Mr. Abroad, "It is hardly surprising that Peebietories demand the right to give, but not to take offence. Most of us demand the right to do what comes naturally to us, whether or not it involves drink, drugs and animals. "
Morris Dancer: "Mr. Abroad, who has asked for the right to never be offended?"
Mr. Abroad: "I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. And you know I didn't."
In that case... you appear to be equating taking offence with just cause for something being forbidden. I don't mind if people are offended. I mind if they consider the sentence "I am offended" as an actual argument for someone else to be forbidden from saying something.
Freedom of speech matters more than placating the terminally hyper-sensitive, the religious fundamentalist or the weak-kneed government.
That was an excellent article from Roger Scruton. Mill's arguments in favour of free speech have to re-stated in every generation.
Mill did not say that anyone had the right to be offensive. He was not opposed to the principle of statutory defamation. People - such as Sean Fear - who seek to make a living out of giving offence should remember that.
Whereas you seek to make a living out of taking offence. I know which of those two positions is the more dishonest and disreputable.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Will the Tory Right or the Kippers just accept it for ever ?'
No chance,the EU's example of having repeat votes until they get the right answer has set the precedent.
Yet that does not always work, as Sweden and Denmark have shown when still being outside the Euro after voting against it. An Out vote would stand as the Tories would topple Cameron if he did not accept it. On the other hand a 51-49 would also likely stand, it would be the second referendum in which the British have voted to stay in the EEC/EU, though Kippers would see it as a strong mandate to carry on the campaign and they certainly would
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
The largest party in the Polish Parliament, Civic Democracy is actually centre-right (Cameroon), the opposition Law and Justice Party is right-wing populist (UKIP), so really today's election would be the equivalent of a battle between the Tories and UKIP. The main centre-left party, the United Left, is third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Yes - the United Left actually won the second Parliamentary election after Poland embraced free elections - I remember Taki writing with disgust that if the Poles liked having Commie governments they should have said so before, and he wouldn't have bothered to support their dissidents. But the UL then spectacularly screwed up in government and the left has never recovered. Civic Democracy is now felt to have repeated the performance (though they seem to have done OK to me), and I wonder if in opposition they'll be able to reverse the decline either.
In general, Eastern Europe has struggled to produce clean, competent and popular governments since the end of the Cold War, and the electorates are jumping from one perceived awful alternative to another. There are some exceptions - the Czech Republic and Slovenia, for instance, not to mention Mrs Merkel - but overall there is still some settling down to be done.
The Czech Republic does have a history of a functional working democracy pre-1989 though. It might only just have been within living memory for some and out of it for most but something of that culture or collective memory seems to have survived. By contrast, for many other countries east of the Iron Curtain the communist dictatorships were simply the latest interpretation of an autocratic model which had existed since time immemorial.
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
The largest party in the Polish Parliament, Civic Democracy is actually centre-right (Cameroon), the opposition Law and Justice Party is right-wing populist (UKIP), so really today's election would be the equivalent of a battle between the Tories and UKIP. The main centre-left party, the United Left, is third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Yes - the United Left actually won the second Parliamentary election after Poland embraced free elections - I remember Taki writing with disgust that if the Poles liked having Commie governments they should have said so before, and he wouldn't have bothered to support their dissidents. But the UL then spectacularly screwed up in government and the left has never recovered. Civic Democracy is now felt to have repeated the performance (though they seem to have done OK to me), and I wonder if in opposition they'll be able to reverse the decline either.
In general, Eastern Europe has struggled to produce clean, competent and popular governments since the end of the Cold War, and the electorates are jumping from one perceived awful alternative to another. There are some exceptions - the Czech Republic and Slovenia, for instance, not to mention Mrs Merkel - but overall there is still some settling down to be done.
Indeed and Eastern Europe is also much more socially conservative than the West, look too at Putin's Russia and the hostility to homosexuality and abortion and the suspicion of ethnic minorities
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
The largest party in the Polish Parliament, Civic Democracy is actually centre-right (Cameroon), the opposition Law and Justice Party is right-wing populist (UKIP), so really today's election would be the equivalent of a battle between the Tories and UKIP. The main centre-left party, the United Left, is third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Yes - the United Left actually won the second Parliamentary election after Poland embraced free elections - I remember Taki writing with disgust that if the Poles liked having Commie governments they should have said so before, and he wouldn't have bothered to support their dissidents. But the UL then spectacularly screwed up in government and the left has never recovered. Civic Democracy is now felt to have repeated the performance (though they seem to have done OK to me), and I wonder if in opposition they'll be able to reverse the decline either.
In general, Eastern Europe has struggled to produce clean, competent and popular governments since the end of the Cold War, and the electorates are jumping from one perceived awful alternative to another. There are some exceptions - the Czech Republic and Slovenia, for instance, not to mention Mrs Merkel - but overall there is still some settling down to be done.
Countries do need a bit of practice at demoocratic government; the Septics promising their sort of it to all and sundry doesn’t help either.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
Which is why I don't watch it. There's a seriously nasty and very deliberate Hollywood agenda to cross the moral rubicund with these shows, and the people who watch them are too stupefied to notice or care.
I think you can lighten up a bit. If it's not your thing, fair enough, there's plenty of things I don't like to watch, and I actually dislike a lot of modern, overly dark, graphic fiction which apes series like A Song of Ice and Fire, but does so poorly, but it doesn't require making a moral judgement about the millions of people who enjoy them, for all sorts of reasons. Personally I think it's a great show, and not actually as gratuitous as legend would have people believe, but I don't judge those who disagree.
Good day everyone.
I enjoy grimdark fiction (and series like the Sopranos or Breaking Bad are as grimdark as anything in fantasy fiction). I think the Game of Thrones series is less subtle and nuanced than the books (eg Daenerys in the show is virtually Caligula) but it's still very enjoyable.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Thanks for that, Miss P., I had never heard of such things. High tech socks, who would have thought of such a thing. The world of outdoor equipment and clothing has certainly moved on in recent years.
I bought my last pair of boots in the early eighties and they lasted well enough, only falling apart a few months ago, and were as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. These new boots are all clever fibre, man-made materials and whizzy design, but they still need to be broken in.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
Which is why I don't watch it. There's a seriously nasty and very deliberate Hollywood agenda to cross the moral rubicund with these shows, and the people who watch them are too stupefied to notice or care.
I think you can lighten up a bit. If it's not your thing, fair enough, there's plenty of things I don't like to watch, and I actually dislike a lot of modern, overly dark, graphic fiction which apes series like A Song of Ice and Fire, but does so poorly, but it doesn't require making a moral judgement about the millions of people who enjoy them, for all sorts of reasons. Personally I think it's a great show, and not actually as gratuitous as legend would have people believe, but I don't judge those who disagree.
Good day everyone.
It is one thing to portray evil - many great books, films, and programmes have done this. It is quite another to glorify it and give it a mask of beauty. It's not my thing because I'm using my whole brain to watch it rather than the scant lobes it requires to be titillated. I consider what it's trying to tell me (because all fiction has a moral), and I find it profoundly disturbing. It's not a moral judgement, it's simply saying that most people consume drama (and music, which is a similar case) without the filter that we might have if a politician or a street preacher told us something directly.
Good day to you too - hope you're having a relaxing Sunday.
I don't know why, but the skin on my feet is thin and I get blistered really easily. These socks have two layers so the inner one protects your foot and the outer one moves with the boot instead.
All very clever and saved me boxes of Elastoplasts/ouching.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Thanks for that, Miss P., I had never heard of such things. High tech socks, who would have thought of such a thing. The world of outdoor equipment and clothing has certainly moved on in recent years.
I bought my last pair of boots in the early eighties and they lasted well enough, only falling apart a few months ago, and were as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. These new boots are all clever fibre, man-made materials and whizzy design, but they still need to be broken in.
I don't know why, but the skin on my feet is thin and I get blistered really easily. These socks have two layers so the inner one protects your foot and the outer one moves with the boot instead.
All very clever and saved me boxes of Elastoplasts/ouching.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Thanks for that, Miss P., I had never heard of such things. High tech socks, who would have thought of such a thing. The world of outdoor equipment and clothing has certainly moved on in recent years.
I bought my last pair of boots in the early eighties and they lasted well enough, only falling apart a few months ago, and were as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. These new boots are all clever fibre, man-made materials and whizzy design, but they still need to be broken in.
Not an 'official' bet, as it's not in my pre-qualifying piece, but Alonso to reach Q3 at 6 (Ladbrokes) may be worth a look. He was 5th or 6th during P3 but the team stupidly called him in and they missed the best of the weather, and slumped down the order. Rain is forecast and the new Honda engine might actually be working well (worth noting that their improved versions have a habit of not being much faster and of having shoddy reliability).
A poor man's Vikings...
But, as pointed out, it is good in it's own right.
Mr. 1983, I can recommend (once again, for those keeping track) Sean McGlynn's excellent By Sword and Fire, which details brutality, mostly in war, during the Middle Ages. It explains the rationale behind cruel acts, as well as the (rarer) merciful ones. A fascinating read in itself and really useful for a story I'm writing where the morality of a medieval mind is important for getting things right.
Sunday politics panel, 2 from the Guardian one from FT, says everything about the BBC approach, Marr was the same.
This is a regular occurence and the Guardian almost always has at least one of the 3. Has anyone seen any justification from the BBC on why they think that the Guardian are essential and worth 2 of the 3 hack slots? Yes I do know that most of the BBC staff read the Guardian....
Mr. Sandpit, it's a credible possibility. Rain is meant to be lighter, though, and if they can run the race, they will.
Apparently there were 10" of rain measured in 14 hours How on Earth can they get rid of that much water? On the bright side all those with Saturday tickets are being let in for free today, after getting an impromptu pit walk last night. Lucky guys!
Mr. Sandpit, depends on the elevation and any slope the track has (it does undulate significantly but I'm unsure if it's in a bowl like Interlagos, slanted so the rain runs off easily, or what).
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Thanks for that, Miss P., I had never heard of such things. High tech socks, who would have thought of such a thing. The world of outdoor equipment and clothing has certainly moved on in recent years.
I bought my last pair of boots in the early eighties and they lasted well enough, only falling apart a few months ago, and were as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. These new boots are all clever fibre, man-made materials and whizzy design, but they still need to be broken in.
My 14 yr old nephew was telling me about the £290 football boots he's hoping to get for his birthday... Im like WTF! But apparently they have something or other that does something or other for something or other, therefore worth it.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
Which is why I don't watch it. There's a seriously nasty and very deliberate Hollywood agenda to cross the moral rubicund with these shows, and the people who watch them are too stupefied to notice or care.
I think you can lighten up a bit. If it's not your thing, fair enough, there's plenty of things I don't like to watch, and I actually dislike a lot of modern, overly dark, graphic fiction which apes series like A Song of Ice and Fire, but does so poorly, but it doesn't require making a moral judgement about the millions of people who enjoy them, for all sorts of reasons. Personally I think it's a great show, and not actually as gratuitous as legend would have people believe, but I don't judge those who disagree.
Good day everyone.
It is one thing to portray evil - many great books, films, and programmes have done this. It is quite another to glorify it and give it a mask of beauty. It's not my thing because I'm using my whole brain to watch it rather than the scant lobes it requires to be titillated. I consider what it's trying to tell me (because all fiction has a moral), and I find it profoundly disturbing. It's not a moral judgement, it's simply saying that most people consume drama (and music, which is a similar case) without the filter that we might have if a politician or a street preacher told us something directly.
Good day to you too - hope you're having a relaxing Sunday.
I don't think the producers of A Game of Thrones are trying to glorify evil. It's just that the characters live in very brutal times. I think they also want to show some initially well-meaning characters, like Daenerys or Stannis, being increasingly corrupted by power.
Sunday politics panel, 2 from the Guardian one from FT, says everything about the BBC approach, Marr was the same.
This is a regular occurence and the Guardian almost always has at least one of the 3. Has anyone seen any justification from the BBC on why they think that the Guardian are essential and worth 2 of the 3 hack slots? Yes I do know that most of the BBC staff read the Guardian....
A while back news editors at the Beeb were advised to check the front page of The Guardian if they wanted to know what to report.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
I forget who raised Portugal the other day, but Twitter's using #PortugalCoup for it.
Seems to be little or nothing in the MSM on the subject.
AIUI there isn't any kind of coup, just that the sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government, even if they are behind on seats and votes. It would be like Brown putting together his coalition of losers in 2010 to deny power to the Tories despite being comprehensively beaten.
The Czech Republic does have a history of a functional working democracy pre-1989 though. It might only just have been within living memory for some and out of it for most but something of that culture or collective memory seems to have survived. By contrast, for many other countries east of the Iron Curtain the communist dictatorships were simply the latest interpretation of an autocratic model which had existed since time immemorial.
Yes, that's a good point. More generally, I know people who aren't especially left or right wing who feel that we assume too readily that freedom and democracy are a sine qua non for enjoyable life, and think that we are too eager to overthrow functioning autocracies which are holding things together - they cite everything from Tito to Saddam to Gaddafi to Assad - and then express naive dismay when the area descends into brutal anarchy. Encouraging the autocracies to inch towards greater freedom is sometimes the more promising route.
The case where one needs to be particularly careful is where the country is an artificial amalgamation of a number of rival groups. In such cases - Yugoslavia is the obvious example - then one messes with it at extreme peril.
I'm in Edinburgh this weekend - it was my OU graduation ceremony yesterday. The mix of people, all having the opportunity to gain a degree at different stages of their lives was great to see. The OU is a great institution.
Well done Sandy , conngratulations and where better to celebrate educational achievement than Scotland.
I'd like to add my congratulations to Mr. Rentool. The OU is a fine institution and actually a very good university. Such a shame that recent changes have meant that it is now priced out of the reach of so many people.
As to Mr. G's question, I would suggest Towyn on a wet Sunday afternoon in February would be a better place, or perhaps Scunthorpe.
Mr Hurst, what a cheeky retort to my magnificent post , did you get out of bed on the wrong side today.
No but I went for a walk in my new boots and my feet hurt.
Thanks for that, Miss P., I had never heard of such things. High tech socks, who would have thought of such a thing. The world of outdoor equipment and clothing has certainly moved on in recent years.
I bought my last pair of boots in the early eighties and they lasted well enough, only falling apart a few months ago, and were as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. These new boots are all clever fibre, man-made materials and whizzy design, but they still need to be broken in.
Mr. 1983, I can recommend (once again, for those keeping track) Sean McGlynn's excellent By Sword and Fire, which details brutality, mostly in war, during the Middle Ages. It explains the rationale behind cruel acts, as well as the (rarer) merciful ones. A fascinating read in itself and really useful for a story I'm writing where the morality of a medieval mind is important for getting things right.
In a brutal world, even the nicest people will have to do things that would be morally questionable to us, in order to survive. And if we found ourselves in a world at war, we would do the same things (we did some very harsh things in WWII for example).
I think that all that a decent person can do in such a world is to try to keep cruelty to the necessary minimum, and not to enjoy it.
Will the Tory Right or the Kippers just accept it for ever ?'
No chance,the EU's example of having repeat votes until they get the right answer has set the precedent.
I find it most amusing that the left when they don't get a result they want scream for a rerun yet if the right do such a thing it's heresy and they should just accept the original vote. We have the EU but also in our backyard Scotland that had a free referendum and voted to REMAIN yet they are already calling for another "once in a lifetime referendum." I don't care what they do and they are free to do but there should always be a level playing field.
I forget who raised Portugal the other day, but Twitter's using #PortugalCoup for it.
Seems to be little or nothing in the MSM on the subject.
Lots of people out there seem to think it's a coup when the leader of the largest party gets the first chance to form a government, or previously when a party writes a manifesto that involves spending other countries' money, and the elected leaders of those other countries decline to pay for it.
It would have been nice to hear a bit more from these people next time there's an actual, army-takes-over-the-government coup like in Thailand or Egypt.
Miss Plato, my understanding is that the sitting PM, who is pro-EU, has been re-appointed. However, he (or she) does not have a majority, whereas a majority coalition of three other parties, all of whom are agreed on it, has been denied the PM position, ostensibly because they're more sceptical.
At least, that's my limited understanding.
Mr. F, indeed. Both Saladin and Richard the Lionheart took prisoners promising them their lives, only to renege.
Mr. 1983, I can recommend (once again, for those keeping track) Sean McGlynn's excellent By Sword and Fire, which details brutality, mostly in war, during the Middle Ages. It explains the rationale behind cruel acts, as well as the (rarer) merciful ones. A fascinating read in itself and really useful for a story I'm writing where the morality of a medieval mind is important for getting things right.
Will the Tory Right or the Kippers just accept it for ever ?'
No chance,the EU's example of having repeat votes until they get the right answer has set the precedent.
I find it most amusing that the left when they don't get a result they want scream for a rerun yet if the right do such a thing it's heresy and they should just accept the original vote. We have the EU but also in our backyard Scotland that had a free referendum and voted to REMAIN yet they are already calling for another "once in a lifetime referendum." I don't care what they do and they are free to do but there should always be a level playing field.
What's left and right got to do with either the EU or Scotland?
I forget who raised Portugal the other day, but Twitter's using #PortugalCoup for it.
Seems to be little or nothing in the MSM on the subject.
I raised this question yesterday as it seemed to me that the Telegraph's coverage was at best... partial. The explanation seems clear. At present the party with the largest number of seats is being given the right to try and form a government. The point at which questions will really need to be asked is if they are voted down in a vote of no confidence but the President still refuses to let the Left try and form a working government. At that point it might be reasonable to start talking of a coup but certainly not before.
Presumably he's hoping for them from his parents rather than you?
If he's hoping for them for me, he's going to have to live with a disappointment only greater than that of a Corbyn supporter who thinks they'll be forming a government in 2020.
Miss Plato, my understanding is that the sitting PM, who is pro-EU, has been re-appointed. However, he (or she) does not have a majority, whereas a majority coalition of three other parties, all of whom are agreed on it, has been denied the PM position, ostensibly because they're more sceptical.
I forget who raised Portugal the other day, but Twitter's using #PortugalCoup for it.
Seems to be little or nothing in the MSM on the subject.
AIUI there isn't any kind of coup, just that the sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government, even if they are behind on seats and votes. It would be like Brown putting together his coalition of losers in 2010 to deny power to the Tories despite being comprehensively beaten.
That's right, with a caveat.
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
Re Boots.. I bought my pair of Scarpa boots in Grindlewald in1967 for a film on the Eiger..they are still going strong..in fact I will be wearing them for a walk up the local...small...mountain later today..
Miss Plato, my understanding is that the sitting PM, who is pro-EU, has been re-appointed. However, he (or she) does not have a majority, whereas a majority coalition of three other parties, all of whom are agreed on it, has been denied the PM position, ostensibly because they're more sceptical.
At least, that's my limited understanding.
Mr. F, indeed. Both Saladin and Richard the Lionheart took prisoners promising them their lives, only to renege.
It is worth remembering that PaF is miles ahead of any other party in the Portuegese parliament and is only about 7 votes short of a majority.
It would be more of a coup if he was not offered the first chance to form a government.
Thanks, Mr. G.. My current collection of walking socks were all purchased in the Lake District in the late eighties and early nineties. They are made from the wool of the native lakeland Herdwick sheep. The fact that I am still wearing them (two pairs at a time) testifies to their longevity. Great value for money.
In outdoor equipment the best value for in money purchase I know of was my late father-in-law's boots. They are made of kangaroo leather and he bought them in Australia in early 1945 for thirty shillings. He wore them every day, save for ceremonial parades, including all through Korea, Suez, Cyprus and sundry other small actions until he was discharged in 1963 and then carried on wearing them for walking and gardening until his death in 2002. We still have them, up in the attic with his RM memorabilia, medals etc..
Of course, old fashioned boots like that could be re-soled and heeled unlike this new plastic stuff, which according to Mr Jessop who knows about these things, doesn't last.
Miss Plato, my understanding is that the sitting PM, who is pro-EU, has been re-appointed. However, he (or she) does not have a majority, whereas a majority coalition of three other parties, all of whom are agreed on it, has been denied the PM position, ostensibly because they're more sceptical.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
Can lay the draw at 1/4 on Betfair now. Surely we can't bat all day tomorrow, can we..?
If you think England can bat all day then the option might be the win, at 50/1. That is, of course, one way of agreeing with you. Teams very rarely bat all day through the fifth and two down already makes that task all the harder. However, there's all day tomorrow and the rest of today. Simply batting at a fairly standard rate would take England somewhere near the target. I don't expect them to do so and frankly, 50/1 is too short, but the point is that the draw isn't ten times more likely.
I don't think the producers of A Game of Thrones are trying to glorify evil. It's just that the characters live in very brutal times. I think they also want to show some initially well-meaning characters, like Daenerys or Stannis, being increasingly corrupted by power.
I disagree. The fact that the TV series outdoes the books in violence comes as no surprise either. I don't really want to get into the reasons for the agenda underlying much of the LA entertainment business, but suffice it to say the resulting output is virulently anti-Christian (with many very thinly veiled allegories or actual portrayals if within period), anti-popular rule (anti 'people' altogether), pro-occult, and attempts to subvert the traditional notions of good and evil that have served us well for hundreds of years. If our ancestors in those brutal times you speak of saw the imagery and ideas that we're exposed to these days they would run for the hills.
I forget who raised Portugal the other day, but Twitter's using #PortugalCoup for it.
Seems to be little or nothing in the MSM on the subject.
AIUI there isn't any kind of coup, just that the sitting PM gets first crack at forming a government, even if they are behind on seats and votes. It would be like Brown putting together his coalition of losers in 2010 to deny power to the Tories despite being comprehensively beaten.
That's right, with a caveat.
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
Yes, more elections seem like the most likely outcome in this case, there is no stable majority, and PAF are opposed by all of the other parties and will not win a vote of confidence.
I am not a fan of the EU or the anti-democratic nature of it, but this is not a coup by any meaning of the phrase, maybe some hardline anti-EU types could see it as one, but given that PaF topped the poll and have the most seats in the house it stands to reason that they should be able to have the first go. I guess the situation would be more like Dave winning ~300 seats in May and Labour putting together a coalition of the losers then moaning about the fact that Dave as sitting PM and leader of the largest party gets first crack at forming a government, even a minority one.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Can lay the draw at 1/4 on Betfair now. Surely we can't bat all day tomorrow, can we..?
If you think England can bat all day then the option might be the win, at 50/1. That is, of course, one way of agreeing with you. Teams very rarely bat all day through the fifth and two down already makes that task all the harder. However, there's all day tomorrow and the rest of today. Simply batting at a fairly standard rate would take England somewhere near the target. I don't expect them to do so and frankly, 50/1 is too short, but the point is that the draw isn't ten times more likely.
A good point. If we do bat all day then we'll be close to the target, maybe the value might be in the win. We've not seen 90 overs on any day so far though, even with the 10am start the light always intervenes at around 17:25. Don't want to see a repeat of the last test where we damn nearly won it. Not a lot of batting down the order once these two have gone though.
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
Really helpful update, thanks. Telegraph readers, come to PB for rational explanations!
Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
Really helpful update, thanks. Telegraph readers, come to PB for rational explanations!
Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
I think UKIP are a much better example. 10 years ago the idea of an in/out referendum was laughed at, and yet here we are with the Tories putting our membership to a public vote. Without pressure from UKIP it would not have happened.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
Seems the Polish election is happening, and could see a shift from a leftwing integrationist party to a rightwing party which wants less EU integration and less EU bureaucracy (as well as fewer migrants): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34630092
The largest party in the Polish Parliament, Civic Democracy is actually centre-right (Cameroon), the opposition Law and Justice Party is right-wing populist (UKIP), so really today's election would be the equivalent of a battle between the Tories and UKIP. The main centre-left party, the United Left, is third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_parliamentary_election,_2015
Yes - the United Left actually won the second Parliamentary election after Poland embraced free elections - I remember Taki writing with disgust that if the Poles liked having Commie governments they should have said so before, and he wouldn't have bothered to support their dissidents. But the UL then spectacularly screwed up in government and the left has never recovered. Civic Democracy is now felt to have repeated the performance (though they seem to have done OK to me), and I wonder if in opposition they'll be able to reverse the decline either.
In general, Eastern Europe has struggled to produce clean, competent and popular governments since the end of the Cold War, and the electorates are jumping from one perceived awful alternative to another. There are some exceptions - the Czech Republic and Slovenia, for instance, not to mention Mrs Merkel - but overall there is still some settling down to be done.
Countries do need a bit of practice at demoocratic government; the Septics promising their sort of it to all and sundry doesn’t help either.
To be fair, both us and the Yanks took some time and several open conflicts before adapting to democratic ways. Most other countries seem to run through similar difficulties, inc France, Germany, Spain etc etc. Across Eastern Europe democracy is putting down roots.
What has quietly happened over the decades is quite remarkable though. Many are imperfect democracies but across most of Africa, Asia and Latin America governments change hands by means of ballots rather than bullets. Indeed even events in the Middle East and North Africa have roots in the "Arab Spring" movements which started off as fairly pro-democracy movements.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
There will be some who could be tried on the basis of individual cases - for instance the US helicopter gunship that went along deliberately strafing civilians and journalists on a killing spree - the event that Bradley Manning blew the whistle on.
One name will blow Blair and his team out of the water. Dr David Kelly..that memo will surely find its way to the top of the scummy pond..Blairs team of spivs must be wetting themselves..
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
Generally, obeying orders is accepted as a partial defence. It ceases to be a defence if the orders are "manifestly illegal.". My guess is that the Attorney General's opinion that the war was lawful would give any British commander a defence that even if the war was found to be illegal, it was not manifestly illegal.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
That was not quite the experience of Keitel and Jodl.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
Remembrance Day: Children banned from marching for 'safety reasons Scouts in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire have been banned from marching in a town's Remembrance Day parade next month for "safety reasons"
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
The winner takes it all.
Of course when it comes to humbug it was the Russians who were the worst culprit. It was they who actively planned, initiated and engaged in the early invasions that started WW2 alongside the Germans and who were just as guilty of war crimes as the Germans in the first 18 months of the war. But in the end they were on the winning side so got away with it.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
That's the one charge which can fairly be called victor's justice.
Trying people for ordering or condoning atrocities is far more legitimate, IMHO.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
That was not quite the experience of Keitel and Jodl.
OK, I stand corrected on that count, including by Richard Tyndall.
However, as Sean F states downthread, the AG's judgement that the war was legal should be enough to clear anyone on that count.
I rather suspect that the wish is the father of the belief with many of those who want Blair prosecuted.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
That was not quite the experience of Keitel and Jodl.
Keitel and Jodl were not just military officers though. Both put their signatures to orders which were manifestly illegal (e.g. captured British commandos were to be shot without trial, even if they were captured in uniform whilst engaged in normal military activities). Keitel at his trial even admitted he knew that some of his actions were wrong.
I would also have to check but I don't think any German field commanders were prosecuted except for specific offences which would have been held to be illegal under the Geneva Convention or what might be called "natural, universal law" (e.g. murder).
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
That's the one charge which can fairly be called victor's justice.
Trying people for ordering or condoning atrocities is far more legitimate, IMHO.
I agree. Which is why, going back to David's original comment, I don't think it would be valid to put Coalition officers on trial for the Iraq War. I was merely commenting on the legal precedent for such a charge and the lack of defence of 'obeying orders' which was established at Nuremberg and which remains the basis of such charges.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
That was not quite the experience of Keitel and Jodl.
Keitel and Jodl were not just military officers though. Both put their signatures to orders which were manifestly illegal (e.g. captured British commandos were to be shot without trial, even if they were captured in uniform whilst engaged in normal military activities). Keitel at his trial even admitted he knew that some of his actions were wrong.
I would also have to check but I don't think any German field commanders were prosecuted except for specific offences which would have been held to be illegal under the Geneva Convention or what might be called "natural, universal law" (e.g. murder).
Again not quite true. The indictments at Nuremberg drew a clear distinction between waging aggressive war (Count 2) and War Crimes/Crimes against humanity (counts 3 and 4). It is a distinction that in part saved Donitz and Raeder from the death penalty. They were found guilty of waging wars of aggression but not of crimes against humanity.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
You seriously think that there was nothing to prosecute at Nuremburg that was worse than what the Allies had done?
The war guilt clause in Versailles is a far clearer case of victor's justice.
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
The winner takes it all.
Of course when it comes to humbug it was the Russians who were the worst culprit. It was they who actively planned, initiated and engaged in the early invasions that started WW2 alongside the Germans and who were just as guilty of war crimes as the Germans in the first 18 months of the war. But in the end they were on the winning side so got away with it.
Not to mention mass rape, during the final months of the war.
Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.
Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
No. Not least because it wasn't an illegal war. It was sanctioned under UNSCR 687.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Whilst I agree with your first point I am not sure the second is correct. A number of senior German officers argued exactly that position (compliance with national law and legality) at the end of WW2 and found it was no defence at all.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
The winner takes it all.
Of course when it comes to humbug it was the Russians who were the worst culprit. It was they who actively planned, initiated and engaged in the early invasions that started WW2 alongside the Germans and who were just as guilty of war crimes as the Germans in the first 18 months of the war. But in the end they were on the winning side so got away with it.
To be fair, the Soviets never claimed that Nuremburg was about establishing moral superiority. Stalin was more than happy to (and proposed to) shoot 50,000 German officers / leaders and do without the admin of a trial.
Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.
Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
What was it that was said about when the spin doctor becomes the story? He's only been there 72 hours and already shadow ministers are having to defend him in public for describing a murder as justified!
Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.
Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
What was it that was said about when the spin doctor becomes the story? He's only been there 72 hours and already shadow ministers are having to defend him in public for describing a murder as justified!
Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.
Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
What was it that was said about when the spin doctor becomes the story? He's only been there 72 hours and already shadow ministers are having to defend him in public for describing a murder as justified!
Seamus Milne was a very strange choice. That's something of a massive understatement! Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne - Labour's new Three Wise Men. The Tories must be laughing their heads off!
Hard-left advisors to Labour will be made to fall into line and serve the party, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, has warned, as he admitted that the killing of Lee Rigby was a terrorist offence.
Mr McDonnell was forced to clarify comments made by Seumas Milne, the party's new Director of Communications, after he claimed Mr Rigby's murder was not "terrorism in the normal sense" because he was serving in the armed forces.
What was it that was said about when the spin doctor becomes the story? He's only been there 72 hours and already shadow ministers are having to defend him in public for describing a murder as justified!
Seamus Milne was a very strange choice.
That's something of a massive understatement! Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne - Labour's new Three Wise Men. The Tories must be laughing their heads off!
So alleged war criminal Tony Blair has started apologising (kind of) for the illegal Iraq war. Will we ever see a case where Tony Blair and senior British military commanders face a tribunal at The Hague? Of course not - one rule for Western nations, one rule for the rest of the World.
.
I started writing an extra paragraph saying pretty much that (i.e. they could only be prosecuted if their conduct as commanders broke international law), but deleted it as I didn't want to sidetrack myself!
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
The second of the four main indictments at Nuremberg was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace"
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
US/UK humbug and hypocrisy at its zenith!
You seriously think that there was nothing to prosecute at Nuremburg that was worse than what the Allies had done?
The war guilt clause in Versailles is a far clearer case of victor's justice.
I am not arguing that at all.It is my contention that Blair/Bush were more culpable in relation to the indictment relating to 'Planning an aggressive war' than any of those on trial at Nuremburg - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop. They were as determined to invade Iraq in early 2003 as Hitler was to invade Poland in the late Summer of 1939 - nothing would have diverted them. The other indictments relating to the Holocaust /Treatment of prisoners of war and foreign workers had no relevance to Iraq. I also do not see how the roles of Keitel/Jodl/Doenitz/Raeder differed significantly from those of Alanbrooke/Marshall/Eisenhower/Portal etc on the Allied side - they were all obeying the orders of political masters. When reading the speeches of Justice Robert Jackson at the trial, it is very difficult not to be struck by the failure of the Governments of the Allied countries to apply those same principles to later conflicts such as Iraq and Vietnam. That's where the humbug and hypocrisy arises.
Miss Plato, The Last Kingdom was quite good. The lack of sex or especially explicit violence, after Game of Thrones, took a bit of getting used to (akin to [so I am told] watching soft-edited adult films with the most exciting/explicit bits cut).
I'll watch the second episode, and see how things go. It's not world-beating excellence, but it seems quite entertaining.
Mr. Notme, not seen Vikings.
Once you've watched a show in which the teenage *heroine* conducts human sacrifice, burns people alive, nails people to crosses, locks a girl in a vault to starve, feeds a man alive to a dragon, everything else probably seems a little tame by comparison.
You always said you'd never reveal the secrets of the inner sanctum of Luton Conservative Club ....
"I also do not see how the roles of Keitel/Jodl/Doenitz/Raeder differed significantly from those of Alanbrooke/Marshall/Eisenhower/Portal etc on the Allied side - they were all obeying the orders of political masters. "
Maybe some more reading might help you understand the difference.
"I also do not see how the roles of Keitel/Jodl/Doenitz/Raeder differed significantly from those of Alanbrooke/Marshall/Eisenhower/Portal etc on the Allied side - they were all obeying the orders of political masters. "
Maybe some more reading might help you understand the difference.
"I also do not see how the roles of Keitel/Jodl/Doenitz/Raeder differed significantly from those of Alanbrooke/Marshall/Eisenhower/Portal etc on the Allied side - they were all obeying the orders of political masters. "
Maybe some more reading might help you understand the difference.
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
Really helpful update, thanks. Telegraph readers, come to PB for rational explanations!
Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
I think UKIP are a much better example. 10 years ago the idea of an in/out referendum was laughed at, and yet here we are with the Tories putting our membership to a public vote. Without pressure from UKIP it would not have happened.
I don't agree. I think 81 Tory MPs rebelling and voting for an EU referendum had a far greater impact than the zero UKIP MPs doing the same. Cameron pledged a referendum within months of that rebellion occurring.
"I also do not see how the roles of Keitel/Jodl/Doenitz/Raeder differed significantly from those of Alanbrooke/Marshall/Eisenhower/Portal etc on the Allied side - they were all obeying the orders of political masters. "
Maybe some more reading might help you understand the difference.
As suggested repeatedly by enthusiastic Tridentineys, it looks like £100 billion for Trident II was way off the mark.
Far too low.
'Exclusive: UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected
In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds. He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry. "My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.'
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
Really helpful update, thanks. Telegraph readers, come to PB for rational explanations!
Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
I think UKIP are a much better example. 10 years ago the idea of an in/out referendum was laughed at, and yet here we are with the Tories putting our membership to a public vote. Without pressure from UKIP it would not have happened.
I don't agree. I think 81 Tory MPs rebelling and voting for an EU referendum had a far greater impact than the zero UKIP MPs doing the same. Cameron pledged a referendum within months of that rebellion occurring.
And how many of those Tory MPs would have voted that way had they not feared the threat they believed UKIP posed to their sests?
Comments
They're brilliant - no chafing. http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=1000+mile+socks&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=32600001545&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8675833894123248751&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_2ibl060ky3_b
I bought my last pair of boots in the early eighties and they lasted well enough, only falling apart a few months ago, and were as comfortable as an old pair of slippers. These new boots are all clever fibre, man-made materials and whizzy design, but they still need to be broken in.
For those old enough, there’s the old Dream Weavers ballad
My dearest, my darling, tomorrow is near
The sun will bring showers of sadness I fear
Good day to you too - hope you're having a relaxing Sunday.
All very clever and saved me boxes of Elastoplasts/ouching.
As a child who went on holidays within the UK, second hand bookshops were one of the best things to find.
Mr. F, true. And every now and then I think Game of Thrones overdoes/sensationalises things.
Mr. Llama, cheer yourself up by reading about three Macedonian she-wolves:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/macedonian-she-wolves.html
I notice that Jezza's new spin doctor is former Guardian journo, whose father was the BBC director general Alasdair Milne.
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/658237973926912000
Presumably he's hoping for them from his parents rather than you?
Seems to be little or nothing in the MSM on the subject.
The case where one needs to be particularly careful is where the country is an artificial amalgamation of a number of rival groups. In such cases - Yugoslavia is the obvious example - then one messes with it at extreme peril.
http://www.thegoatcompany.co.uk/mohair-socks.html
I think that all that a decent person can do in such a world is to try to keep cruelty to the necessary minimum, and not to enjoy it.
It would have been nice to hear a bit more from these people next time there's an actual, army-takes-over-the-government coup like in Thailand or Egypt.
At least, that's my limited understanding.
Mr. F, indeed. Both Saladin and Richard the Lionheart took prisoners promising them their lives, only to renege.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/telegraph-portugal-claim-busted.html
The reason Pedro Coelho of Portugal Ahead has told the President that he can continue in government is that he doesn't believe the three left wing parties - the Socialist Party, the Left Block and the Democratic Socialists (Communists) - will be able to defeat him in a vote of confidence.
Portugal Ahead got 39% of the vote, 7% ahead of the PS. And a number of PS deputies are in open revolt about the possibility of going into coalition with the Left Block and the Communists. (Before the election, quite a few explicitly ruled out a coalition with them.) The Simon Dancsuks of the PS are unhappy, essentially, about being pushed around by the Jeremy Corbyns.
There is a final caveat: with the vote being so close, it is entirely possible that Andre Silva of the People-Animals-Nature party will be the decider.
Irrespective, I think it is likely Portugal will be having more elections before long. I don't believe that PaF will be able to govern without a majority, unless PS splits. And I don't believe PS-BE-CDU will be hold together for long: simply, they are ideologically miles apart, with some pro-NATO, Euro-enthusiast in PS, and some quit NATO and the EU in the CDU.
It would be more of a coup if he was not offered the first chance to form a government.
In outdoor equipment the best value for in money purchase I know of was my late father-in-law's boots. They are made of kangaroo leather and he bought them in Australia in early 1945 for thirty shillings. He wore them every day, save for ceremonial parades, including all through Korea, Suez, Cyprus and sundry other small actions until he was discharged in 1963 and then carried on wearing them for walking and gardening until his death in 2002. We still have them, up in the attic with his RM memorabilia, medals etc..
Of course, old fashioned boots like that could be re-soled and heeled unlike this new plastic stuff, which according to Mr Jessop who knows about these things, doesn't last.
I am not a fan of the EU or the anti-democratic nature of it, but this is not a coup by any meaning of the phrase, maybe some hardline anti-EU types could see it as one, but given that PaF topped the poll and have the most seats in the house it stands to reason that they should be able to have the first go. I guess the situation would be more like Dave winning ~300 seats in May and Labour putting together a coalition of the losers then moaning about the fact that Dave as sitting PM and leader of the largest party gets first crack at forming a government, even a minority one.
That view is, I'm sure, challenged but it is at the minimum an arguable case. Once you start prosecuting arguable cases then you open an almighty can of worms.
Either way, senior military commanders won't be prosecuted. If they complied with national law and had advice that the war was legal - and the Attorney General had said that - then there's no grounds for prosecution those given orders.
Incidentally, we animal welfare types are gradually gaining ground - several MPs in the Netherlands and polls promising a further leap next time, and embryonic efforts here and there including London. The idea isn't to win power and give votes to bluebottles, but to make the big parties think "Oh, hell, I suppose we need to do something for animal welfare to see off this splinter group". As a way of translating single-issue passions into electoral politics, it's not totally daft.
I am not in any way saying there is a comparison of course nor do I believe personally that any of the British or US officers are guilty of anything but -on a base point of law - obeying orders is not necessarily considered to be a valid defence.
What has quietly happened over the decades is quite remarkable though. Many are imperfect democracies but across most of Africa, Asia and Latin America governments change hands by means of ballots rather than bullets. Indeed even events in the Middle East and North Africa have roots in the "Arab Spring" movements which started off as fairly pro-democracy movements.
I'd want to check the details but I don't think any of the military commanders were convicted of waging aggressive war or the like. Those who were convicted were either guilty of breaking pre-existing international law e.g. the Geneva Convention, or of ordering atrocities by their troops, particularly on civilians.
I blame the cheap boots
Of the Senior Officers - as opposed to the political leaders or non military defendants - Jodl, Keitel, Donitz and Raeder were all found guilty on this count.
Of course when it comes to humbug it was the Russians who were the worst culprit. It was they who actively planned, initiated and engaged in the early invasions that started WW2 alongside the Germans and who were just as guilty of war crimes as the Germans in the first 18 months of the war. But in the end they were on the winning side so got away with it.
Trying people for ordering or condoning atrocities is far more legitimate, IMHO.
However, as Sean F states downthread, the AG's judgement that the war was legal should be enough to clear anyone on that count.
I rather suspect that the wish is the father of the belief with many of those who want Blair prosecuted.
I would also have to check but I don't think any German field commanders were prosecuted except for specific offences which would have been held to be illegal under the Geneva Convention or what might be called "natural, universal law" (e.g. murder).
The war guilt clause in Versailles is a far clearer case of victor's justice.
Seamus Milne was a very strange choice.
That's something of a massive understatement!
Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne - Labour's new Three Wise Men. The Tories must be laughing their heads off!
Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne - Labour's new Three Wise Men. The Tories must be laughing their heads off!
Maybe some more reading might help you understand the difference.
Far too low.
'Exclusive: UK nuclear deterrent to cost 167 billion pounds, far more than expected
In a written parliamentary response to Crispin Blunt, a lawmaker in Cameron's Conservative party, Minister of State for Defense Procurement Philip Dunne said on Friday the acquisition of four new submarines would cost 25 billion pounds.
He added that the in-service costs would be about 6 percent of the annual defense budget over their lifetime. The total defense budget for 2014/15 reached 33.8 billion pounds and rises to 34.1 billion pounds in 2015/16, according to the ministry.
"My office's calculation based on an in-service date of 2028 and a missile extension until 2060 ... the total cost is 167 billion pounds," Blunt told Reuters.'
http://tinyurl.com/qxrzm66