Nuanced statement there Nick - "since they were appointed". Carefully excludes his key advisor - suspended from Labour - but in whom Corbyn still has confidence.
Applies to him too. Has he said anything objectionable since he was appointed? I don't like the nasty personal style of his past comments, but so long as he cuts them out now, I don't insist on retrospective vetting. But it's important to insist on that - as McDonnell wryly says, "Jeremy is trying to teach me to be a nicer person" :-).
In any party shift of position on the spectrum, you're going to get people who were previously harsh critics to revise their view, and people who were previously supporters to express vehement and sometimes personal opposition, like Southam. It's as pointless to blame Fisher for being previously critical of Labour as it is to be blame Southam for being previously supportive.
Fisher was not simply being "critical of Labour". He was actively saying that people should not vote for the Labour candidate. He was saying violent and crude things about Labour people. Now Corbyn can't change what happened in the past. But it is perfectly legitimate to question his judgment in appointing him and in continuing to support him even after he has been suspended. What a person has said and done in the recent past does have a bearing on the sort of person they are now and on whether they are fit and proper to be a senior advisor within Labour. And Corbyn's choice of him shows that he places - whatever he may say - little value on decent behaviour. It shows poor judgment on his part.
Furthermore your statement about not insisting on retrospective vetting is, frankly, ludicrous. What on earth do you think vetting is? By its very nature it's retrospective.
That would be like a bank saying that it's ok to hire someone who has been convicted of fraud because they don't want to insist on "retrospective vetting".
''If they let people die because they are on strike then it might not be legally murder but I would consider it such morally Yes.''
Should medical courses in the UK should come with more strings attached???
Yes. Why should Doctors train at our expense and then bugger off to Australia for more money?
We should make students pay tuition fees. Oh wait ...
Will they pay them back if they go straight to Oz?
No; if a student emigrates after graduating then tuition fees cannot be recovered.
I don't think that is true. Interest accumulates and the person is liable for payment wherever in the world they are. There are difficulties collecting of course!
''If they let people die because they are on strike then it might not be legally murder but I would consider it such morally Yes.''
Should medical courses in the UK should come with more strings attached???
Yes. Why should Doctors train at our expense and then bugger off to Australia for more money?
We should make students pay tuition fees. Oh wait ...
Will they pay them back if they go straight to Oz?
No; if a student emigrates after graduating then tuition fees cannot be recovered.
I don't think that is true. Interest accumulates and the person is liable for payment wherever in the world they are. There are difficulties collecting of course!
Can you collect a debt in another country? I agree interest accumulates and the student would have a problem on return.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
As a possible solution to the migrants benefits problem (to be honest it doesn't bother me at all but I know others feel differently), could we move to a contributory principle but treat participation in full time education in the UK as a contribution in kind?
This man is so far removed from the way the majority will see this, it's scarcely believable.
I wonder just how low Labour are going to go in a genuine election with this baggage/messenger. The by election results last night were appalling and it's hard to recall a good result outside of leftie London in recent weeks.
The Lib Dems should be able to haul themselves back into the game.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
If he ever gets near the levers of power, we will be a total joke on the world stage.
Surely this was an opportunity to prove what a PM like figure he could be. Instead we get this rubbish- did he want to risk more lives attempting to capture him? He is awful.
As a possible solution to the migrants benefits problem (to be honest it doesn't bother me at all but I know others feel differently), could we move to a contributory principle but treat participation in full time education in the UK as a contribution in kind?
Oi! That's my idea, from a couple of days ago!
Sorry, didn't see that. Two fools not differing, obviously.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
Well I would agree, but when I suggested Russia may soon be at war with IS (after the Sharm bomb) I was decried on here, people telling me war was impossible with IS
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
If he ever gets near the levers of power, we will be a total joke on the world stage.
Surely this was an opportunity to prove what a PM like figure he could be. Instead we get this rubbish- did he want to risk more lives attempting to capture him? He is awful.
Were there not similar debates at the end of the war -- summary execution of Nazis or the Nuremberg trials?
Peter Kellner is very right here - without getting all Sun Tzu, IMHO this referendum should only have been called once a clear consensus and majority to Leave had already been established:
But Cameron doesn't want to leave. Nor does he want anything more than the absolute minimum of change to secure a Remain vote. He is the one calling the shots here to ensure we stay in at almost any cost.
I understand that, but Farage himself wanted a referendum asap on the status quo. That was also wrong.
Too late now, but this parliament should have been used for solid groundwork and building a credible future outside as the EU deteriorated.
Theresa May could then have led a referendum to leave in the early 2020s.
As a possible solution to the migrants benefits problem (to be honest it doesn't bother me at all but I know others feel differently), could we move to a contributory principle but treat participation in full time education in the UK as a contribution in kind?
Oi! That's my idea, from a couple of days ago!
Sorry, didn't see that. Two fools not differing, obviously.
Mine too [though I don't recall posting it]. Not sure if that helps ;-)
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
Judging from newspaper comments so far - most seem to think he deserved being scared shitless and then killed painfully over an extended period. Drone Death was too good for him.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
Surely they're very different circumstances?
We kill people we don't put on trial and aren't in the act of killing (but aren't at war with) and don't kill people we put on trial and find guilty
Two question relating to OGH's comment on the difference between the online and phone polls: 1. do the phone polls call land lines, cell phones or both? 2. how universal is online access in the UK?
I am sure that the polling companies do seek to correct for biases arising from the answers to the questions above, but if they are consistently divergent, then it would suggest that perhaps they are not doing so adequately.
Oh for God's sake. Nick. Nice or nasty, They're mad lefties, they're going to be massively unpopular, and all this is obvious. If this doesn't matter to you because you don't think winning elections is particularly important, perhaps you should reflect on the fact that it is only because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown thought otherwise that you were an MP at all.
Welcome, back, Hopi!
It must be very hard to be a sane Labour supporter in current conditions. I don't think there's much you can do other than try to hold on until things improve, but that could be a long time.
Two question relating to OGH's comment on the difference between the online and phone polls: 1. do the phone polls call land lines, cell phones or both? 2. how universal is online access in the UK?
I am sure that the polling companies do seek to correct for biases arising from the answers to the questions above, but if they are consistently divergent, then it would suggest that perhaps they are not doing so adequately.
1) Yes, some of the pollsters have included mobile phones
2) 91% of UK households have/use fixed lined broadband
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
Well I would agree, but when I suggested Russia may soon be at war with IS (after the Sharm bomb) I was decried on here, people telling me war was impossible with IS
Who said war against IS was impossible?
As it happens, I believe it's possible for Russia to win against IS, at least conventionally.
They didn't win against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the country turned into a meat grinder that killed many hundreds of thousands. The US and coalition did not 'win' in Iraq, despite many (hundreds of thousands according to some sources) of deaths and many billions spent.
Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen, who learnt to fight against Russians on Afghanistan. Al Qaeda started fighting the Americans, who then invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighters in Iraq formed the predecessors of ISIL/IS, who are helping destabilise several countries.
And so it will continue unless we find a way of stopping the Shia/Sunni conflicts and the radicalisation of so many youngsters.
But Cameron doesn't want to leave. Nor does he want anything more than the absolute minimum of change to secure a Remain vote. He is the one calling the shots here to ensure we stay in at almost any cost.
I understand that, but Farage himself wanted a referendum asap on the status quo. That was also wrong. Too late now, but this parliament should have been used for solid groundwork and building a credible future outside as the EU deteriorated.
Something like that might have been possible, if we had political leaders with half an eye on even the medium term future.
Instead we have a referendum which is totally meaningless, which was designed merely to paper over the cracks in the Tory Party.
Excellent comment on Cricinfo: Shoaib Malik to Root, 1 run, more singles action than on Tinder at the moment.
These 2 do needed to get on with it though or the excellent start will fade to nothing. This seems to be a wicket with nothing for the bowlers so that is what the English bowlers will get. Only scoreboard pressure is likely to produce wickets.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
The inference of his comments is that a bunch of published videos showing the killer chopping other human beings' heads off is inadequate to formulate a judgement on right or wrong.
The public however will just apply some common sense.
If he ever gets near the levers of power, we will be a total joke on the world stage.
Surely this was an opportunity to prove what a PM like figure he could be. Instead we get this rubbish- did he want to risk more lives attempting to capture him? He is awful.
Were there not similar debates at the end of the war -- summary execution of Nazis or the Nuremberg trials?
The difference was at that point that we had those Nazis in custody. As the former special forces talking head on Sky News just said, that was simply not possible in this case.
If you want a more apt comparison think Reinhard Heydrich's assassination in Prague.
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
They are all getting a substantial pay increase, 11%. Some may have to do some extra hours , just like most of the public do nowadays. They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
There base salary is being increased by 11% but their "normal" hours are being massively expanded to effectively eliminate overtime payments. Given that Junior Doctors already work at the limit (and beyond) of legal working hours there are no extra hours to take.
It is a pay cut.
Pay cuts have been happening in the last 7 years in the private sector. Contract changes are imposed all the time. Ask any IT person, for instance. What makes doctors think they should be immune from what is happening elsewhere in the economy?
Ah yes: they save lives. But if you want to have the moral halo you can't then behave like every other worker. Or you can - and leave off the "we're a special case". There are lots of special cases out there. There is limited money.
Personally I'd be in favour of co-payments from patients or charges for some things. But if any politician were to suggest that, the very same doctors shriek about the evils of privatisation. Or market forces, as they're known, and on which they are quite keen when it comes to their own salaries.
I have quite a lot of sympathy for doctors. Members of my family are doctors. I have spent enough time with them over the years to have great respect for what they do and for what they have done to help me and mine. I understand that there is a recruitment and retention problem. But the doctors are with their "Hunt is evil" line and their apparent disregard for patients giving the impression of not living in the world the rest of us are and making the worst possible case for themselves. They really are.
Welcome to behavioural economics -- which started when a couple of psychologists pointed out to economists that their equations did not apply to real people. Gambles 5 and 6 are the same to an economist (because the expected return is the same) and better than all the others. TSE is a lawyer not an economist.
Personally I do hope Jihadi John did not die instantly in that drone strike..I hope he suffered the extreme pain and shock that he inflicted on his innocent and bound victims..for as long as they did...and then died..
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
Well I would agree, but when I suggested Russia may soon be at war with IS (after the Sharm bomb) I was decried on here, people telling me war was impossible with IS
Who said war against IS was impossible?
As it happens, I believe it's possible for Russia to win against IS, at least conventionally.
They didn't win against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the country turned into a meat grinder that killed many hundreds of thousands. The US and coalition did not 'win' in Iraq, despite many (hundreds of thousands according to some sources) of deaths and many billions spent.
Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen, who learnt to fight against Russians on Afghanistan. Al Qaeda started fighting the Americans, who then invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighters in Iraq formed the predecessors of ISIL/IS, who are helping destabilise several countries.
And so it will continue unless we find a way of stopping the Shia/Sunni conflicts and the radicalisation of so many youngsters.
Im just going by the reaction when I suggested Russia could be in full scale war w IS soon (so obv I think its is possible)
Enoch thought differently.. when it came to the IRA in Gibraltar at least... there is an interesting Panorama on that subject.. always interesting to revisit contemporary source of a similar incident
But IS is more of a country than the IRA ever were
Good question and the answer is Corbio wearing a big Stetson and waving his revolver, having put his anti atom bomb badge, being parachuted into Syria.
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
Oh for God's sake. Nick. Nice or nasty, They're mad lefties, they're going to be massively unpopular, and all this is obvious. If this doesn't matter to you because you don't think winning elections is particularly important, perhaps you should reflect on the fact that it is only because Tony Blair and Gordon Brown thought otherwise that you were an MP at all.
Welcome, back, Hopi!
It must be very hard to be a sane Labour supporter in current conditions. I don't think there's much you can do other than try to hold on until things improve, but that could be a long time.
Or leave and start a new party of the centre-left.
TBF to the Ruskies, the CIA via Charlie Wilson gave them hundreds of thousands of rifles/ammo/specialist anti-helo weapons. That the likes of Haqqani then turned on the US was just karma.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
Well I would agree, but when I suggested Russia may soon be at war with IS (after the Sharm bomb) I was decried on here, people telling me war was impossible with IS
Who said war against IS was impossible?
As it happens, I believe it's possible for Russia to win against IS, at least conventionally.
They didn't win against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the country turned into a meat grinder that killed many hundreds of thousands. The US and coalition did not 'win' in Iraq, despite many (hundreds of thousands according to some sources) of deaths and many billions spent.
Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen, who learnt to fight against Russians on Afghanistan. Al Qaeda started fighting the Americans, who then invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighters in Iraq formed the predecessors of ISIL/IS, who are helping destabilise several countries.
And so it will continue unless we find a way of stopping the Shia/Sunni conflicts and the radicalisation of so many youngsters.
Judging from newspaper comments so far - most seem to think he deserved being scared shitless and then killed painfully over an extended period. Drone Death was too good for him.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
I suppose to comes down the question of whether we are actually at war with ISIS, in a legal sense.
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
Well I would agree, but when I suggested Russia may soon be at war with IS (after the Sharm bomb) I was decried on here, people telling me war was impossible with IS
Not me. As far as I am concerned, IS is a country, controlling territory, with "colonies" in Libya and Sinai, and expeditionary forces capable of bringing down Russian airliners and attacking British tourists in Tunisia. David Cameron has called for its destruction, although to date we don't seem to be taking appropriate action to effect that.
Why, surely tales on 6 offers the best return on a 50:50 call?
There's a 50/50 chance of my lowest return being £2! That's why
Not sure there is a right answer. Isn't this a test to find out about a person's attitude to risk and reward. Answer 1 gives you a guaranteed £28 in the pocket.
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
5 is marginally better than 6 under most models (diminishing marginal utility of money). The best case for (1) is that you only have YouGov's word for it that it is a fair coin...
What would people bite at in the classic Deal Or No Deal final showdown between 1p & £250k?
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
This is why you can't be an MP. "MINISTER THINKS £28 IS CHICKEN FEED"
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
5 is marginally better than 6 under most models (diminishing marginal utility of money). The best case for (1) is that you only have YouGov's word for it that it is a fair coin...
What would people bite at in the classic Deal Or No Deal final showdown between 1p & £250k?
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
Not bizarre at all. The preferred choice should always be for trial. But if it not practical because of the effective state of war then this is the next best thing.
Judging from newspaper comments so far - most seem to think he deserved being scared shitless and then killed painfully over an extended period. Drone Death was too good for him.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
I suppose to comes down the question of whether we are actually at war with ISIS, in a legal sense.
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
5 is marginally better than 6 under most models (diminishing marginal utility of money). The best case for (1) is that you only have YouGov's word for it that it is a fair coin...
What would people bite at in the classic Deal Or No Deal final showdown between 1p & £250k?
75k
That's about normal, slightly on the higher side. But if they gave you the £75k and then asked you if you wanted to come back tomorrow to gamble it at 5/2 on red or black, would you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect
Judging from newspaper comments so far - most seem to think he deserved being scared shitless and then killed painfully over an extended period. Drone Death was too good for him.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
I suppose to comes down the question of whether we are actually at war with ISIS, in a legal sense.
I'm not against what's happened. I don't see why a state of war doesn't exist between us and ISIS, but I've not seen anything to say that technically this is the case. Maybe I've missed it.
What I find bizarre is the same people who are happy for Enwazi to be taken out in this way would not support the death penalty if we captured him and found him guilty, as we have seen in the case of the Lee Rigby killers
It's different though. This is killing an enemy combatant in time of war.
Well I would agree, but when I suggested Russia may soon be at war with IS (after the Sharm bomb) I was decried on here, people telling me war was impossible with IS
Who said war against IS was impossible?
As it happens, I believe it's possible for Russia to win against IS, at least conventionally.
They didn't win against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the country turned into a meat grinder that killed many hundreds of thousands. The US and coalition did not 'win' in Iraq, despite many (hundreds of thousands according to some sources) of deaths and many billions spent.
Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen, who learnt to fight against Russians on Afghanistan. Al Qaeda started fighting the Americans, who then invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighters in Iraq formed the predecessors of ISIL/IS, who are helping destabilise several countries.
And so it will continue unless we find a way of stopping the Shia/Sunni conflicts and the radicalisation of so many youngsters.
Im just going by the reaction when I suggested Russia could be in full scale war w IS soon (so obv I think its is possible)
(snip)
If they do go to war with IS, it won't be a conventional war. Russia didn't have the ability to win in Afghanistan in the 80s, and they sure as heck don't have the ability or manpower to do it at the moment.
The sad thing is, neither does the west. Our military forces are poorly equipped to deal with this sort of warfare; I think it's next to impossible for a military force to win, especially whilst following the international conventions and rules of war.
Russia did 'win' (for a broad enough definition of win) in Chechnya, although as hundreds are still being killed each year it's clear that long-standing conflict's still warm.
Rather than put tens of thousands of young and poorly-trained conscripts into the field as they did in Afghanistan, expect the Russians to treat it more like Vietnam - a war by proxy (*). Encourage the Syrians and Iranians to use their forces against ISIS, and provide limited but useful support for those forces.
They'll not want to get drawn in too deeply; just as long as their interests are served and end-goals met. If they get 'revenge' for the airliner atrocity, all the better.
TSE - I'd have gone for 6, maximising my potential winning. On the sums given, only 5 or 6 seem acceptable answers, providing average winnings of £36, as opposed to average winnings of £34 for 4, £32 for 3 and £30 for 1 and 2.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
5 is marginally better than 6 under most models (diminishing marginal utility of money). The best case for (1) is that you only have YouGov's word for it that it is a fair coin...
What would people bite at in the classic Deal Or No Deal final showdown between 1p & £250k?
75k
That's about normal, slightly on the higher side. But if they gave you the £75k and then asked you if you wanted to come back tomorrow to gamble it at 5/2 on red or black, would you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect
Judging from newspaper comments so far - most seem to think he deserved being scared shitless and then killed painfully over an extended period. Drone Death was too good for him.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
I suppose to comes down the question of whether we are actually at war with ISIS, in a legal sense.
I'm not against what's happened. I don't see why a state of war doesn't exist between us and ISIS, but I've not seen anything to say that technically this is the case. Maybe I've missed it.
If the UK declares war on IS then we won't be in a position to complain if IS then attacks targets that are part of our war effort. So an IS bomb in a BAe Systems factory would be a legitimate act of war. Not a position I think we would want to get into.
Judging from newspaper comments so far - most seem to think he deserved being scared shitless and then killed painfully over an extended period. Drone Death was too good for him.
Has Corbyn actually said anything that's really controversial here? I'm sure many people would agree a trial, hypothetically, followed by imprisonment for life, would be the better option.
I suppose to comes down the question of whether we are actually at war with ISIS, in a legal sense.
I'm not against what's happened. I don't see why a state of war doesn't exist between us and ISIS, but I've not seen anything to say that technically this is the case. Maybe I've missed it.
Do international laws and conventions even cover the situation with respect to IS? They're not a recognised state, but they're more than an insurgency.
There is no correct answer to that kind of question, because the most logical answer depends on your circumstances. Suppose you absolutely, desperately, need to find £28, because if you don't something disagreeable will happen to you. In that case option 1 is the most rational, even though the expected value of it is just £28 rather than the £36 of options 5 or 6.
Once upon a time, there was a safe welfare state called Sweden, where people rarely locked their doors.
Now, this country is a night-watchman state -- each man is on his own. When the Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, encourages breaking the law, it means opening the gates to anarchy. Mr. and Mrs. Swede have every reason to be worried, with the influx of 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants expected this year -- equivalent to 2% of Sweden's current population. The number is as if 6.4 million penniless migrants who did not speak English arrived in U.S. in one year, or 1.3 million in Britain.
Go private. Though treatmment is excellent (and I would say better) on the NHS diagnosis is much quicker and more personal if you go private. Money very well spent.
240 hours of community service or 8 years. The mind boggles as to how the sentences can be so different for such similiar crimes (Yes I know one case is in Scotland, the other in England !). Perhaps around 6 months (Around 3 weeks inside iirc) would be appropriate for them both...
Nice to see you treat rape so lightly.
If you get someone stupid enough to agree to always wear a mask and never see who they are with and they then agree to sexual encounters with someone they cannot see , it appears the wrong person was convicted.
What utter, sheer sick rubbish.
We need to check your programming, Eliza. Your boolean tables for right and wrong appear to have become corrupted.
No they are not but this dispute seems to be about money, just like many at the old British Leyland. The doctors want more of it and are threatening to strike unless they get it. The employers have offered an 11% payrise and the doctors have turned it down and now, I read in the Telegraph, are threatening an all out strike. Seems very similar to BL days to me. Even the language being used is similar, workers forced into a corner with no alternative but to withdraw their labour etc. etc.
Of course the difference is that BL workers never proposed leaving people in pain and allowing them to do die prematurely. So in that sense junior doctors are certainly not like 1970s BL workers. The idea that a doctor will, in furtherance of his/her financial gain, leave patients untreated and to die is to me astonishing and anyone who indulges in such rampant selfishness will deserve to become a social outcast.
I am happy to argue about it later.
1) the deal is a substantial paycut, not a payrise 2) the cut is biggest for those working weekends already 3) these doctors are trainees and there is no protection for training 4) the contract removes the obligation for Trusts to monitor working hours to ensure they comply with the law 5) it discriminates against women and people taking career breaks for research etc
I have not yet met a Doctor at any level that supports the contract. Mr Hunt refuses to negotiate without preconditions or the threat of unilateral imposition.
Are expectations of Doctors at an unrealistic level after the shambolic and generous deal GPs got from Labour?
The concept of an NHS not working fully for 7 days a week is laughable and indefensible.
If you were offered a new contract that had a substantial pay cut would you be happy or sad about it?
They are all getting a substantial pay increase, 11%. Some may have to do some extra hours , just like most of the public do nowadays. They are just greedy. Lots of people have to work extra hours unpaid and weekends etc without uplifts, and they have a fraction of the money that doctors earn.
Holyrood is sticking to the old deal. Some sensible people running recruitment there could fill all their vacancies quickly at the expense of England.
The SNP are a bit better at the negotiation lark than the Tories I will admit.
Comments
Furthermore your statement about not insisting on retrospective vetting is, frankly, ludicrous. What on earth do you think vetting is? By its very nature it's retrospective.
That would be like a bank saying that it's ok to hire someone who has been convicted of fraud because they don't want to insist on "retrospective vetting".
No?
I wonder just how low Labour are going to go in a genuine election with this baggage/messenger. The by election results last night were appalling and it's hard to recall a good result outside of leftie London in recent weeks.
The Lib Dems should be able to haul themselves back into the game.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34809758
Martydom? In some peple’s view anyway.
Too late now, but this parliament should have been used for solid groundwork and building a credible future outside as the EU deteriorated.
Theresa May could then have led a referendum to leave in the early 2020s.
1. do the phone polls call land lines, cell phones or both?
2. how universal is online access in the UK?
I am sure that the polling companies do seek to correct for biases arising from the answers to the questions above, but if they are consistently divergent, then it would suggest that perhaps they are not doing so adequately.
It must be very hard to be a sane Labour supporter in current conditions. I don't think there's much you can do other than try to hold on until things improve, but that could be a long time.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/665141539774078976
2) 91% of UK households have/use fixed lined broadband
As it happens, I believe it's possible for Russia to win against IS, at least conventionally.
They didn't win against the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the country turned into a meat grinder that killed many hundreds of thousands. The US and coalition did not 'win' in Iraq, despite many (hundreds of thousands according to some sources) of deaths and many billions spent.
Al Qaeda grew out of the Mujahideen, who learnt to fight against Russians on Afghanistan. Al Qaeda started fighting the Americans, who then invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Fighters in Iraq formed the predecessors of ISIL/IS, who are helping destabilise several countries.
And so it will continue unless we find a way of stopping the Shia/Sunni conflicts and the radicalisation of so many youngsters.
Instead we have a referendum which is totally meaningless, which was designed merely to paper over the cracks in the Tory Party.
Shoaib Malik to Root, 1 run, more singles action than on Tinder at the moment.
These 2 do needed to get on with it though or the excellent start will fade to nothing. This seems to be a wicket with nothing for the bowlers so that is what the English bowlers will get. Only scoreboard pressure is likely to produce wickets.
The public however will just apply some common sense.
If you want a more apt comparison think Reinhard Heydrich's assassination in Prague.
My answer might have been very different if there had been a lot more noughts on the end of the figures quoted. Then the question of minimum acceptable win becomes more important.
Ah yes: they save lives. But if you want to have the moral halo you can't then behave like every other worker. Or you can - and leave off the "we're a special case". There are lots of special cases out there. There is limited money.
Personally I'd be in favour of co-payments from patients or charges for some things. But if any politician were to suggest that, the very same doctors shriek about the evils of privatisation. Or market forces, as they're known, and on which they are quite keen when it comes to their own salaries.
I have quite a lot of sympathy for doctors. Members of my family are doctors. I have spent enough time with them over the years to have great respect for what they do and for what they have done to help me and mine. I understand that there is a recruitment and retention problem. But the doctors are with their "Hunt is evil" line and their apparent disregard for patients giving the impression of not living in the world the rest of us are and making the worst possible case for themselves. They really are.
Nazi reprisals meant innocents lost their lives over that assassination. The same could happen here I guess.
Enoch thought differently.. when it came to the IRA in Gibraltar at least... there is an interesting Panorama on that subject.. always interesting to revisit contemporary source of a similar incident
But IS is more of a country than the IRA ever were
Good question and the answer is Corbio wearing a big Stetson and waving his revolver, having put his anti atom bomb badge, being parachuted into Syria.
I saw an amazing first person intv [I Survived] with Jere Van Dyk from CBS who went from being a *friend* to Haqqani to being his hostage http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7705934-captive
The cash out button being a prime example of people being fooled into taking the second approach
What would people bite at in the classic Deal Or No Deal final showdown between 1p & £250k? This is why you can't be an MP. "MINISTER THINKS £28 IS CHICKEN FEED"
Frankly, I'm not so picky - he was a monster and our responsibility to take out. That the US helped suits me just fine.
The sad thing is, neither does the west. Our military forces are poorly equipped to deal with this sort of warfare; I think it's next to impossible for a military force to win, especially whilst following the international conventions and rules of war.
Russia did 'win' (for a broad enough definition of win) in Chechnya, although as hundreds are still being killed each year it's clear that long-standing conflict's still warm.
Rather than put tens of thousands of young and poorly-trained conscripts into the field as they did in Afghanistan, expect the Russians to treat it more like Vietnam - a war by proxy (*). Encourage the Syrians and Iranians to use their forces against ISIS, and provide limited but useful support for those forces.
They'll not want to get drawn in too deeply; just as long as their interests are served and end-goals met. If they get 'revenge' for the airliner atrocity, all the better.
(*) Aside from a few special forces.
New Thread New Thread
Now, this country is a night-watchman state -- each man is on his own. When the Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, encourages breaking the law, it means opening the gates to anarchy. Mr. and Mrs. Swede have every reason to be worried, with the influx of 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants expected this year -- equivalent to 2% of Sweden's current population. The number is as if 6.4 million penniless migrants who did not speak English arrived in U.S. in one year, or 1.3 million in Britain.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6865/sweden-anarchy
We are seeing civilization as we in Europe know it start to disintegrate, "before our very eyes" as that old comic Arthur Askey was prone to say.