If the mobile phone industry does not come up with somewhat security protocols on an industry wide basis following this, we should all refuse to pay them until they do.
The PB.com scandal will break next!
2,000 PB regulars bank accounts said to have been raided. Over 45p stolen!
Lynton Crosby and his highly-trained team of sock puppets found to account for 96% of posts.
"Roger" being his most perfect Tory recruiting strategy.
If the mobile phone industry does not come up with somewhat security protocols on an industry wide basis following this, we should all refuse to pay them until they do.
The PB.com scandal will break next!
2,000 PB regulars bank accounts said to have been raided. Over 45p stolen!
If as much as 45p has been stolen then the bank accounts have been emptied!
F1: problems for Button. Signal issues with his car mean he won't be driving in qualifying. On the other hand, changing his engine thrice (or possibly four times) means he'd be at the back of the grid anyway.
I was quite amazed to find out recently that an F1 car transmits about 50 gigabytes of telemetry in an average F1 race.
If the table in the thread is the final outcome, the change in number of seats by region would be:
South East -3 East -2 East Midlands -3 London -2 North East -5 North West -9 Scotland +2 South West -3 Wales -11 West Midlands -7 Yorkshire & Humber -5 Northern Ireland -2
Total -50
All in all it looks very good for the Conservatives.
And implication is it will be even better if more names to be removed from point when table was drawn up?
If the mobile phone industry does not come up with somewhat security protocols on an industry wide basis following this, we should all refuse to pay them until they do.
The PB.com scandal will break next!
2,000 PB regulars bank accounts said to have been raided. Over 45p stolen!
If as much as 45p has been stolen then the bank accounts have been emptied!
What we need is a 50/1 tip for POTUS. If only such a thing were possible...
(Though Jamie Vardy for top goal scorer and Mahrez ew for the same is looking good).
No doubt New Zealand were a class apart this tournament. I'd have to fancy the Boks over the Wallabies though if they played tommorow.
The game is now very much like rugby league following professionalism. A bit slower of course and too many players clogging up the field. But with the changes to line outs there is more carying the ball up, more miss moves and fiddling in retaining possession in the rucks and less kicking into touch. And the best rugby league teams are in Australialasia and that is where the competition for TV audiences is.
It used to be OK for second home owners to register to vote in both places but to only legally vote once. Does the same apply with IER and if so won't second home owners effectively be counted twice in terms of boundary commission calculations?
Mr. Omnium, as far as I'm aware, audience numbers are indeed declining.
The Texas race was greatly entertaining, but the general predominance of Hamilton/Mercedes and the unfairness of the finance/engine development/governance, as well as losing classic European tracks to go racing (sometimes in dodgy places with dreary tracks) is losing the sport popularity. That, and shifting to pay TV.
Must admit, I've been considering not bothering with the blogs (for F1) next year. I'm not fussed by audience/number of clicks, but I miss 2012 when the first seven races had seven different winners.
Edited extra bit: and Tom Clarkson is bloody irritating.
It was the BBC/Sky bodge that turned me off for good.
Mr. Quidder, can't blame Sky for buying what they can. The BBC had a contract, but gave it up willingly. F1 was the most popular sports product the BBC provided, and the only one (other than Wimbledon) that hit all its audience targets. But they decided spending £20m on the concept of The Voice was a better use of taxpayers' money than £30m on a multi-year F1 contract.
No doubt New Zealand were a class apart this tournament. I'd have to fancy the Boks over the Wallabies though if they played tommorow.
The game is now very much like rugby league following professionalism. A bit slower of course and too many players clogging up the field. But with the changes to line outs there is more carying the ball up, more miss moves and fiddling in retaining possession in the rucks and less kicking into touch. And the best rugby league teams are in Australialasia and that is where the competition for TV audiences is.
Burgess most likely off to the NRL. Leeds are the only Superleague team that can hold a candle to that league imo.
Mr. Quidder, can't blame Sky for buying what they can. The BBC had a contract, but gave it up willingly. F1 was the most popular sports product the BBC provided, and the only one (other than Wimbledon) that hit all its audience targets. But they decided spending £20m on the concept of The Voice was a better use of taxpayers' money than £30m on a multi-year F1 contract.
Like you, I was, and am, seriously unimpressed.
My understanding was that without the BBC's connivance Sky couldn't have bought the rights as there was still an FTA only rule in place.
I see Kezia Dugdale, leader of scottish labour is out hypothetically splashing the cash. She says if labour win the scottoish parliament elections she'll undo the tax credit changes.
Interesting, that will be a serious amount of cash to find which could be spent on other things. She says it will be funded by increasing tax from higher earners. Not sure if one cancels out the other... There doesnt seem to be any sums on this. Tax credits are massively expensive. Managing them within the whole UK budget is tough enough, but within Scotlands block grant, even with further devolved powers?
Poor politics. It will allow her opposition to tie them up with figures that dont add up. With tax credits the best thing to do is cause maximum damage to the governing party, try to force concessions out of them, if you do, a win, if you dont keep shooting at them and cause damage. To reverse something so expensive without a thought through plan of how you are going to make the difference up is just plain stupid.
The argument should be "tax credits are a lifeline for many, we understand that we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but the way that the government is going about this feels like an ideological attack on the working poor. We want a system that is targeted at those who most need it, and we promise to reform it to do so."
I see Kezia Dugdale, leader of scottish labour is out hypothetically splashing the cash. She says if labour win the scottoish parliament elections she'll undo the tax credit changes.
Interesting, that will be a serious amount of cash to find which could be spent on other things. She says it will be funded by increasing tax from higher earners. Not sure if one cancels out the other... There doesnt seem to be any sums on this. Tax credits are massively expensive. Managing them within the whole UK budget is tough enough, but within Scotlands block grant, even with further devolved powers?
Poor politics. It will allow her opposition to tie them up with figures that dont add up. With tax credits the best thing to do is cause maximum damage to the governing party, try to force concessions out of them, if you do, a win, if you dont keep shooting at them and cause damage. To reverse something so expensive without a thought through plan of how you are going to make the difference up is just plain stupid.
The argument should be "tax credits are a lifeline for many, we understand that we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but the way that the government is going about this feels like an ideological attack on the working poor. We want a system that is targeted at those who most need it, and we promise to reform it to do so."
I agree. Tax credits need to be reformed by in a way that weans families off not by implementing a cold turkey approach. During the coalition the tax credits bill came in £6 billion under budget. It was Osborne's madness in pushing through cuts of £4billion in one year that brought this about. Tax credits have flat-lined since 2010 and will start falling anyhow as the two child restriction comes in.
We share a very special bond with the Aussies and the Kiwis. I wish we could make more of it.
I agree, we should have made much more of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately the post-war Establishment had a fixation on the now failed European project.
We share a very special bond with the Aussies and the Kiwis. I wish we could make more of it.
I agree, we should have made much more of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately the post-war Establishment had a fixation on the now failed European project.
No doubt New Zealand were a class apart this tournament. I'd have to fancy the Boks over the Wallabies though if they played tommorow.
The game is now very much like rugby league following professionalism. A bit slower of course and too many players clogging up the field. But with the changes to line outs there is more carying the ball up, more miss moves and fiddling in retaining possession in the rucks and less kicking into touch. And the best rugby league teams are in Australialasia and that is where the competition for TV audiences is.
Burgess most likely off to the NRL. Leeds are the only Superleague team that can hold a candle to that league imo.
Well, Wigan as well. As long as they never test for Uncle Joe's Mint Balls.
Burgess' agent must think all his Christmas's have come at once.
We share a very special bond with the Aussies and the Kiwis. I wish we could make more of it.
I agree, we should have made much more of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately the post-war Establishment had a fixation on the now failed European project.
If that were true it wouldn't have taken Ted Heath to get us in.
I see Kezia Dugdale, leader of scottish labour is out hypothetically splashing the cash. She says if labour win the scottoish parliament elections she'll undo the tax credit changes.
Interesting, that will be a serious amount of cash to find which could be spent on other things. She says it will be funded by increasing tax from higher earners. Not sure if one cancels out the other... There doesnt seem to be any sums on this. Tax credits are massively expensive. Managing them within the whole UK budget is tough enough, but within Scotlands block grant, even with further devolved powers?
Poor politics. It will allow her opposition to tie them up with figures that dont add up. With tax credits the best thing to do is cause maximum damage to the governing party, try to force concessions out of them, if you do, a win, if you dont keep shooting at them and cause damage. To reverse something so expensive without a thought through plan of how you are going to make the difference up is just plain stupid.
The argument should be "tax credits are a lifeline for many, we understand that we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but the way that the government is going about this feels like an ideological attack on the working poor. We want a system that is targeted at those who most need it, and we promise to reform it to do so."
I agree. Tax credits need to be reformed by in a way that weans families off not by implementing a cold turkey approach. During the coalition the tax credits bill came in £6 billion under budget. It was Osborne's madness in pushing through cuts of £4billion in one year that brought this about. Tax credits have flat-lined since 2010 and will start falling anyhow as the two child restriction comes in.
Two child restriction is only for new applicants, that would take a lot longer than 2020 to bring things in line. I agree people need to be weaned. The reductions should go in tandem with the national living wage increases, with an immediate end to tax credit entitlement over four children.
Thank you for your reply. I have to admit I'm not sure how you could cram everything that would be needed into a 35 hour week at that level, although I admire you greatly for it. I flatter myself I can work very efficiently - I completed a PhD including a vast amount of archival research in various locations in three years while holding down no fewer than five part-time jobs to pay for it, while everyone with funding (and therefore no jobs) took at least four years. But I can't quite see how I would get all the work I have to do, done, without working the hours I am at the moment.
That being said, a lot of the stuff I am doing is hopefully one-off. So, I am having to rewrite pretty much all schemes of work because of the changes to exams: A-level History and GCSE RE this year, GCSE History next year (I've also been changing the KS3 curriculum to match, which is extra work but that should be this year only and then we will have a really good KS3 curriculum for both subjects). I am also having to prepare new resources to match and support them. I am further being more and more heavily involved by the SMT in quality monitoring across several subjects. In a way that's quite flattering, although it isn't that I am being singled out - several of us are doing it - but it does mean a lot more work.
So if your story is a sign it gets easier, that is good news. Because I must admit I have been wondering whether I can bear to feel this exhausted all the time, much though I enjoy large parts of the job, and have been pondering other options.
The one thing I do acknowledge about teaching is that there is no one version of the 'good teacher'. Also the profession has a tendency to overdo the striving for perfection in 'the lesson'. You really need to take a real world approach to what is achievable - in my experience most students value competence and organization above inspiration in the classroom - it gets the job done better to be frank and just as important, it allows you to have a life outside work.
Victims have been found over an approximate radius of 3 miles. Seems then that the aircraft almost certainly broke up before hitting the ground and probably at a lower level than the cruise altitude of 31,000 ft.
This is something we were discussing on here a few nights ago. Potentially a perfect storm as council cuts and living wage requirement meet to put a mighty spanner in the works of social care and ultimately the NHS
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
This is something we were discussing on here a few nights ago. Potentially a perfect storm as council cuts and living wage requirement meet to put a mighty spanner in the works of social care and ultimately the NHS
Guardian in 'Tory cuts and the end of the world as we know it' shocker. - colour me unimpressed.
Most councils generally try and protect social care as their highest priority service and the NHS is ringfenced. Ultimately though you can take out an annuity for social care and more should be encouraged to do so
Antifrank does a good job of discussing an issue with partisan implicaitons without partisan rancour. Labour is well aware of the problem, of course, hence the current efforts to sign people up. I agree it's odd that Hackney does a better job than my area, and will nudge my local party about it. One month to go!
I saw but didn't comment on the discussion the other night about the US debates. Testing policy questions perhaps weren't asked. It got me to thinking though about whether there should be some sort of hurdle in terms of understanding that those who seek elected office should need to get by. Perhaps a further top up test could be applied if that politician wished to be available to be a finance minister for example.
Trump could finish up as the most important person on the planet. I think he's a moron. I'd be slightly more comfortable if he'd passed some sort of basic test. (In his case a demonstration of shoelace tying would help)
Anyway this clearly isn't a new suggestion - I suspect the Greeks covered it fully. As we don't do such a thing, what are the big arguments against?
Two. First, what exactly do you test for, and how sure are you that you're tesitng the right thing? The British citizenship test with its stupid questions about dates and numbers shows the sort of difficulty you get into. And being an MP or even a PM may call for people skills more than intellectual skills - much harder to test for. I suspect Gordon Brown could pass a stiffer intellectual exam than Tony Blair or David Cameron, but, to put it neutrallly, was he necessarily the more successful PM?
Second, if you start to introduce barriers for whom people can choose, why stop there? All kinds of additional tests could be added, ending up with a meritocracy rather than a democracy. In fact you might abolish the Commons and just have a Lords appointed on merit, the latter being what Casino and I were suggesting the other day.
This is something we were discussing on here a few nights ago. Potentially a perfect storm as council cuts and living wage requirement meet to put a mighty spanner in the works of social care and ultimately the NHS
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do.
Jamaica's population is only slightly smaller than NZ's.
Technically yes, though I suppose neither are really major nations (other than the All Blacks). I should also have added Egypt and Iraq were British Protectorates, though they actually retained their Kings as Head of State
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
I see Kezia Dugdale, leader of scottish labour is out hypothetically splashing the cash. She says if labour win the scottoish parliament elections she'll undo the tax credit changes.
Interesting, that will be a serious amount of cash to find which could be spent on other things. She says it will be funded by increasing tax from higher earners. Not sure if one cancels out the other... There doesnt seem to be any sums on this. Tax credits are massively expensive. Managing them within the whole UK budget is tough enough, but within Scotlands block grant, even with further devolved powers?
Poor politics. It will allow her opposition to tie them up with figures that dont add up. With tax credits the best thing to do is cause maximum damage to the governing party, try to force concessions out of them, if you do, a win, if you dont keep shooting at them and cause damage. To reverse something so expensive without a thought through plan of how you are going to make the difference up is just plain stupid.
The argument should be "tax credits are a lifeline for many, we understand that we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but the way that the government is going about this feels like an ideological attack on the working poor. We want a system that is targeted at those who most need it, and we promise to reform it to do so."
I agree. Tax credits need to be reformed by in a way that weans families off not by implementing a cold turkey approach. During the coalition the tax credits bill came in £6 billion under budget. It was Osborne's madness in pushing through cuts of £4billion in one year that brought this about. Tax credits have flat-lined since 2010 and will start falling anyhow as the two child restriction comes in.
Put on one side how labour ever think they will be able to reinstate tax credits it wont be before 2020 when the nation's living wage will be £9 + tax allowances will be £12500, free childcare will be extended and in many cases employers will have adopted the higher living wage. The whole idea is crass and a silly sound bite that is not going to impress anyone let alone the Scots.
Antifrank does a good job of discussing an issue with partisan implicaitons without partisan rancour. Labour is well aware of the problem, of course, hence the current efforts to sign people up. I agree it's odd that Hackney does a better job than my area, and will nudge my local party about it. One month to go!
I saw but didn't comment on the discussion the other night about the US debates. Testing policy questions perhaps weren't asked. It got me to thinking though about whether there should be some sort of hurdle in terms of understanding that those who seek elected office should need to get by. Perhaps a further top up test could be applied if that politician wished to be available to be a finance minister for example.
Trump could finish up as the most important person on the planet. I think he's a moron. I'd be slightly more comfortable if he'd passed some sort of basic test. (In his case a demonstration of shoelace tying would help)
Anyway this clearly isn't a new suggestion - I suspect the Greeks covered it fully. As we don't do such a thing, what are the big arguments against?
Two. First, what exactly do you test for, and how sure are you that you're tesitng the right thing? The British citizenship test with its stupid questions about dates and numbers shows the sort of difficulty you get into. And being an MP or even a PM may call for people skills more than intellectual skills - much harder to test for. I suspect Gordon Brown could pass a stiffer intellectual exam than Tony Blair or David Cameron, but, to put it neutrallly, was he necessarily the more successful PM?
Second, if you start to introduce barriers for whom people can choose, why stop there? All kinds of additional tests could be added, ending up with a meritocracy rather than a democracy. In fact you might abolish the Commons and just have a Lords appointed on merit, the latter being what Casino and I were suggesting the other day.
Brown is as thick as they come. He is the archetypal village idiot. Quite why everyone doesn't see that is beyond me. Blair and Cameron are like stars to his dull moon. How you, Mr Palmer, fail to see that is simply baffling.
I think I should be persuaded that some sort of minimal test isn't a good idea, but mostly you've persuaded me otherwise.
The Lords would be far better off with a similar test too. In fact a greater argument should be made for that. The House of Lords has nothing to do with merit!
They can indeed glide for some time, if they have not experienced major failure. The absence of a detailed distress message may indicate something catastrophic ocurred quickly.
It is dangerous to speculate, but I expect that the upset ocurred at high altitude and the aircraft probably lost control at the start of that decent. The potential data from the monitoring Flight Radar site very much depends on the quality of radar coverage in the area the a/c was in and I am not sure it is very good!
Debka seems to be dismissing the idea of a mechanical failure because pictures of the wreckage indicate total destruction only consistent either with a bomb on board or a missile hit:
Anecdotally, it would appear that security at Sharm El Sheik is not the best in the world, meaning that getting hold of flight plans or access to the cargo hold are not wholly impossible scenarios.
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
and by the way the test should be much along the lines of the 'tests' that apply when one interviews for a job. Answer well to a really hard question or two (amongst many) and you're still running. Answer badly to several questions and you're toast.
They can indeed glide for some time, if they have not experienced major failure. The absence of a detailed distress message may indicate something catastrophic ocurred quickly.
It is dangerous to speculate, but I expect that the upset ocurred at high altitude and the aircraft probably lost control at the start of that decent. The potential data from the monitoring Flight Radar site very much depends on the quality of radar coverage in the area the a/c was in and I am not sure it is very good!
Debka seems to be dismissing the idea of a mechanical failure because pictures of the wreckage indicate total destruction only consistent either with a bomb on board or a missile hit:
Anecdotally, it would appear that security at Sharm El Sheik is not the best in the world, meaning that getting hold of flight plans or access to the cargo hold are not wholly impossible scenarios.
Debka is an appalling news source.
Yes it is - very much an Israeli mouth-piece, but useful for some 'scoops' if you're able to read between the propaganda lines. And they would know about this because it's right on their doorstep - Sharm El Sheik was once an Israeli airbase apparently.
Also I think we should get over 'sources' - there is no trustworthy news and media source, anywhere. I don't trust a single one. Each piece needs to be judged on its own merit and the evidence and reasoning on display.
I see Kezia Dugdale, leader of scottish labour is out hypothetically splashing the cash. She says if labour win the scottoish parliament elections she'll undo the tax credit changes.
Interesting, that will be a serious amount of cash to find which could be spent on other things. She says it will be funded by increasing tax from higher earners. Not sure if one cancels out the other... There doesnt seem to be any sums on this. Tax credits are massively expensive. Managing them within the whole UK budget is tough enough, but within Scotlands block grant, even with further devolved powers?
Poor politics. It will allow her opposition to tie them up with figures that dont add up. With tax credits the best thing to do is cause maximum damage to the governing party, try to force concessions out of them, if you do, a win, if you dont keep shooting at them and cause damage. To reverse something so expensive without a thought through plan of how you are going to make the difference up is just plain stupid.
The argument should be "tax credits are a lifeline for many, we understand that we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but the way that the government is going about this feels like an ideological attack on the working poor. We want a system that is targeted at those who most need it, and we promise to reform it to do so."
I agree. Tax credits need to be reformed by in a way that weans families off not by implementing a cold turkey approach. During the coalition the tax credits bill came in £6 billion under budget. It was Osborne's madness in pushing through cuts of £4billion in one year that brought this about. Tax credits have flat-lined since 2010 and will start falling anyhow as the two child restriction comes in.
So what? Flatlining at a very high level several multiples of the level when it was introduced.
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
The answer is no, you cannot have Claudio back.
Leicester City shop has ordered 10 000 shirts to sell to former Chelsea fans ;-)
The ones who started supporting us in 2004, you can have them!
When I saw the fixtures over Dec for Leicester I winced (Man U at home, Chelsea at home, Everton away, Liverpool away, Man City at home). Now I am looking forward to them. There's points in them thar fixtures...
(The shirt thing was in jest!, but we are beginning to accumulate an increasing non-Lestoh fanbase)
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
Egypt and Iraq had their own kings.
Yes, as added below
And Malaysia (as Malay States)
Indeed although Malaysia now has its own elected monarch
Indeed, although Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the only other major nations which do. The US, India, Pakistan, Egypt, South Africa, Iraq, Nigeria, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong and Ireland are amongst the nations or areas which used to have a British monarch as Head of State
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
I would rather we were losing 3-4 to be honest.
I hope that we can oblige on the 28th!
No chance. You might win 0-1 though. Score a goal and you are nearly there.
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
I would rather we were losing 3-4 to be honest.
I hope that we can oblige on the 28th!
No chance. You might win 0-1 though. Score a goal and you are nearly there.
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
I would rather we were losing 3-4 to be honest.
I hope that we can oblige on the 28th!
No chance. You might win 0-1 though. Score a goal and you are nearly there.
Nah. We don't do clean sheets!
It is the completely moveable object against the totally resistible force. Who knows?
(Would you give us an OG please? No penalties, we would just miss)
?? I think we're comparing apples and oranges - that man is a UK politician no? So wouldn't be a candidate for POTUS? Also an interview can't really be compared with a speech.
An eloquent and very impressive speaker though for sure - I'm enjoying his lecture, thanks.
Regarding your criticism of Tulsi Gabbard (who I'm bowled over by despite only just making her acquaintance), I don't really agree. I think she takes a (true) stance that is bound to be received in a hostile way, and delivers it with effective charm. She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
?? I think we're comparing apples and oranges - that man is a UK politician no? So wouldn't be a candidate for POTUS? Also an interview can't really be compared with a speech.
An eloquent and very impressive speaker though for sure - I'm enjoying his lecture, thanks.
Regarding your criticism of Tulsi Gabbard (who I'm bowled over by despite only just making her acquaintance), I don't really agree. I think she takes a (true) stance that is bound to be received in a hostile way, and delivers it with effective charm. She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
What a surprise: you're spreading the word of someone who is, in this case, espousing the Russian case.
?? I think we're comparing apples and oranges - that man is a UK politician no? So wouldn't be a candidate for POTUS? Also an interview can't really be compared with a speech.
An eloquent and very impressive speaker though for sure - I'm enjoying his lecture, thanks.
Regarding your criticism of Tulsi Gabbard (who I'm bowled over by despite only just making her acquaintance), I don't really agree. I think she takes a (true) stance that is bound to be received in a hostile way, and delivers it with effective charm. She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
Yes of course the comparison isn't a fair one. I just think that your Ms Gabbard didn't convey any wisdom in what she said. I chose the link really just as a comparison with someone that has experience in the area, and is in a similarly 'for the future' situation.
I thought she seemed sensible too on the video you linked.
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
I would rather we were losing 3-4 to be honest.
There is no doubt that this team is better than last year's. But this stubbornness really is beginning to get irritating. Martial, a great buy, creates havoc and yet is on the left flank [ and, as is mandatory now-a-days has to run back and gives away penalties. OK only one so far ! ]
He should be the centre forward and Rooney at No.10 or not in the team at all.
?? I think we're comparing apples and oranges - that man is a UK politician no? So wouldn't be a candidate for POTUS? Also an interview can't really be compared with a speech.
An eloquent and very impressive speaker though for sure - I'm enjoying his lecture, thanks.
Regarding your criticism of Tulsi Gabbard (who I'm bowled over by despite only just making her acquaintance), I don't really agree. I think she takes a (true) stance that is bound to be received in a hostile way, and delivers it with effective charm. She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
What a surprise: you're spreading the word of someone who is, in this case, espousing the Russian case.
Colour me shocked.
Yes, because I agree with the Russian case. In this instance it's the only case that isn't insane. I do wholeheartedly espouse it and I don't pretend otherwise.
Were you to ask me my stance on Russia vs. Japan over the Kurile Islands, I would tell you that Russia's position was utterly without foundation, their behaviour bellicose, and Lavrov's pronouncements unjustified. An outrageous case of winner's justice. But you've never asked me.
There's a very nasty habit here of you and a couple of other fact-averse PBers attempting to smear me as a paid Russian schill without actually having the cojones to go fully into tinfoil hatdom and accuse me of it. It's pathetic.
Just back from Chelsea, on hold for the Samiritans.
Yeah your right. Things could be worse.
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
When we get rid of LVG.
Yeah, I am getting to that point as well. Paul Scholes knows what United need and it is not lots and lots of pointless possession with no cutting edge, no speed, no innovation or brilliance, just dull. Its like watching Arsenal in a bad year.
I would rather we were losing 3-4 to be honest.
There is no doubt that this team is better than last year's. But this stubbornness really is beginning to get irritating. Martial, a great buy, creates havoc and yet is on the left flank [ and, as is mandatory now-a-days has to run back and gives away penalties. OK only one so far ! ]
He should be the centre forward and Rooney at No.10 or not in the team at all.
Rooney needs a break, he really does. Before he can't move anymore. Martial was supposed to be for the future but the future is now.
Mr. Quidder, can't blame Sky for buying what they can. The BBC had a contract, but gave it up willingly. F1 was the most popular sports product the BBC provided, and the only one (other than Wimbledon) that hit all its audience targets. But they decided spending £20m on the concept of The Voice was a better use of taxpayers' money than £30m on a multi-year F1 contract.
Like you, I was, and am, seriously unimpressed.
I've never really grasped why a public service and publicly funded broadcaster should be paying large amounts of money for a commercially successful sports product.
(For raising awareness of minority sports, perhaps for the disabled or women's sports, for instance, I can see a clearer argument. Maybe something like radio commentary for country cricket falls into the same territory. Top flight football highlights or F1, I'm less convinced.)
Yes, because I agree with the Russian case. In this instance it's the only case that isn't insane. I do wholeheartedly espouse it and I don't pretend otherwise.
Were you to ask me my stance on Russia vs. Japan over the Kurile Islands, I would tell you that Russia's position was utterly without foundation, their behaviour bellicose, and Lavrov's pronouncements unjustified. An outrageous case of winner's justice. But you've never asked me.
There's a very nasty habit here of you and a couple of other fact-averse PBers attempting to smear me as a paid Russian schill without actually having the cojones to go fully into tinfoil hatdom and accuse me of it. It's pathetic.
No, it's not the only case that isn't insane. That's an utterly ridiculous statement. - it's just you wrapping yourself in a comfort blanket: "Any other position apart from the one I hold is insane."
If you start to do that, you should start to question your own position as it is might be based more in faith than fact. After all, if you think any alternative is 'insane', then you aren't in a fit place to evaluate evidence contrary to the one you believe. And there is a great deal of your position that can be questioned, starting with whether Assad used chemical weapons against his own population in 2013.
I'm not fact-averse: quite the opposite. In fact, I'd argue that you're the one, despite your fine words below, who is incapable of looking at sources for information and intelligently working out whether they might be biased or not, whilst calling out sources you disagree with for being biased. Or calling positions different from your own 'insane'.
Remember what you wrote last night about the Titanic and Britannic - I'm still chuckling over that. First you say it came from an 'Naval Architect' to make it sound like an authoritative source, who had, if I recall correctly, access to archives. You then make that into an utterly ridiculous and bogus conspiracy theory that you soon rolled back on.
If anyone on PB deserves a permanent tinfoil hat, it is you.
As it happens, I've never said you're a paid Russian schill - you're not good enough to earn many roubles. If anything, you seem as much anti-American as pro-Russian.
She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
Without taking a view on the lady in question or the subject matter, I like the way you characterise that behaviour as a 'MSM propagandist tool', rather than what it is, a perfectly standard communication technique used, as you are apparently stunned to discover, by people other than MSM propagandists, with great regularity in fact.
You don't need to be a genius to work out who the Daily Mail are suggesting ordered "burn it, destroy it". Funny enough I don't remember reading about it in his published diaries.
Her views are very sound too except she is against same sex marriage. Also born in American Samoa. Will that prevent her from being POTUS ?
American Samoa is US sovereign territory. If it was good enough for McCain...
Though I'm sure she is a full citizen, I recall a John Oliver piece on the US territories which stated that American Samoa is the only one where apparently those born there are not, automatically, granted US citizenship, instead they can be US Nationals (I presume if the parents are already citizens that would be a factor), though I cannot speak as to his accuracy - on subjects closer to home for the UK he can display some unfortunate laziness to make a political point, so it might well apply on the other topics.
You don't need to be a genius to work out who the Daily Mail are suggesting ordered "burn it, destroy it". Funny enough I don't remember reading about it in his published diaries.
Will it make it pass the Chilcott Edit though or end up on the cutting room floor?
I'm glad you're still chuckling over one of my posts - I can't say anything you've ever posted has remained with me after switching off my computer.
I rolled back on nothing. Naval architect? I said Sam (my colleague in the hotel where I worked) was from a naval family, and had access to the naval archives, which he was, and did. They were also filthy rich and he used to come to work on a quad bike. Nice guy, and I relayed his theory as I remembered it, with the full admission that this could be refuted, because it pertained to the discussion. Amusing for you to use this as some case study of my duplicity.
In my opinion (and Tulsi Gabbard's), arming Islamist extremists is an insane way to try and effect regime change. Insane because you end up with regimes worse than you started with, massive insecurity and suffering in the country, and a huge risk of terrorist blowback outside it - all of which is already happening before our eyes. Isaac Newton said 'Insanity = doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' - I couldn't agree more.
As for bias, and worse than bias, an agenda - I openly acknowledge and account for it, in *all* sources. That's what you don't seem to grasp. In the modern world, this is as much a part of Reuters or the DT as it is part of RT.
I am glad we got the Russian schill thing sorted out though. I also have a more nuanced view on the US than perhaps you imagine, but it doesn't extent to their recent foreign policy, and therefore doesn't really enter into discussion here.
She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
Without taking a view on the lady in question or the subject matter, I like the way you characterise that behaviour as a 'MSM propagandist tool', rather than what it is, a perfectly standard communication technique used, as you are apparently stunned to discover, by people other than MSM propagandists, with great regularity in fact.
Yes it is, in advertising, marketing, political speech making, and many other instances where people need to be persuaded. This is why it should be remarked upon when used in the context of news reporting, which is not intended to persuade, but purely to inform. When news is used to persuade, not to inform, it becomes propaganda. That's why when we hear nothing but 'barrel bombs' 'on his own people' 'barrel bombs' 'on his own people' 'barrel bombs' This ought to be pointed out as a bad thing. Is it better/ok to inflict bombing on someone else's people? Are people blown up by barrel bombs more dead than people blown up by the non-barrel variety?
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
I would rule out 1). It would require an Act of Parliament (or at least a clause in an Act on another subject) - that takes a long time and there is no sign of anyone trying to go down that road.
So it's 2) or 3). It'll be a Statutory Instrument - presented to Parliament in late 2018. And it will have to pass Commons and Lords (unless the Lords powers are changed re SIs).
COMMONS: Con majority is 16 (after allowing for SF not attending). So 8 Con rebels needed to block it if everyone else turns up and votes on party lines. But Carswell has said he will support changes so that means 9 rebels needed. 4 Con MPs rebelled in the last Parliament to support LD/Lab to cancel the last boundary review.
It could go either way but there will be huge pressure on backbenchers.
Plus one outside chance - if Scotland does get 2 more MPs might the SNP support the changes? It would mean Scotland had 61 MPs out of 600 instead of 59 out of 650. That increases Scotland's power quite a bit - and would therefore increase the chances of the SNP having the balance of power.
LORDS: If vote was today I'd say it would be close to 50:50 - Crossbenchers would largely support Govt and it would all then depend on turnout. Con Peers delivered amazing turnout last Mon and Tue.
But it's in 3 years time - balance should move quite a bit in Con direction by then - even without any big fuss Cameron will be appointing more Peers and he'll appoint more Con than Lab + LD combined. Plus Lab + LD combined should suffer more attrition - they have over 100 more Life Peers than Con so should have more deaths / retirements. Hereditary deaths / retirements don't matter as they get replaced from the same Party.
In 2011 Lab had 25 more Peers than Con. Today Con has 37 more Peers than Lab. That's a big turn around and Cameron will do everything he can to keep the momentum going.
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
The 600 seats and boundary equalisation is in the Tory manifesto, there is no way the Lords can vote it down.
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
The 600 seats and boundary equalisation is in the Tory manifesto, there is no way the Lords can vote it down.
If only the number of seats in the Lords were reduced!
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
The 600 seats and boundary equalisation is in the Tory manifesto, there is no way the Lords can vote it down.
They can, but they will most likely choose not to.
The one thing I do acknowledge about teaching is that there is no one version of the 'good teacher'. Also the profession has a tendency to overdo the striving for perfection in 'the lesson'. You really need to take a real world approach to what is achievable - in my experience most students value competence and organization above inspiration in the classroom - it gets the job done better to be frank and just as important, it allows you to have a life outside work.
I should love to be able to discuss the content of the PGCE and what teachers are now required to do as far as documented preparation and record keeping with the teachers from my old grammar school. I should imagine they would be horrified and at the same time reduced to amazed laughter.
I suppose they must have done some preparation for each lesson and probably had a plan for what they were going to do during the year in order to cover the syllabus but I strongly suspect such plans existed only in their heads or possibly, and quite literally, on the back of a fag packet. Yet despite being denied the benefits of schemes of work and lesson plans and mapped learning outcomes and all the rest of the dreary bureaucracy of modern teaching they managed to get their boys through seven O levels (the norm) and nearly all the VI form to University, including a few each year to Oxbridge.
Most of them were WW2 veterans, all had a degree in and passion for their subject, some were barking mad, and, probably, not one of them had ever seen the inside of a teacher training establishment. They could however teach and we learned, despite one afternoon a week devoted to games and at least two periods a week devoted to Bridge.
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
The 600 seats and boundary equalisation is in the Tory manifesto, there is no way the Lords can vote it down.
Well it's arguable that they shouldn't but it's an SI and it's therefore not subject to the Parliament Act.
Lab + LD won't worry about the formalities - they'll do it if they can.
They've already got the perfect reason - they'll say that because of Individual Voter Registration it was done on "unfair" electoral registers.
One other thing to consider is Corbyn - whilst Lab will officially say they oppose boundary changes Corbyn may be secretly delighted to let them through as it then means almost every seat changes so will require a formal re-selection of the MP.
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
The 600 seats and boundary equalisation is in the Tory manifesto, there is no way the Lords can vote it down.
If only the number of seats in the Lords were reduced!
Or increased, with some of the old Tory hereditaries, perhaps?
The one thing I do acknowledge about teaching is that there is no one version of the 'good teacher'. Also the profession has a tendency to overdo the striving for perfection in 'the lesson'. You really need to take a real world approach to what is achievable - in my experience most students value competence and organization above inspiration in the classroom - it gets the job done better to be frank and just as important, it allows you to have a life outside work.
I should love to be able to discuss the content of the PGCE and what teachers are now required to do as far as documented preparation and record keeping with the teachers from my old grammar school. I should imagine they would be horrified and at the same time reduced to amazed laughter.
I suppose they must have done some preparation for each lesson and probably had a plan for what they were going to do during the year in order to cover the syllabus but I strongly suspect such plans existed only in their heads or possibly, and quite literally, on the back of a fag packet. Yet despite being denied the benefits of schemes of work and lesson plans and mapped learning outcomes and all the rest of the dreary bureaucracy of modern teaching they managed to get their boys through seven O levels (the norm) and nearly all the VI form to University, including a few each year to Oxbridge.
Most of them were WW2 veterans, all had a degree in and passion for their subject, some were barking mad, and, probably, not one of them had ever seen the inside of a teacher training establishment. They could however teach and we learned, despite one afternoon a week devoted to games and at least two periods a week devoted to Bridge.
My two best teachers were an army captain who taught me math, and a major who taught me geography, and ran the CCF. Both ww2 vets.
My art teacher had been in Stalag Luft III and was one of the document forgers for the Great Escape. He himself was not an escaper. Unsurprisingly he was bitter and angry with the Germans for what happened to the Fifty, many of whom he knew very well and several he was close to..
He told a story of how he was working on a document for the breakout when a lookout signalled there were Germans in the vicinity. Quickly he pulled out a drawing he had and started working on it, lying it over the forged document. The German officer came in to the hut, saw the drawing , picked it up and took it over to the window to admire it, exposing the forged document. He then smiled, said how good it was, and put it back where it had been.
I'm glad you're still chuckling over one of my posts - I can't say anything you've ever posted has remained with me after switching off my computer.
(snip)
I used your story last night as a study of your gullibility and lack of fact-checking, not duplicity. And it was a corker.
"As for bias, and worse than bias, an agenda - I openly acknowledge and account for it, in *all* sources."
Yeah, right. Frankly, your actions on here suggest otherwise.
As for Syria: it all comes down to whether you believe Assad used chemical weapons on his own population back in 2013 (leaving aside the other crimes his regime has been accused of before and after). If you think Assad did not do that, then supporting his regime may be acceptable. Even then, you have to ask how you would stop him after 'victory' getting vengeance on the populations who resisted him, e.g. the Kurds. (*)
If you think on the balance of evidence that he did use chemical weapons, then supporting his regime becomes a much harder proposition as it is little different from the 'Islamist Extremists' that you rather perversely seem to think all the rebels are.
The problem is that the pro-Assad people have as little idea of what the end situation will be in Syria as the anti-Assad people. One thing is certain: it will not be Syria as it was pre-2011. And if not, what will it be? A coastal rump state reliant on Russia for support? A small state at constant war with an Islamist hinterland? A series of states ethnically cleansed of disagreeable populations, e.g. a Sunni state, a Shia state, an Alawite state, a Kurdish state?
(*) Going off on a slight tangent: the Kurds are a massive issue for the region. A much-maligned and occasionally historically oppressed people, who unfortunately harbour some very significant and nasty terrorists in their midst. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Kurdish people, whilst abhorring the relatively small number of extremists. As with many terrorist groups, the people the PKK pretend to be fighting for get hurt more than the terrorists themselves. I'm not even sure a regional Kurdish state, even if one could be created, is the answer. That leaves only the Iraqi solution: semi-autonomous states-within-states. That's more or less the situation in Iraq now, and it might be able to happen in a post-conflict Syria. It won't happen in Iran, and I think the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish region is what many in Turkey are afraid of.
Why is the British taxpayer going to pick up the compensation bill for the released Gitmo prisoner? Surely the Americans should be paying, if anyone.
I would quite like it to be argued about in open court. This is not a British citizen, and it would also bring to light exactly what he was up to doing "charity work" with the Taliban in the Bora-Bora region.
I'm glad you're still chuckling over one of my posts - I can't say anything you've ever posted has remained with me after switching off my computer.
(snip)
I used your story last night as a study of your gullibility and lack of fact-checking, not duplicity. And it was a corker.
"As for bias, and worse than bias, an agenda - I openly acknowledge and account for it, in *all* sources."
Yeah, right. Frankly, your actions on here suggest otherwise.
The problem is that the pro-Assad people have as little idea of what the end situation will be in Syria as the anti-Assad people. One thing is certain: it will not be Syria as it was pre-2011. And if not, what will it be? A coastal rump state reliant on Russia for support? A small state at constant war with an Islamist hinterland? A series of states ethnically cleansed of disagreeable populations, e.g. a Sunni state, a Shia state, an Alawite state, a Kurdish state?
(*) Going off on a slight tangent: the Kurds are a massive issue for the region. A much-maligned and occasionally historically oppressed people, who unfortunately harbour some very significant and nasty terrorists in their midst. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Kurdish people, whilst abhorring the relatively small number of extremists. As with many terrorist groups, the people the PKK pretend to be fighting for get hurt more than the terrorists themselves. I'm not even sure a regional Kurdish state, even if one could be created, is the answer. That leaves only the Iraqi solution: semi-autonomous states-within-states. That's more or less the situation in Iraq now, and it might be able to happen in a post-conflict Syria. It won't happen in Iran, and I think the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish region is what many in Turkey are afraid of.
To be fair on the Kurds (and they have long been involved in terrorism, and also historically highly culpable for the Armenian and Assyrian genocides) they are not a threat to anyone other than the 4 countries that their population is spread over. Theirs is a leftist and fairly secular party. Indeed shorn of its Eastern provinces a smaller Turkey would be a more viable EU applicant, though still a long way off bringing its laws and human rights into line.
Why is the British taxpayer going to pick up the compensation bill for the released Gitmo prisoner? Surely the Americans should be paying, if anyone.
I would quite like it to be argued about in open court. This is not a British citizen, and it would also bring to light exactly what he was up to doing "charity work" with the Taliban in the Bora-Bora region.
I'm curious as to who paid for the private jet from Gitmo to Biggin Hill. HMG?
Comments
"Roger" being his most perfect Tory recruiting strategy.
South East -3
East -2
East Midlands -3
London -2
North East -5
North West -9
Scotland +2
South West -3
Wales -11
West Midlands -7
Yorkshire & Humber -5
Northern Ireland -2
Total -50
All in all it looks very good for the Conservatives.
And implication is it will be even better if more names to be removed from point when table was drawn up?
(Though Jamie Vardy for top goal scorer and Mahrez ew for the same is looking good).
Like you, I was, and am, seriously unimpressed.
They acted in the BBC's interest, not the interest of the licence fee payer, by ensuring a rival free-to-air broadcaster could get it.
Edited extra bit: qualifying done. I'm going to jot down some early betting ideas and leave it until the morning before checking the markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ENX3aHlqU
For Mourinho ?
Interesting, that will be a serious amount of cash to find which could be spent on other things. She says it will be funded by increasing tax from higher earners. Not sure if one cancels out the other... There doesnt seem to be any sums on this. Tax credits are massively expensive. Managing them within the whole UK budget is tough enough, but within Scotlands block grant, even with further devolved powers?
Poor politics. It will allow her opposition to tie them up with figures that dont add up. With tax credits the best thing to do is cause maximum damage to the governing party, try to force concessions out of them, if you do, a win, if you dont keep shooting at them and cause damage. To reverse something so expensive without a thought through plan of how you are going to make the difference up is just plain stupid.
The argument should be "tax credits are a lifeline for many, we understand that we need to cut our cloth accordingly, but the way that the government is going about this feels like an ideological attack on the working poor. We want a system that is targeted at those who most need it, and we promise to reform it to do so."
Burgess' agent must think all his Christmas's have come at once.
Victims have been found over an approximate radius of 3 miles. Seems then that the aircraft almost certainly broke up before hitting the ground and probably at a lower level than the cruise altitude of 31,000 ft.
Second, if you start to introduce barriers for whom people can choose, why stop there? All kinds of additional tests could be added, ending up with a meritocracy rather than a democracy. In fact you might abolish the Commons and just have a Lords appointed on merit, the latter being what Casino and I were suggesting the other day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298264/Red-pencils-ready-Jeremy-Corbyn-COLOURING-BOOK-goes-sale-left-wing-publishing-enjoys-winter-content.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/31/17/2DFB7EDF00000578-0-image-m-39_1446313243785.jpg
I think I should be persuaded that some sort of minimal test isn't a good idea, but mostly you've persuaded me otherwise.
The Lords would be far better off with a similar test too. In fact a greater argument should be made for that. The House of Lords has nothing to do with merit!
Meh.
https://www.rt.com/usa/vegas-hospital-patients-dump-544/
I think I have discovered how to balance the NHS budget...
and by the way the test should be much along the lines of the 'tests' that apply when one interviews for a job. Answer well to a really hard question or two (amongst many) and you're still running. Answer badly to several questions and you're toast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkher6ceaA
Thanks.
Leicester City shop has ordered 10 000 shirts to sell to former Chelsea fans ;-)
Also I think we should get over 'sources' - there is no trustworthy news and media source, anywhere. I don't trust a single one. Each piece needs to be judged on its own merit and the evidence and reasoning on display.
Stupid policy then, worse now it costs so much.
Don't you have any other topics of conversation?
When will Man U score a goal again? 3 x 0-0. Its just not right.
(The shirt thing was in jest!, but we are beginning to accumulate an increasing non-Lestoh fanbase)
Another most interesting article just like the ones you wrote on potential Boundary Changes last June and July.
As no legislation is necessary for the next Boundary Changes and as Cameron still wishes to reduce seat numbers to 600, what do you and others of course think will happen politically please?
1. Opposition parties try to block seat reduction to 600 but still desire equalisation with present 650 and bring in motion in the House SOON or
2. All parties wait till 600 seats are determined and compiled in 2018 and then vote against whole package meaning present 650 seats which have applied for GE2010 and GE 2015 still apply for GE2020 or
3. The reduction to 600 is implemented?
Finally as population has been in the news this week, could opponents use as argument the fact that population has increased over the last 20 years please? Obviously future projections of population irrelevant to the Boundary Review.
Thank you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuQZ21spTRg
Just a random, and to my mind clearer tone.
I would rather we were losing 3-4 to be honest.
(Would you give us an OG please? No penalties, we would just miss)
An eloquent and very impressive speaker though for sure - I'm enjoying his lecture, thanks.
Regarding your criticism of Tulsi Gabbard (who I'm bowled over by despite only just making her acquaintance), I don't really agree. I think she takes a (true) stance that is bound to be received in a hostile way, and delivers it with effective charm. She even takes the MSM propagandist tool of repeating a stock phrase (barrel bombs barrel bombs barrel bombs) and turns it on its head, 'our sworn enemy' 'attacked us on 9-11' - she mentions more than once.
http://news.sky.com/story/1579533/sundays-national-newspaper-front-pages
Ministers told to destroy evidence showing war WAS illegal.
Colour me shocked.
I thought she seemed sensible too on the video you linked.
He should be the centre forward and Rooney at No.10 or not in the team at all.
Were you to ask me my stance on Russia vs. Japan over the Kurile Islands, I would tell you that Russia's position was utterly without foundation, their behaviour bellicose, and Lavrov's pronouncements unjustified. An outrageous case of winner's justice. But you've never asked me.
There's a very nasty habit here of you and a couple of other fact-averse PBers attempting to smear me as a paid Russian schill without actually having the cojones to go fully into tinfoil hatdom and accuse me of it. It's pathetic.
(For raising awareness of minority sports, perhaps for the disabled or women's sports, for instance, I can see a clearer argument. Maybe something like radio commentary for country cricket falls into the same territory. Top flight football highlights or F1, I'm less convinced.)
If you start to do that, you should start to question your own position as it is might be based more in faith than fact. After all, if you think any alternative is 'insane', then you aren't in a fit place to evaluate evidence contrary to the one you believe. And there is a great deal of your position that can be questioned, starting with whether Assad used chemical weapons against his own population in 2013.
I'm not fact-averse: quite the opposite. In fact, I'd argue that you're the one, despite your fine words below, who is incapable of looking at sources for information and intelligently working out whether they might be biased or not, whilst calling out sources you disagree with for being biased. Or calling positions different from your own 'insane'.
Remember what you wrote last night about the Titanic and Britannic - I'm still chuckling over that. First you say it came from an 'Naval Architect' to make it sound like an authoritative source, who had, if I recall correctly, access to archives. You then make that into an utterly ridiculous and bogus conspiracy theory that you soon rolled back on.
If anyone on PB deserves a permanent tinfoil hat, it is you.
As it happens, I've never said you're a paid Russian schill - you're not good enough to earn many roubles. If anything, you seem as much anti-American as pro-Russian.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/people-before-profit-splits-with-anti-austerity-alliance-on-pact-1.2413042
I rolled back on nothing. Naval architect? I said Sam (my colleague in the hotel where I worked) was from a naval family, and had access to the naval archives, which he was, and did. They were also filthy rich and he used to come to work on a quad bike. Nice guy, and I relayed his theory as I remembered it, with the full admission that this could be refuted, because it pertained to the discussion. Amusing for you to use this as some case study of my duplicity.
In my opinion (and Tulsi Gabbard's), arming Islamist extremists is an insane way to try and effect regime change. Insane because you end up with regimes worse than you started with, massive insecurity and suffering in the country, and a huge risk of terrorist blowback outside it - all of which is already happening before our eyes. Isaac Newton said 'Insanity = doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' - I couldn't agree more.
As for bias, and worse than bias, an agenda - I openly acknowledge and account for it, in *all* sources. That's what you don't seem to grasp. In the modern world, this is as much a part of Reuters or the DT as it is part of RT.
I am glad we got the Russian schill thing sorted out though. I also have a more nuanced view on the US than perhaps you imagine, but it doesn't extent to their recent foreign policy, and therefore doesn't really enter into discussion here.
'barrel bombs'
'on his own people'
'barrel bombs'
'on his own people'
'barrel bombs'
This ought to be pointed out as a bad thing. Is it better/ok to inflict bombing on someone else's people? Are people blown up by barrel bombs more dead than people blown up by the non-barrel variety?
So it's 2) or 3). It'll be a Statutory Instrument - presented to Parliament in late 2018. And it will have to pass Commons and Lords (unless the Lords powers are changed re SIs).
COMMONS:
Con majority is 16 (after allowing for SF not attending). So 8 Con rebels needed to block it if everyone else turns up and votes on party lines. But Carswell has said he will support changes so that means 9 rebels needed. 4 Con MPs rebelled in the last Parliament to support LD/Lab to cancel the last boundary review.
It could go either way but there will be huge pressure on backbenchers.
Plus one outside chance - if Scotland does get 2 more MPs might the SNP support the changes? It would mean Scotland had 61 MPs out of 600 instead of 59 out of 650. That increases Scotland's power quite a bit - and would therefore increase the chances of the SNP having the balance of power.
LORDS:
If vote was today I'd say it would be close to 50:50 - Crossbenchers would largely support Govt and it would all then depend on turnout. Con Peers delivered amazing turnout last Mon and Tue.
But it's in 3 years time - balance should move quite a bit in Con direction by then - even without any big fuss Cameron will be appointing more Peers and he'll appoint more Con than Lab + LD combined. Plus Lab + LD combined should suffer more attrition - they have over 100 more Life Peers than Con so should have more deaths / retirements. Hereditary deaths / retirements don't matter as they get replaced from the same Party.
In 2011 Lab had 25 more Peers than Con. Today Con has 37 more Peers than Lab. That's a big turn around and Cameron will do everything he can to keep the momentum going.
I suppose they must have done some preparation for each lesson and probably had a plan for what they were going to do during the year in order to cover the syllabus but I strongly suspect such plans existed only in their heads or possibly, and quite literally, on the back of a fag packet. Yet despite being denied the benefits of schemes of work and lesson plans and mapped learning outcomes and all the rest of the dreary bureaucracy of modern teaching they managed to get their boys through seven O levels (the norm) and nearly all the VI form to University, including a few each year to Oxbridge.
Most of them were WW2 veterans, all had a degree in and passion for their subject, some were barking mad, and, probably, not one of them had ever seen the inside of a teacher training establishment. They could however teach and we learned, despite one afternoon a week devoted to games and at least two periods a week devoted to Bridge.
Lab + LD won't worry about the formalities - they'll do it if they can.
They've already got the perfect reason - they'll say that because of Individual Voter Registration it was done on "unfair" electoral registers.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/01/fewer-politicians-house-lords/
My art teacher had been in Stalag Luft III and was one of the document forgers for the Great Escape. He himself was not an escaper. Unsurprisingly he was bitter and angry with the Germans for what happened to the Fifty, many of whom he knew very well and several he was close to..
He told a story of how he was working on a document for the breakout when a lookout signalled there were Germans in the vicinity. Quickly he pulled out a drawing he had and started working on it, lying it over the forged document. The German officer came in to the hut, saw the drawing , picked it up and took it over to the window to admire it, exposing the forged document. He then smiled, said how good it was, and put it back where it had been.
As for Syria: it all comes down to whether you believe Assad used chemical weapons on his own population back in 2013 (leaving aside the other crimes his regime has been accused of before and after). If you think Assad did not do that, then supporting his regime may be acceptable. Even then, you have to ask how you would stop him after 'victory' getting vengeance on the populations who resisted him, e.g. the Kurds. (*)
If you think on the balance of evidence that he did use chemical weapons, then supporting his regime becomes a much harder proposition as it is little different from the 'Islamist Extremists' that you rather perversely seem to think all the rebels are.
The problem is that the pro-Assad people have as little idea of what the end situation will be in Syria as the anti-Assad people. One thing is certain: it will not be Syria as it was pre-2011. And if not, what will it be? A coastal rump state reliant on Russia for support? A small state at constant war with an Islamist hinterland? A series of states ethnically cleansed of disagreeable populations, e.g. a Sunni state, a Shia state, an Alawite state, a Kurdish state?
(*) Going off on a slight tangent: the Kurds are a massive issue for the region. A much-maligned and occasionally historically oppressed people, who unfortunately harbour some very significant and nasty terrorists in their midst. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Kurdish people, whilst abhorring the relatively small number of extremists. As with many terrorist groups, the people the PKK pretend to be fighting for get hurt more than the terrorists themselves. I'm not even sure a regional Kurdish state, even if one could be created, is the answer. That leaves only the Iraqi solution: semi-autonomous states-within-states. That's more or less the situation in Iraq now, and it might be able to happen in a post-conflict Syria. It won't happen in Iran, and I think the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish region is what many in Turkey are afraid of.
The "elections" are some of the weirdest things I've ever followed!
The problem is that the pro-Assad people have as little idea of what the end situation will be in Syria as the anti-Assad people. One thing is certain: it will not be Syria as it was pre-2011. And if not, what will it be? A coastal rump state reliant on Russia for support? A small state at constant war with an Islamist hinterland? A series of states ethnically cleansed of disagreeable populations, e.g. a Sunni state, a Shia state, an Alawite state, a Kurdish state?
(*) Going off on a slight tangent: the Kurds are a massive issue for the region. A much-maligned and occasionally historically oppressed people, who unfortunately harbour some very significant and nasty terrorists in their midst. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Kurdish people, whilst abhorring the relatively small number of extremists. As with many terrorist groups, the people the PKK pretend to be fighting for get hurt more than the terrorists themselves. I'm not even sure a regional Kurdish state, even if one could be created, is the answer. That leaves only the Iraqi solution: semi-autonomous states-within-states. That's more or less the situation in Iraq now, and it might be able to happen in a post-conflict Syria. It won't happen in Iran, and I think the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish region is what many in Turkey are afraid of.
To be fair on the Kurds (and they have long been involved in terrorism, and also historically highly culpable for the Armenian and Assyrian genocides) they are not a threat to anyone other than the 4 countries that their population is spread over. Theirs is a leftist and fairly secular party. Indeed shorn of its Eastern provinces a smaller Turkey would be a more viable EU applicant, though still a long way off bringing its laws and human rights into line.