. For example I recall someone suggesting that coffee would be caught as a mind altering substance in the definition used, but I fail to see based on your post how coffee would be considered either novel or synthetic.
I hope Spectre will be better but, to be honest, Bond is starting to become a bit of a cliche and just pays homage and tribute to itself in each film now. It's also under increasing threat/pressure to be politically correct, and the product placement/commercialism is becoming an embarrassment.
To be honest, if that's going to happen, it's time to put it to bed. And I say that as the world's biggest Bond fan.
Bond must be unashamedly British, and true to the character, to work. That means sex, sadism and snobbery. It means a man who hates his job, takes it out on drink, fine food, sex with beautiful women and gambling to try to make him feel alive and because he never knows when he might die. A man who keeps any serious attachment at arms length due to personal tragedy, but has a redeeming side of personal loyalty to his friends and allies in 'the business', who are his only family, and a deep sense of duty underneath it all. He (and it must always be a 'he') is confrontational, unsubtle and aggressive but intelligent, effective and determined.
He's imperfect, brutal, self-centred, repressed, charming, dislikeable, ruthless, cruel, uncaring but loyal, and very British. And that flawed humanity is why we love him, and why the character has always worked.
Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.
Completely O/T but any help on this question would be totally appreciated as I am not sure what to do. Also, I apologise in advance for wasting anyone's time with this.
I clicked on a friend's Facebook banner ad that was promoting sunglasses at a special price. Yes, rather daft and, when my friend posted a message saying ignore, I rang the card company, cancelled the card and told them it was most likely a fraudulent transaction.
I have now received what I assume to be the glasses (I haven't actually opened the package but assume that is what they are) which have come from China. I was slightly surprised to say the least.
Completely O/T but any help on this question would be totally appreciated as I am not sure what to do. Also, I apologise in advance for wasting anyone's time with this.
I clicked on a friend's Facebook banner ad that was promoting sunglasses at a special price. Yes, rather daft and, when my friend posted a message saying ignore, I rang the card company, cancelled the card and told them it was most likely a fraudulent transaction.
I have now received what I assume to be the glasses (I haven't actually opened the package but assume that is what they are) which have come from China. I was slightly surprised to say the least.
Any idea what is going on?
Why do you think it was fake - perhaps they were just selling cheap sunglasses?
Completely O/T but any help on this question would be totally appreciated as I am not sure what to do. Also, I apologise in advance for wasting anyone's time with this.
I clicked on a friend's Facebook banner ad that was promoting sunglasses at a special price. Yes, rather daft and, when my friend posted a message saying ignore, I rang the card company, cancelled the card and told them it was most likely a fraudulent transaction.
I have now received what I assume to be the glasses (I haven't actually opened the package but assume that is what they are) which have come from China. I was slightly surprised to say the least.
Any idea what is going on?
Did you give your card details to the sunglasses people ?
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
It appears that you've bought a pair of sunglasses.
It depends, if they were bought on a credit card (rather than a debit card) then you have guarantees under law against the card company and not just the supplier. If they're fake he ought to be able to get a refund from the card company even if it can't be got from the supplier.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Your usual pompous self I see. Where did I say Alex Salmond was perfect. I merely stated an obvious fact , ie the establishment in London are kissing butt big style, they will do and say anything to try and get the Chinese to be their chums, as ever all principles out of the window aka Saudia Arabia.
As much as Tories might want to think this year's election win was some wholehearted endorsement of Tory ideology, the fact is that for many a floating voter it was as simple as backing the guy who "looked the part" of a Prime Minister, was good at sounding serious and statesmanlike, and who seemed like a reasonably nice and likeable guy (by Tory standards).
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Depends if he's against Corbyn or not.
The gap between Corbyn and Osborne, is not as big as the gap between Cameron and Ed.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
We live in volatile times, see Canada.
Indeed you'll note I didn't say the voters would definitely back Osborne over Corbyn. No hubris. But the chasm is so massive between them I don't expect the public to abstain.
I know it's too soon to tell but at the moment the 'chasm' between Osborne and Corbyn in the above poll is 0%. (Just stirring really, I guess you meant in policy terms rather than percentages). Also, as Canada showed it is possible for a third placed party to do well, see also Greece. I'm not really expecting Corbyn to be PM but then I never expected him to be LotO.
I wonder how the PB Tories are enjoying their Queen and PM tugging his forelock to the Chinese., Surely even they must perceive the realisation that the UK is a meaningless lapdog in the world today.
Given the UK's history it gives other countries a good source of comedy. It seems the Chinese media are revelling in the obsequience shown by the UK to their Chinese guests.
As a former Tory, I'm hugely comfortable with it.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't make overtures toward the Chinese? Not something that Salmond (sensibly in my view) would agree with.
Indeed, using google to search for "Alex Salmond" and Chinese, the top result is this:
The word "kowtowing" features in the first sentence.
It seems that the Scottish nationalists are so obsessed in their hatred of the UK that they're prepared to make themselves look idiotic in their inconsistency.
Quite. With its luxury food and drink industry, and tourism industry, Scotland stands to gain hugely from a good relationship with China, as the SNP knows. Only when the SNP do the 'kowtow' it's presumably a worthwhile endeavour, whereas when it's done at a UK level its somehow a subject for scorn and derision. Who'd have thunk?
The UK have had so much experience of bending over that they are masters at it. Anything goes for a pound.
Watching the ceremonials this morning, I thought the camera angles were appallying. I think the cameramen were on job experience.
SKY News had a split screen between Horse Guards and the Scunthorpe Steelworks. I'm not sure not even the BBC would have pulled a stunt like that.
I believe the invitation to the Chinese President was issued by the Queen last year. It would have been interesting to see how Labour would be reacting now if they were in power. Whatever the criticisms of China, these could be made behind the scenes, instead of the visible display of bad manners and unhelpful comments from the likes of Tristram Hunt and his screeching female colleagues.
The gap between Ed and Cameron is a chasm between Corbyn and Osborne.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
We live in volatile times, see Canada.
Indeed you'll note I didn't say the voters would definitely back Osborne over Corbyn. No hubris. But the chasm is so massive between them I don't expect the public to abstain.
I know it's too soon to tell but at the moment the 'chasm' between Osborne and Corbyn in the above poll is 0%. (Just stirring really, I guess you meant in policy terms rather than percentages). Also, as Canada showed it is possible for a third placed party to do well, see also Greece. I'm not really expecting Corbyn to be PM but then I never expected him to be LotO.
Indeed, I'm talking about the chasm in the difference between what the two men stand for and what their being PM would mean.
For a while people spoke about LibLabCon how they're "all the same". That could hardly be further from the truth regarding Osborne and Corbyn. There are major and very real differences between them and anyone delusional enough to think that Osborne and Corbyn are "all the same" is likely not voting anyway.
It is the difference between the two men to which i refer. Not garbage and meaningless polls five years before an election where at this stage in 2005 opinion polls were showing Brown if he became Labour leader would beat Cameron.
EDIT: It will be hard for a third party to do well in the UK but I find the idea more plausible than PM Corbyn.
It appears that you've bought a pair of sunglasses.
It depends, if they were bought on a credit card (rather than a debit card) then you have guarantees under law against the card company and not just the supplier. If they're fake he ought to be able to get a refund from the card company even if it can't be got from the supplier.
I don't know the nature of The Kitchen Cabinet's concern.
If they are say, knock-off sunglasses, you are under no obligation to return them even if you've cancelled the payment. You are welcome under the law to wait for them to ask for the money (or the sunglasses back), you don't have to seek them out.
Guido on the ludicrous position of the unions on energy prices.
It's amazing that we can import cheaply made Chinese steel which uses dirty coal energy generation, while our energy comes from nuclear, scrubbed coal and CCGTs. Per tonne of steel CO2 generation for British made product is about half that of Chinese made product. Even with our current energy mix we make less greenhouse emissions than China per tonne of steel produced. If we moved wholesale to CCGTs instead of scrubbed coal that would go down further and still be a cheap form of energy.
Our green taxes, and those across Europe, are actually counter productive. We are just shifting heavy industry to nations where there is more dirty power production because our energy costs are becoming untenable. At the end of it all, we still live on the same planet, whether the emissions are Chinese or British or German makes no difference if global warming is true.
Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc
Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.
The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.
My doubt before, Sean, was whether any Muslims had actually become more devout, or whether the UK had simply added new, young, devout Muslims through immigration.
Is this study capable of distinguishing those two patterns?
Mr. Max, indeed. As I posted before, it's reminiscent of the biofuel kick a few years back. Middle class, left-wing Westerners felt terribly self-satisfied about the renewable fuel, as South Asian island nations cut down ancient pristine forest to grow the oil plantations which provided the biofuel.
With coal/steel, we're just off-shoring the pollution (which has a global impact anyway) and the profits, which harm us and benefit another nation.
Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.
Meanwhile 60% of them think the Koran should not be accepted as part of Danish law, 90% do not want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.
I wonder what the proportions would be if you were to ask Christians and use the Bible instead of the Koran? I seem to recall arguing for years about proposed changes to the law with people who opposed the law being changed because of the Bible or who say our law either is or should be Biblically inspired so I suspect both numbers will be non-zero.
Watching the ceremonials this morning, I thought the camera angles were appallying. I think the cameramen were on job experience.
SKY News had a split screen between Horse Guards and the Scunthorpe Steelworks. I'm not sure not even the BBC would have pulled a stunt like that.
I believe the invitation to the Chinese President was issued by the Queen last year. It would have been interesting to see how Labour would be reacting now if they were in power. Whatever the criticisms of China, these could be made behind the scenes, instead of the visible display of bad manners and unhelpful comments from the likes of Tristram Hunt and his screeching female colleagues.
''At the end of it all, we still live on the same planet, whether the emissions are Chinese or British or German makes no difference if global warming is true.''
The response seems to be that we should pay once to subsidise green energy, and then again to subsidize the industries that get hammered because of its expense.
''The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.''
We were discussing this yesterday. It is happening already in Holland, Switzerland and France.
If things go pop when Dave launches his referendum, he could be in trouble.
Even if the vote is to leave it wont by a crushing margin maybe 5%. In that case the EU will offer us some further concessions and ask us to vote again. Its not like they haven't got form on this front.
Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc
Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.
The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.
My doubt before, Sean, was whether any Muslims had actually become more devout, or whether the UK had simply added new, young, devout Muslims through immigration.
Is this study capable of distinguishing those two patterns?
I would say the reason that the modern young Muslims are more devout is that they've never lived in an Islamic state... Their parents and grandparents did and so accepted western democracy as the best chance of a decent life... The yoot want the best of both
It is not yet the biggest in Holland or Sweden any more than Miliband's Labour was never the biggest in the UK. Pollsters are not reality, election results are. The polls are suggesting if you believe them that they might become the biggest in the future, however in Holland the PVV have consistently underperformed the polls.
Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc
Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.
The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.
Gert Vilders is favourite to be the next Dutch PM, Marine Le Pen is in with a shout of being POTFR, in Sweden the right wing are now ahead in the polls, in Germany the CDU/CSU are down by almost 5 points in the polls while AfD are up 3 points. The longer this migrant crisis goes on the more damaging it becomes to Mrs Merkel, just today a bunch of German MPs are getting together to defy her stance and propose the building of fences along their borders with other EU nations.
Forget economics, it will be social and religious tensions that cause the EU to fall apart. All it takes is for one nation to vote in a party which is opposed to EU membership with a majority. It could happen in either Sweden or the Netherlands, and there is a slight chance it could happen in France. Worse still for Germany, the more power AfD gain, the wider their eurosceptic will be heard in the country.
Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.
Meanwhile 60% of them think the Koran should not be accepted as part of Danish law, 90% do not want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.
I wonder what the proportions would be if you were to ask Christians and use the Bible instead of the Koran? I seem to recall arguing for years about proposed changes to the law with people who opposed the law being changed because of the Bible or who say our law either is or should be Biblically inspired so I suspect both numbers will be non-zero.
Our culture is Judeao-Christian, it is European. This is what we are. You can no more take the Bible out of our law than you can take the Anglo-Saxon elements out of our language.
The point you miss by several miles is that 40% of Muslims already want to see Koranic law incorporated into Danish law, and this figure is likely to rise as Muslims simultaneously grow more devout (as the polls shows) and more confident (as numbers increase) and more powerful (as they, quite justifiably, exercise their democratic right to elect leaders who will grant them their wishes)
If you want to live in a partly Islamised Europe, that's fine and dandy. I don't. Nor do most Europeans.
Our culture has Judaeo-Christian influences but is far more than just that. It has Graeco-Roman traditions that pre-date Christianity, it has modern post-reformation traditions that have come from liberal thinking. It has original English thinking that we have evolved uniquely and independently. It is a complete melting pot.
I have a suspicion that just as many Christians look at our law and see Christianity in traditions that actually pre-date Christianity and date back to Graeco-Roman traditions, so too many of the 40% may not actually want changes but see similar influences related to the Koran (which is essentially very, very similar to Judaeo-Christian laws anyway).
I no more want to live in an Islamic State like the 10% are proposing than I want to live in an absolute and fundamental Christian one - which we don't.
''And I saw The Phantom Menace, which was unbelievably poor for a movie that had had so much money thrown at it.''
The movies after the original trilogy are garbage.
I found the first one and a half movies of the second trilogy to be crap. The second half of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith to be good. The end of Revenge of the Sith was great and somewhat redeemed the prequel trilogy.
The casting was the real problem particularly with Christiansen.
However given what JJ Abraams did with the Star Trek reboot, I think everyone should have strong expectations for Episode 7.
What, produce one good movie and one pile of turds?
Our culture is Judeao-Christian, it is European. This is what we are. You can no more take the Bible out of our law than you can take the Anglo-Saxon elements out of our language.
The first 15 minutes? You mean the space battle scene where Princess Leia gets captured? Dull?????
The gargantuan sexual tension between Han and Leia saves the whole franchise. I mean guys, get a room. Carrie Fisher's performances in the original trilogy are quite extraordinary.
Completely O/T but any help on this question would be totally appreciated as I am not sure what to do. Also, I apologise in advance for wasting anyone's time with this.
I clicked on a friend's Facebook banner ad that was promoting sunglasses at a special price. Yes, rather daft and, when my friend posted a message saying ignore, I rang the card company, cancelled the card and told them it was most likely a fraudulent transaction.
I have now received what I assume to be the glasses (I haven't actually opened the package but assume that is what they are) which have come from China. I was slightly surprised to say the least.
Any idea what is going on?
Why do you think it was fake - perhaps they were just selling cheap sunglasses?
Possible but it was for Ray Bans and apparently the "Charity Day" sale ploy has happened before.
It appears that you've bought a pair of sunglasses.
It depends, if they were bought on a credit card (rather than a debit card) then you have guarantees under law against the card company and not just the supplier. If they're fake he ought to be able to get a refund from the card company even if it can't be got from the supplier.
I don't know the nature of The Kitchen Cabinet's concern.
If they are say, knock-off sunglasses, you are under no obligation to return them even if you've cancelled the payment. You are welcome under the law to wait for them to ask for the money (or the sunglasses back), you don't have to seek them out.
I guess the concerns are (1) they had my credit card details (although it is now cancelled) and (2) I just do not like the idea of a possible scammer having some of my personal details. Thanks though for the views (and to everyone else who commented).
Except Gordon Brown; Tim Farron & Nicola Sturgeon.
I meant for the Tories and especially this far out.
This is different - this is about becoming PM, not just Tory leader. Who was favourite in the summer of 1990? If it was Heseltine that that would have been an obvious lay on betfair (please excuse the epic aftertiming).
On the 1st of January 1990 the favourite was Michael Heseltine.
On the 1st of January 1997 the favourite to be next Con Leader was Michael Portillo
On the 1st of January 2001 the favourite to be next Con Leader was Michael Portillo and Ken Clarke
On the 1st of January 2003 the the favourite to be next Con Leader was David Davis
On the 1st of January 2005 the favourite to be next Con Leader was David Davis
(I has been doing some research on this for a future thread)
God, bookies were clueless back then ;-)
Bookies don't exist to predict the future; they exist to make money!
The appeal of Star Wars has completely passed me by. I saw the original aged 9 and was underwhelmed ("half an hour too long" was my view then). And I saw The Phantom Menace, which was unbelievably poor for a movie that had had so much money thrown at it.
I'd never make a good film producer.
Wholeheartedly agree. Watched the original when I was about 22 in the late night cinema after the pub and I think I fell asleep... Haven't seen any of the others
First film I saw at the cinema was Superman in 1979 and I walked out after 5 minutes saying it was boring... Never seen it or any of the sequels either
Nor any Star Trek in any form
Sci-Fi Shmi-Fi
I don't get Star Wars.
On the other hand, Indiana Jones and Back to the Future are works of genius.
Tomorrow is, of course, Back to the Future II day.
Our culture is Judeao-Christian, it is European. This is what we are. You can no more take the Bible out of our law than you can take the Anglo-Saxon elements out of our language.
Mr. Max, indeed. As I posted before, it's reminiscent of the biofuel kick a few years back. Middle class, left-wing Westerners felt terribly self-satisfied about the renewable fuel, as South Asian island nations cut down ancient pristine forest to grow the oil plantations which provided the biofuel.
With coal/steel, we're just off-shoring the pollution (which has a global impact anyway) and the profits, which harm us and benefit another nation.
Well it's worse because our power is at least cleaner than China's unscrubbed coal. It's stupid because we lose the business and it's not more polluting for the world. It's a symptom of liberal white guilt.
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
Women being forced to cover up their entire bodies with the exception of a small slit through which to see.
Our culture is Judeao-Christian, it is European. This is what we are. You can no more take the Bible out of our law than you can take the Anglo-Saxon elements out of our language.
The point you miss by several miles is that 40% of Muslims already want to see Koranic law incorporated into Danish law, and this figure is likely to rise as Muslims simultaneously grow more devout (as the polls shows) and more confident (as numbers increase) and more powerful (as they, quite justifiably, exercise their democratic right to elect leaders who will grant them their wishes)
If you want to live in a partly Islamised Europe, that's fine and dandy. I don't. Nor do most Europeans.
Our culture has Judaeo-Christian influences but is far more than just that. It has Graeco-Roman traditions that pre-date Christianity, it has modern post-reformation traditions that have come from liberal thinking. It has original English thinking that we have evolved uniquely and independently. It is a complete melting pot.
I have a suspicion that just as many Christians look at our law and see Christianity in traditions that actually pre-date Christianity and date back to Graeco-Roman traditions, so too many of the 40% may not actually want changes but see similar influences related to the Koran (which is essentially very, very similar to Judaeo-Christian laws anyway).
I no more want to live in an Islamic State like the 10% are proposing than I want to live in a Christian one.
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Or you could compare, say modern Malaysia and Croatia under the Ustase for the opposite comparison. Just because there arent really any fundamentalist Christian states in existence now doesnt mean they arent possible and deeply unpleasant when they do/have exist/existed. I despise theocracy wherever it exists, and whatver religion is involved. Organised religion and political power are a poisonous combination.
(admittedly the Ustase actually preferred muslims to Orthodox Christians!)
Our culture is Judeao-Christian, it is European. This is what we are. You can no more take the Bible out of our law than you can take the Anglo-Saxon elements out of our language.
Jesus was a Middle-Easterner!
But his church was Roman.
Tell that to the Church of the East or the Oriental Orthodox.
Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.
This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.
May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
Few medieval rulers would have been happy to see clergy wield the degree of influence which they do in Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Theocracies like Calvin's Geneva, or Florence under Savonorola, were the exception not the norm.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
Women being forced to cover up their entire bodies with the exception of a small slit through which to see.
Women were frequently forced to cover up from head to toe in medieval Europe, all but some of the face being covered up was not unusual. Try again.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
As the rule of secular law expanded in Europe, so Christianity adapted and mutated.
Does Islam look like doing the same? Is anybody in that religion coming up with islam lite that lives alongside secularism?
No. the opposite is happening.
Most of the Arab and Persian world was secularising before western interests in a faustian pact with the House of Saud sponsored and enabled Sunni extremism across the region wherever they faced nationalist secularist movements.
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?
Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.
My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.
Or you could compare, say modern Malaysia and Croatia under the Ustase for the opposite comparison. Just because there arent really any fundamentalist Christian states in existence now doesnt mean they arent possible and deeply unpleasant when they do/have exist/existed. I despise theocracy wherever it exists, and whatver religion is involved. Organised religion and political power are a poisonous combination.
(admittedly the Ustase actually preferred muslims to Orthodox Christians!)
Of course, this is a fundamental distinction between Christianity and Islam.
Jesus of Nazareth taught "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's". He rejected the messiah's role of leading a military uprising against the Romans on the basis that his Kingdom was not of this world, recommending the fundamental distinction between secular and religious realms.
Mohammed, on the other other hand, set out precise Islamic rules for how governance should be ordered and run according to divine principles.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
Women being forced to cover up their entire bodies with the exception of a small slit through which to see.
Women were frequently forced to cover up from head to toe in medieval Europe, all but some of the face being covered up was not unusual. Try again.
Could you provide some evidence of a Christian government in medieval Europe requiring women to cover their entire bodies with the exception of "some of the face"?
Mr. Thompson, Europe left the medieval world behind centuries ago.
I enjoy comparing classical history (and occasionally medieval history) to the modern world, but I wouldn't vote for a party that wanted to nail people to crosses.
Your argument seems to be against Islamism as so backward it belongs a millennium in the past.
The Prole Tax is now opposed by the Adam Smith Institute, of all things:
George Eaton @georgeeaton 26m26 minutes ago Adam Smith Institute attacks tax credit cuts, warning they will "disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society."
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
Few medieval rulers would have been happy to see clergy wield the degree of influence which they do in Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Theocracies like Calvin's Geneva, or Florence under Savonorola, were the exception not the norm.
Not the norm but not unheard of either. But even the relatively englightened of states of that era would look more in place in the Middle East than in Europe today.
Anyone who goes down an extremist absolutist route that views unorthodoxy to be a crime will typically lead the nation to disaster as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully nowadays that is not the norm here anymore (and even when it happens, it is more other beliefs than religion in the modern era that are taken to extremes).
Just reading about Libya before and after the recent 'liberation' is making me realise what a different place the 'greater' middle east could have been without western and House of Saud meddling over the last few decades. Probably well on their way to European-style modern secularism within a couple more decades, as opposed a shattered mess of devastated infrastructure, internecine strife, and extremely well-funded genocidal Sunni extremists.
There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.
You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?
Away and boil your tiny little head.
Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?
Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.
My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.
Well, there's two things there: first, whether anyone of any religious disposition expects their beliefs to be enshrined as the law of the land (questionable, although there were certainly aspects of that in England well into the 17th Century in matters of civil law) and secondly, whether there's a difference in the severity of those proposed laws by religion (e.g Islam v. The Rest).
A third point could be whether or not stricter interpretations of Islam are increasing in prevalence amongst the Muslim community, and what we should do about it.
Personally, I think the answer is yes, and it's an offshoot of the culture wars, plus geopolitics, a reaction to Western imperialism (up to the 60s) in the Middle East, and religious expansionism funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran since the 1970.
There is strong anecdotal evidence that far more veils, niqabs and hijabs are being worn now in Islamic countries than was the case 30 years ago, and that the interpretations of the Koran are becoming more dogmatic.
Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.
This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.
May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.
May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.
On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.
The Prole Tax is now opposed by the Adam Smith Institute, of all things:
George Eaton @georgeeaton 26m26 minutes ago Adam Smith Institute attacks tax credit cuts, warning they will "disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society."
Well lets extend them to people who choose not to have kids too, then :P.
Comments
Apparently the CSA were after Vader for eons.
The second and third films were good, but lacked the complete storyline of the first (which was a self-contained story). Then, in the fifteen years between Episode IV and I, a whole subculture of stories evolved the universe. (*) It would have been impossible for Episode I to live up to the fans' expectations. It would have been impossible for Lucas to have replicated the success of the first three.
Now, with Episodes I,II and III having been damp squibs, expectations are slightly diluted. Fans hope, but they know the new films might not live up to their dreams.
BTW, I've read somewhere that the 'Episode IV' at the beginning of the first film was not in the original cinema release: it was added after it was shown the film was a success and that there would be a sequel. I don't have a time machine to know if its true.
(*) Many of which have been New York Times bestsellers. Star Wars fans were voracious for any official stories.
For example, the slowest part of the movie is the period between Obi Wan's introduction and the Escape From Mos Eisley. He wanted additional scenes in there (and one he recreated from found footge which looked both stupid and farcical for the Special Edition).
Both measures that are going to hit the new class of self-employed precariat that have been keeping the Tory tractor stats nicely cooked.
So, to answer your questions:
Justified? Most certainly. No responsible government could simply accept a position where potentially deadly and completely unregulated mind-altering drugs could be openly and legally sold to naive young people. You don't seriously disagree with this, do you? If so, then logically you must also believe that there should be zero regulation and licensing of all medical drugs. Big pharma could sell anything they liked without regulation. Good luck with that one.
Effective and workable? It's certainly a very difficult piece of legislation to get right. There seems to be some pretty grown-up discussion amongst MPs and in the Lords on the exact wording. I don't know whether they've got the optimal balance.
I personally think both 5 and 6 are better than 4.
As a disabled man with ongoing acute medical needs, we ought to applaud his excellent professional achievements. Instead, he's constantly under attack, by his own children, insurgents, and even mocked by co-workers (see video) for his minority religious beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0XuKORufGk
I must only have been six or seven, yet it was possibly an important moment in my life. Unfortunately that sundial was later stolen.
I was the youngest in my family by four years, so by the time I was old enough to watch some of the feature-length cartoons, my siblings wanted to watch more mature material!
However, this could only have been done before it hit theatres given the nature of film distribution back then.
I believe from memory Episode 4 was originally including (along with the famous rolling text) not due to any intention of prequels but to give the impression of an on-going story.
Osborne would spectacularly throw away those advantages.
Corbyn vs Osborne would result in a seriously hung parliament, with UKIP and the Lib Dems surging, IMO.
Until those plans were undone by a cowardly terrorist attack.
Faced with a very real and monumentally different choice between Corbyn and Osborne why would sensible voters waste their votes on protest parties with (at best case) 9 seats between them?
Voters went back to the Tories for the General Election this year rather than install Ed into Downing Street. One way or another people will either back Corbyn or Osborne rather than have the other be in Downing Street.
LOL indeed.
That incident would have caused all sorts of problems for the death star HR department, if it had survived.
Im of the belief that if relatively safe psychoactives were properly regulated, people would go for these and such nonsensical authoritarian regulation would be completely unnecessary.
If you agree there's a problem to be resolved, then there's no avoiding the difficulty of exactly how to do so. Flinging around phrases such as 'nonsensical authoritarian regulation' is just childish. The government, MPs and Lords are doing their best to frame the regulation so as to address the harm without catching the harmless. As I said, it's not an easy one at all.
I hope Spectre will be better but, to be honest, Bond is starting to become a bit of a cliche and just pays homage and tribute to itself in each film now. It's also under increasing threat/pressure to be politically correct, and the product placement/commercialism is becoming an embarrassment.
To be honest, if that's going to happen, it's time to put it to bed. And I say that as the world's biggest Bond fan.
Bond must be unashamedly British, and true to the character, to work. That means sex, sadism and snobbery. It means a man who hates his job, takes it out on drink, fine food, sex with beautiful women and gambling to try to make him feel alive and because he never knows when he might die. A man who keeps any serious attachment at arms length due to personal tragedy, but has a redeeming side of personal loyalty to his friends and allies in 'the business', who are his only family, and a deep sense of duty underneath it all. He (and it must always be a 'he') is confrontational, unsubtle and aggressive but intelligent, effective and determined.
He's imperfect, brutal, self-centred, repressed, charming, dislikeable, ruthless, cruel, uncaring but loyal, and very British. And that flawed humanity is why we love him, and why the character has always worked.
I clicked on a friend's Facebook banner ad that was promoting sunglasses at a special price. Yes, rather daft and, when my friend posted a message saying ignore, I rang the card company, cancelled the card and told them it was most likely a fraudulent transaction.
I have now received what I assume to be the glasses (I haven't actually opened the package but assume that is what they are) which have come from China. I was slightly surprised to say the least.
Any idea what is going on?
Unfortunately, Gary is a name that, in a fantasy sense, seems better suited to comedy.
Odd how some names linger (Alfred, Edward) but others sound very peculiar (Athelstan, Bohemond).
Guido on the ludicrous position of the unions on energy prices.
Just seen Frank Field just called Tories out on having a David Brent moment,
Bad news Those on Tax Credits will nearly all be significantly worse off.
Good News 80% of families better off includes 100% of MPs
I use an ad blocker https://adblockplus.org/ Which helps to stop these things coming.
HTH
Plenty of chickens coming home to roost here.
Also, as Canada showed it is possible for a third placed party to do well, see also Greece.
I'm not really expecting Corbyn to be PM but then I never expected him to be LotO.
SKY News had a split screen between Horse Guards and the Scunthorpe Steelworks. I'm not sure not even the BBC would have pulled a stunt like that.
I believe the invitation to the Chinese President was issued by the Queen last year. It would have been interesting to see how Labour would be reacting now if they were in power. Whatever the criticisms of China, these could be made behind the scenes, instead of the visible display of bad manners and unhelpful comments from the likes of Tristram Hunt and his screeching female colleagues.
For a while people spoke about LibLabCon how they're "all the same". That could hardly be further from the truth regarding Osborne and Corbyn. There are major and very real differences between them and anyone delusional enough to think that Osborne and Corbyn are "all the same" is likely not voting anyway.
It is the difference between the two men to which i refer. Not garbage and meaningless polls five years before an election where at this stage in 2005 opinion polls were showing Brown if he became Labour leader would beat Cameron.
EDIT: It will be hard for a third party to do well in the UK but I find the idea more plausible than PM Corbyn.
'The UK have had so much experience of bending over that they are masters at it. Anything goes for a pound'
Can't compete with Salmond licking the boots of the likes of Trump.
If they are say, knock-off sunglasses, you are under no obligation to return them even if you've cancelled the payment. You are welcome under the law to wait for them to ask for the money (or the sunglasses back), you don't have to seek them out.
Our green taxes, and those across Europe, are actually counter productive. We are just shifting heavy industry to nations where there is more dirty power production because our energy costs are becoming untenable. At the end of it all, we still live on the same planet, whether the emissions are Chinese or British or German makes no difference if global warming is true.
Is this study capable of distinguishing those two patterns?
We were discussing this yesterday. It is happening already in Holland, Switzerland and France.
If things go pop when Dave launches his referendum, he could be in trouble.
With coal/steel, we're just off-shoring the pollution (which has a global impact anyway) and the profits, which harm us and benefit another nation.
I wonder what the proportions would be if you were to ask Christians and use the Bible instead of the Koran? I seem to recall arguing for years about proposed changes to the law with people who opposed the law being changed because of the Bible or who say our law either is or should be Biblically inspired so I suspect both numbers will be non-zero.
The response seems to be that we should pay once to subsidise green energy, and then again to subsidize the industries that get hammered because of its expense.
@BillKristol
Biden confirms to Obama at lunch today he's running, announces at U Delaware tomorrow. You can feel the Joementum!
Oh drat, now I have to actually work out what odds Clinton should be. (If Biden does run. Not sure who this Mr Kristol is, other than his blue tick)
Forget economics, it will be social and religious tensions that cause the EU to fall apart. All it takes is for one nation to vote in a party which is opposed to EU membership with a majority. It could happen in either Sweden or the Netherlands, and there is a slight chance it could happen in France. Worse still for Germany, the more power AfD gain, the wider their eurosceptic will be heard in the country.
I have a suspicion that just as many Christians look at our law and see Christianity in traditions that actually pre-date Christianity and date back to Graeco-Roman traditions, so too many of the 40% may not actually want changes but see similar influences related to the Koran (which is essentially very, very similar to Judaeo-Christian laws anyway).
I no more want to live in an Islamic State like the 10% are proposing than I want to live in an absolute and fundamental Christian one - which we don't.
However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.
(admittedly the Ustase actually preferred muslims to Orthodox Christians!)
As the rule of secular law expanded in Europe, so Christianity adapted and mutated.
Does Islam look like doing the same? Is anybody in that religion coming up with islam lite that lives alongside secularism?
No. the opposite is happening.
May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.
My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.
Jesus of Nazareth taught "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's". He rejected the messiah's role of leading a military uprising against the Romans on the basis that his Kingdom was not of this world, recommending the fundamental distinction between secular and religious realms.
Mohammed, on the other other hand, set out precise Islamic rules for how governance should be ordered and run according to divine principles.
I enjoy comparing classical history (and occasionally medieval history) to the modern world, but I wouldn't vote for a party that wanted to nail people to crosses.
Your argument seems to be against Islamism as so backward it belongs a millennium in the past.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 26m26 minutes ago
Adam Smith Institute attacks tax credit cuts, warning they will "disincentivise work and hurt those at the bottom of society."
https://twitter.com/wikiguido/status/656450661949681664
Anyone who goes down an extremist absolutist route that views unorthodoxy to be a crime will typically lead the nation to disaster as far as I'm concerned. Thankfully nowadays that is not the norm here anymore (and even when it happens, it is more other beliefs than religion in the modern era that are taken to extremes).
Star Wars is for kids surely??
A third point could be whether or not stricter interpretations of Islam are increasing in prevalence amongst the Muslim community, and what we should do about it.
Personally, I think the answer is yes, and it's an offshoot of the culture wars, plus geopolitics, a reaction to Western imperialism (up to the 60s) in the Middle East, and religious expansionism funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran since the 1970.
There is strong anecdotal evidence that far more veils, niqabs and hijabs are being worn now in Islamic countries than was the case 30 years ago, and that the interpretations of the Koran are becoming more dogmatic.
On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.
Oh wait. It's unaffordable !