Getting a bit over excited there....England still to find an opening batsman, still too many batting collapses, short on seamers (Broad and Anderson not got long left now), nor any variation, and our front line spinner is a converted batsman who bowls way too many bad balls and will never be up there with the likes of Swann....
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholarship to boot.
Is he trying to follow in the footsteps of that hilarious Proudman woman?
Early Irish farmers would have looked like people from the Middle East, geneticists claim
Piercing blue eyes and pale skin are one of the most distinguishing features of the Irish.
But the Celtic complexion did not arrive in Ireland until the Bronze Age, around 4,000 years ago, scientists have discovered, when a rare genetic mutation spread quickly through the population.
Until then, the Irish would have looked similar to southern Europeans, or people from the Middle East, with dark eyes, hair and complexion.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholarship to boot.
Is he trying to follow in the footsteps of that hilarious Proudman woman?
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholarship to boot.
Is he trying to follow in the footsteps of that hilarious Proudman woman?
She's the "everything is sexist" Barrister right?
Bang on. Had a CiF column or two, and a car crash appearance on newsnight. . I thought she was awful. My other half was much less polite.....
Strangely in all the debates on the NHS, the fact that Beveridge himself contemplated an National Health Insurance scheme (option 2 in his famous report) is often forgotten. The broad idea was of a government run insurance scheme (compulsory) with *some* publicly owned hospitals, but largely leaving the existing hospital system alone...
Or that this second option was in the 1945 Conservative manifesto.
The system that is basically run in many European countries which have considerably better clinical outcomes than the UK.
One way to really annoy the left is to point out that a) The conservative party proposed a version of the NHS in their 1945 manifesto and b) agreement for an NHS was by consensus during the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Willink
They proposed a local authority based health service though, which ironically Blair turned much of the NHS into....
'Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.'
Is there anything this moron encounters that isn't racist ?
Can't understand why he wants to stay an longer in an environment he clearly hates.
Is there anywhere we can donate to get him a return ticket home ?
'Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.'
Is there anything this moron encounters that isn't racist ?
Can't understand why he wants to stay an longer in an environment he clearly hates.
Is there anywhere we can donate to get him a return ticket home ?
You do wonder don't you. Normally if I am offended by something, ohhh say Frankie Boyle, what I don't do is buy a front row ticket to every one of his gigs.
I was so offended last time, I thought I better go again and get right up close this time, just to make sure I am properly offended and I don't miss any of the really offensive bits...
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
You seem to be making assumptions about age, ethnicity, wealth and political persuasions in those who think this guy is a total and utter hypocritical numpty.
----
As an aside, I note that the BBC while kicking up a fuss about Rhodes must fall, I bet won't be showing us any footage from this...
Rhodes
An unprecedented flop. The £10m BBC1 production about the story of Cecil Rhodes and the founding of Rhodesia boasted superb scenery and Martin Shaw as the star. The 1996 serial slumped to 4.8m viewers, from 7.6m, after just one episode.
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
Come on, it's wonderful to witness the birth of yet another PB hobbyhorse. This one will run and run.
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
Well that's just racist and ageist.
What about us young, of Pakistani heritage PB Tories with money to burn who like to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense?
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
You seem to be making assumptions about age, ethnicity, wealth and political persuasions in those who think this guy is a total and utter hypocritical numpty.
----
As an aside, I note that the BBC while kicking up a fuss about Rhodes must fall, I bet won't be showing us any footage from this...
Rhodes
An unprecedented flop. The £10m BBC1 production about the story of Cecil Rhodes and the founding of Rhodesia boasted superb scenery and Martin Shaw as the star. The 1996 serial slumped to 4.8m viewers, from 7.6m, after just one episode.
I remember watching that - I remember liking the theme tune.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
A couple of days ago OGH asked Tim_B who he would vote for if the choice was Trump or Hillary. I'd be interested to hear his answer to that question...
The research, by Leeds University, found that the debates increased viewers’ interest in politics by 30 per cent; almost half of those who tuned in said they were “not very interested” beforehand.
As many as 70 per cent of first-debate viewers said that they now knew “more about what the party leaders were like” while three-fifths said that they now knew “more about some of the policies that were being put forward”.
Hmmmm...sounds like some right s##t research. 50% of people tuned into something they weren't interested in, really? Really? I mean really? Just flicking through and just couldn't resist the sexiness of Cameron, Ed and Nick?
They really should do a QT special every year with the leaders, and another with the chancellor / their shadows.
I agree, the final QT/Debate helped cement Labour's defeat.
Q: Did you overspend?
A: No
You can just imagine how well Jezza would do, if he can't even answer the "what to do about suicide bombers on the streets" without shooting himself in the foot (more than he would do to the suicide bombers).
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
You seem to be making assumptions about age, ethnicity, wealth and political persuasions in those who think this guy is a total and utter hypocritical numpty.
.
Quite so, I'm 29 so I'm only mentally an old white person (though despite accusations to the contrary on rare occasions, I don't meet the Tory criteria either)
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.
The 24-year-old also said that the university’s admissions and staff recruitment systems “perpetrate exclusion” and suggested that even Oxford’s architecture is laid out in a “racist and violent” way.
What did I say yesterday, he would be off again about how racist, imperalist, etc etc etc everything is...It doesn't matter what Oxford do, to this guy something will always be highly offensive to him.
These comments should strengthen Oxford resolve not to give in. If they do, it is obvious what will come next...just campaign after campaign about how ever tradition at Oxford is some how deeply offensive and must be banned.
Unfortunately, I fear they will do.
He probably believes that Oxford is too Imperialist, because they operate on a different time zone than South Africa....
The question really arises is how did his moron get into Oxford and on a very famous scholar to boot.
I'm just glad he's not a student at Imperial College
My alma mater
Clearly Imperial College have better standards than Oxford, not only did they let Ntokozo Qwabe in, they also let Mark Reckless in.
#MelchettWasRightOxfordIsADump
I've worked at Cambridge Uni too
Good man.
Never been to Hull, though
I've been to Hull and back.....
I've been on First Hull Trains on the way home from Grantham to London (after visiting Nottingham)
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
Yes, but I was just looking at strongly agree/strongly disagree. On the basis that the two middle options' numbers are probably inflated by a significant number of DKs randomly choosing one of them.
Edit: also people who've made up their mind enough to say "strongly" at thus stage of the Parliament will be difficult to move.
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
The net strongly is 13-15 for Cameron (-2) and 7-38 for Corbyn (-31)
You are looking at net agree v disagree (which is more logical). That gives +8 for Cameron, -40 (after allowing for rounding that gets to 101) for Corbyn.
Mr. L, pithy, yet would you maximise flood defences everywhere? It'd cost a fortune, and the savings (from preventing flooding in certain areas) would be eclipsed by the cost of protecting everywhere.
It's all very well people citing a £1.3bn mooted clean-up bill, but like the occasional person who claims animal research is acceptable but only when it leads to a breakthrough, spending more on flood defences because that costs less than the clean-up is contingent on being able to prophesy where the flooding will occur.
As has been pointed out on here so many times over the last few days. The problem is not flood defences per se. It is the actions of governance at both national and EU level over the past few decades which have exacerbated flooding to the extent that defence is no longer practical.
It may have been pointed out on here many times, but I'm not sure I agree that they have 'exacerbated' flooding, at least to any meaningful degree.
Policies which force farmers to cut down trees if they want grants and which prevent the dredging of rivers. Too damn right they have exacerbated it. Read the articles that have been linked to. They are written by people who actually know something about the flooding and its causes.
The proximate cause of the floods is higher than normal rainfall. The ultimate cause is the combination of government and EU policies over the last 30 years.
Do you really think these floods - on this scale - are anything to do with a bit of dredging? Rivers would need massively and artificially deepened channels, they would need to be changed on a major scale into artificial channels - not least as they pass through built up areas. What would happen downstream then is anybody's guess but my guess it it would need major works to ensure that water flushed out to sea without hindrance as well. Then it would not rain again for decades.
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
The net strongly is 13-15 for Cameron (-2) and 7-38 for Corbyn (-31)
You are looking at net agree v disagree (which is more logical). That gives +8 for Cameron, -40 (after allowing for rounding that gets to 101) for Corbyn.
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...? Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
I actually think it's an important interpretation.
If Corbyn was down essentially because a lot of people were on the "agree/disagree" cusp, and the absence of a Don't Know option made them settle, just, on the "disagree" side (because they're cautious or think that Corbyn hasn't proved himself on this issue yet) then there's an argument that Corbyn could narrow this gap fairly easily. For example, a promise of more public spending, better conditions for those serving their country, and a campaign on some issue or another (e.g. "fighting for wounded veterans to have the right to proper medical care instead of evil Tory cuts") might do the trick.
For so many people to strongly feel that Corbyn can't be trusted with security rather blows that argument out of the water. And top marks to the Tory spin team who started pushing the issue from day one. Brand the chap before he can brand himself. His team of spinners look pretty woeful so I am struggling to see how he can "unbrand" himself from what the Tories have heaped on him.
Dan Hodges suggests the Shadow Cabinet resign en masse before jezza sacks them...
Its the obvious thing to do - again as I suggested some days ago. They need to form a shadow shadow cabinet, a shadow cabinet in exile. This can then manage the shadow Labour Parliamentary Party which in turn can represent the shadow Labour Party.
I am not sure they need to fly to Canada to ensure their safety but if they wait much longer it will take the SAS to rescue them.
Do you really think these floods - on this scale - are anything to do with a bit of dredging? Rivers would need massively and artificially deepened channels, they would need to be changed on a major scale into artificial channels - not least as they pass through built up areas. What would happen downstream then is anybody's guess but my guess it it would need major works to ensure that water flushed out to sea without hindrance as well. Then it would not rain again for decades.
Let me tell you a secret.
The world is really complex, and people peddling simple solutions are - in general - either stupid or liars.
Dredging is no panacea. If you dredge one part of a river, but not another, then you can cause significant issues. And this is one of the reasons why rivers are one of the few areas where there have been supra-national bodies with meaningful powers that long pre-date the UN or the EU. (I would point people to the Commissions of the Danube, among others.)
In mainland Europe, all the EU did was consolidate the various mechanism for the management of river basins. (These ensured that one man's dredging didn't cause another man's flooding.)
But it is by no means clear why we are a part of this scheme. British rivers do not flow - as the Danube or the Rhine do - across many, many countries. While our inclusion is more likely accidental than Machiavellian, we have found ourselves involved in a system that brings us no benefit, and much cost.
If flood management and dredging was solely a national affair - as far as the UK was concerned - we would at least have "one throat to choke". It should be returned to our purview.
"Saudi Arabia budget deficit swells on oil price fall
Saudi Arabia's budget deficit soared to $98bn (£65.7bn) this year as the world's biggest oil exporter counted the cost of falling crude prices. In the first budget under King Salman, the kingdom said revenues reached 608bn riyals (£108.7bn; $162bn), down 15% on official expectations."
I think PB should form a union of old white Tories with money to burn on political bets, to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense
They do a good enough job on their own demonstrating that their claims of victimhood are nonsense, without any help from us.
"Saudi Arabia budget deficit swells on oil price fall
Saudi Arabia's budget deficit soared to $98bn (£65.7bn) this year as the world's biggest oil exporter counted the cost of falling crude prices. In the first budget under King Salman, the kingdom said revenues reached 608bn riyals (£108.7bn; $162bn), down 15% on official expectations."
When the history books are written, George Mitchell - who pioneered the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (and thereby sparked a massive increase in US oil production) - will be regarded as the true hero in the war against islamic extremism.
Do you really think these floods - on this scale - are anything to do with a bit of dredging? Rivers would need massively and artificially deepened channels, they would need to be changed on a major scale into artificial channels - not least as they pass through built up areas. What would happen downstream then is anybody's guess but my guess it it would need major works to ensure that water flushed out to sea without hindrance as well. Then it would not rain again for decades.
Let me tell you a secret.
The world is really complex, and people peddling simple solutions are - in general - either stupid or liars.
Dredging is no panacea. If you dredge one part of a river, but not another, then you can cause significant issues. And this is one of the reasons why rivers are one of the few areas where there have been supra-national bodies with meaningful powers that long pre-date the UN or the EU. (I would point people to the Commissions of the Danube, among others.)
In mainland Europe, all the EU did was consolidate the various mechanism for the management of river basins. (These ensured that one man's dredging didn't cause another man's flooding.)
But it is by no means clear why we are a part of this scheme. British rivers do not flow - as the Danube or the Rhine do - across many, many countries. While our inclusion is more likely accidental than Machiavellian, we have found ourselves involved in a system that brings us no benefit, and much cost.
If flood management and dredging was solely a national affair - as far as the UK was concerned - we would at least have "one throat to choke". It should be returned to our purview.
Hence the issue of the scale of dredging is not related to these floods which follow large sudden rainfalls. Rivers in the UK cross county boundaries just as they cross country boundaries in mainland Europe. As A matter Of Interest - How do Ireland manage their rivers?
A couple of days ago OGH asked Tim_B who he would vote for if the choice was Trump or Hillary. I'd be interested to hear his answer to that question...
Tim_B has already intimated that if Trump gets the GOP nomination then he will vote for him in preference to Hillary. However, it's all up in the air if the Republicans refuse Trump the nomination even when he's ahead of the field, and Donald goes ahead on his own.
They really should do a QT special every year with the leaders, and another with the chancellor / their shadows.
I agree, the final QT/Debate helped cement Labour's defeat.
Q: Did you overspend?
A: No
You can just imagine how well Jezza would do, if he can't even answer the "what to do about suicide bombers on the streets" without shooting himself in the foot (more than he would do to the suicide bombers).
Personally I think Jezza would need to hire a marksman to shoot himself in the foot because he'd miss if he tried himself !
Hopefully not too many liberties will be taken, however I thought the BBC's 3 part adaptation of 'And Then There Were None' which finished tonight was excellent
A couple of days ago OGH asked Tim_B who he would vote for if the choice was Trump or Hillary. I'd be interested to hear his answer to that question...
Tim_B has already intimated that if Trump gets the GOP nomination then he will vote for him in preference to Hillary. However, it's all up in the air if the Republicans refuse Trump the nomination even when he's ahead of the field, and Donald goes ahead on his own.
The Times yesterday reported two GOP senators, off the record, have said they will vote for Hillary rather than let Trump enter the White House. If he gets the nomination I would imagine they will just be the start, the Bush family will also almost certainly vote for her once in the privacy of the booth
I could add the old legislation that had drainage channels cut into peat moorland in order to improve drainage. This had an unfortunate side-effect of massively eroding the delicate moorland. That policy has now been reversed and landowners now receive payments to block such channels and promote 'natural' growth on the uplands.
But they're essentially meaningless against the amount of water that's fallen. It's a help, but a small help. Just look at the pictures from one slipway in the Peak District that have just been broadcast. This is especially true when flood defences in one area can easily make the situation worse in others, both upstream and downstream.
My view on this is similar to my view on climate change: mitigation is better than trying to prevent any flood anywhere, especially in a country like the UK. Make sure floods don't endanger life, and make it so people can move back into their homes as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
As an aside, I wonder how unusual this sort of event really is.
They are not meaningless that is the whole point. The rain that fell on Cumbria and caused all the flooding was less than an inch more than the previous record - about 8% up on the record which goes back about 100 years. Such rainfall has happened in the past and will happen again. The idea that it is something new and unusual and that we are therefore unable to do anything about it is complete rubbish.
I agree with you about mitigation but in this case there are genuine policies that have a proven track record and that we have stopped following because of EU directives.
I've been reading a moderately interesting report on dredging that I do not know the provenance of ( http://blueprintforwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/bfw-publications/Floods and Dredging - A Reality Check [2014 02].pdf ) which suggest that although more dredging was done in the past it was done badly ( dredged material was dumped on river bank where it would be swept away easily so re-silting the river or dumped on the flood plain reducing the capacity of the flood plain) and that the reason why dredged material is sometimes considered toxic and has to be disposed of is not "crazy EU rules" but because it can accumulate a decade's worth of toxins that have flowed down the river.
The TLDR version of the report is that dredging is not a silver bullet and must be combined with multiple other approaches and many, many times would not stop flooding taking place simply speed up draining of flooded areas post-fact.
Mr. L, pithy, yet would you maximise flood defences everywhere? It'd cost a fortune, and the savings (from preventing flooding in certain areas) would be eclipsed by the cost of protecting everywhere.
It's all very well people citing a £1.3bn mooted clean-up bill, but like the occasional person who claims animal research is acceptable but only when it leads to a breakthrough, spending more on flood defences because that costs less than the clean-up is contingent on being able to prophesy where the flooding will occur.
As has been pointed out on here so many times over the last few days. The problem is not flood defences per se. It is the actions of governance at both national and EU level over the past few decades which have exacerbated flooding to the extent that defence is no longer practical.
It may have been pointed out on here many times, but I'm not sure I agree that they have 'exacerbated' flooding, at least to any meaningful degree.
Policies which force farmers to cut down trees if they want grants and which prevent the dredging of rivers. Too damn right they have exacerbated it. Read the articles that have been linked to. They are written by people who actually know something about the flooding and its causes.
The proximate cause of the floods is higher than normal rainfall. The ultimate cause is the combination of government and EU policies over the last 30 years.
I could add the old legislation that had drainage channels cut into peat moorland in order to improve drainage. This had an unfortunate side-effect of massively eroding the delicate moorland. That policy has now been reversed and landowners now receive payments to block such channels and promote 'natural' growth on the uplands.
But they're essentially meaningless against the amount of water that's fallen. It's a help, but a small help. Just look at the pictures from one slipway in the Peak District that have just been broadcast. This is especially true when flood defences in one area can easily make the situation worse in others, both upstream and downstream.
My view on this is similar to my view on climate change: mitigation is better than trying to prevent any flood anywhere, especially in a country like the UK. Make sure floods don't endanger life, and make it so people can move back into their homes as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
As an aside, I wonder how unusual this sort of event really is.
They are not meaningless that is the whole point. The rain that fell on Cumbria and caused all the flooding was less than an inch more than the previous record - about 8% up on the record which goes back about 100 years. Such rainfall has happened in the past and will happen again. The idea that it is something new and unusual and that we are therefore unable to do anything about it is complete rubbish.
I agree with you about mitigation but in this case there are genuine policies that have a proven track record and that we have stopped following because of EU directives.
Hopefully not too many liberties will be taken, however I thought the BBC's 3 part adaptation of 'And Then There Were None' which finished tonight was excellent
When people talk about the brilliance of War and Peace they do, for some reason, forget to mention the 25% of the book or so that is devoted to really bad philosophy on the nature of free will that clutters up and otherwise marvellous read.
Hopefully not too many liberties will be taken, however I thought the BBC's 3 part adaptation of 'And Then There Were None' which finished tonight was excellent
When people talk about the brilliance of War and Peace they do, for some reason, forget to mention the 25% of the book or so that is devoted to really bad philosophy on the nature of free will that clutters up and otherwise marvellous read.
Yes it does ramble on in parts so if the adaptation is crisper that would be an improvement
Hopefully not too many liberties will be taken, however I thought the BBC's 3 part adaptation of 'And Then There Were None' which finished tonight was excellent
When people talk about the brilliance of War and Peace they do, for some reason, forget to mention the 25% of the book or so that is devoted to really bad philosophy on the nature of free will that clutters up and otherwise marvellous read.
Lex Luthor: "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."
I need to thank Mr Sparrow for writing such a good article. Panel polling is popular because it's cheap and quick, but it's not a proper random representative sample and is prone to problems. These problems have been elided by weighting but not solved, and if they don't find a way to cope with differential non-response - and they might not be able to - then panel polling may continue to have unacceptably high errors, with notable betting implications.
I now return you to your sincerely-held discussion about whether the EU causes flooding. As opposed to, say, rain.
I could add the old legislation that had drainage channels cut into peat moorland in order to improve drainage. This had an unfortunate side-effect of massively eroding the delicate moorland. That policy has now been reversed and landowners now receive payments to block such channels and promote 'natural' growth on the uplands.
But they're essentially meaningless against the amount of water that's fallen. It's a help, but a small help. Just look at the pictures from one slipway in the Peak District that have just been broadcast. This is especially true when flood defences in one area can easily make the situation worse in others, both upstream and downstream.
My view on this is similar to my view on climate change: mitigation is better than trying to prevent any flood anywhere, especially in a country like the UK. Make sure floods don't endanger life, and make it so people can move back into their homes as quickly and as cheaply as possible.
As an aside, I wonder how unusual this sort of event really is.
They are not meaningless that is the whole point. The rain that fell on Cumbria and caused all the flooding was less than an inch more than the previous record - about 8% up on the record which goes back about 100 years. Such rainfall has happened in the past and will happen again. The idea that it is something new and unusual and that we are therefore unable to do anything about it is complete rubbish.
I agree with you about mitigation but in this case there are genuine policies that have a proven track record and that we have stopped following because of EU directives.
Were there floods when the last record was set?
In some areas yes, in others no. Keswick for example has flooded for hundreds of years. An old friend of my father's lived there in the seventies and I remember visiting him. His downstairs was stone and flags. All furniture was removable including the kitchen and he flooded every three or four years. As a 13 or 14 year old I helped him carry stuff upstairs before one expected flood which never quite reached him.
He died in the 80s and I suspect his house, along with all those of his neighbours, was gentrified as so many were at that time. Fitted kitchens and carpets. The sort of stuff everyone seems to expect as basic standards these days. Not of course conducive to a property that floods on a regular basis.
Mr. L, pithy, yet would you maximise flood defences everywhere? It'd cost a fortune, and the savings (from preventing flooding in certain areas) would be eclipsed by the cost of protecting everywhere.
It's all very well people citing a £1.3bn mooted clean-up bill, but like the occasional person who claims animal research is acceptable but only when it leads to a breakthrough, spending more on flood defences because that costs less than the clean-up is contingent on being able to prophesy where the flooding will occur.
As has been pointed out on here so many times over the last few days. The problem is not flood defences per se. It is the actions of governance at both national and EU level over the past few decades which have exacerbated flooding to the extent that defence is no longer practical.
It may have been pointed out on here many times, but I'm not sure I agree that they have 'exacerbated' flooding, at least to any meaningful degree.
Policies which force farmers to cut down trees if they want grants and which prevent the dredging of rivers. Too damn right they have exacerbated it. Read the articles that have been linked to. They are written by people who actually know something about the flooding and its causes.
The proximate cause of the floods is higher than normal rainfall. The ultimate cause is the combination of government and EU policies over the last 30 years.
Do you really think these floods - on this scale - are anything to do with a bit of dredging? Rivers would need massively and artificially deepened channels, they would need to be changed on a major scale into artificial channels - not least as they pass through built up areas. What would happen downstream then is anybody's guess but my guess it it would need major works to ensure that water flushed out to sea without hindrance as well. Then it would not rain again for decades.
The rivers were always maintained in the past. It is only since 2000 that that has become impractical because of the EU regulations. I know you don't like to accept anything that conflicts with your very blinkered world view but if you actually knew anything about the history of river maintenance in England you would not make such stupid statements.
Comments
Luckily, South Africa are even crapper than us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrK_HVGOnUo
Corbyn's Labour is becoming the women-hating party, argues @RSylvesterTimes https://t.co/ItkoEUYTLh https://t.co/GKF0EntA1L
. I thought she was awful. My other half was much less polite.....
BBC News - France opens archives of WW2 pro-Nazi Vichy regime https://t.co/AzHHmOOrLb
'Ntokozo Qwabe claims university is eductaing a generation of futire world leaders with a ‘skewed’ and ‘Eurocentric’ mindset and urges it to ‘atone’ for colonial legacy
The student leading a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford college has turned his fire on the university itself, accusing it of spreading “injustice” around the world by educating future leaders with a “skewed” and “Eurocentric” mindset.
Ntokozo Qwabe, a Rhodes scholar from South Africa, claimed that students at Oxford endure “systemic racism, patriarchy and other oppressions” on a daily basis.'
Is there anything this moron encounters that isn't racist ?
Can't understand why he wants to stay an longer in an environment he clearly hates.
Is there anywhere we can donate to get him a return ticket home ?
I was so offended last time, I thought I better go again and get right up close this time, just to make sure I am properly offended and I don't miss any of the really offensive bits...
--------------
Monday 28 December – Michael Sheen
Tuesday 29 December – Sir Bradley Wiggins
Wednesday 30 December – Miriam González Durántez
Thursday 31 December – David Adjaye
Friday 1 January – Baroness Campbell
Saturday 2 January – Lord Browne
Nice political balance there....
----
As an aside, I note that the BBC while kicking up a fuss about Rhodes must fall, I bet won't be showing us any footage from this...
Rhodes
An unprecedented flop. The £10m BBC1 production about the story of Cecil Rhodes and the founding of Rhodesia boasted superb scenery and Martin Shaw as the star. The 1996 serial slumped to 4.8m viewers, from 7.6m, after just one episode.
Dec 28th is Charlie Sheen
Jan 1 is Sol Campbell
What about us young, of Pakistani heritage PB Tories with money to burn who like to point out to young people and ethnic minorities that their claims of victimhood are nonsense?
#MelchettWasRightOxfordIsADump
I'm sorry. I hope you're feeling better soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wVadAzGg48
He's 33 !!
http://brightside.me/article/17-favorite-movies-before-and-after-visual-effects-64705/
"The 24-year-old, who was only able to attend Oxford after winning a Rhodes scholarship from a fund set up by the late British colonialist,"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oxford-student-ntokozo-qwabe-demands-tricolour-ban-claiming-france-has-committed-acts-terror-1535047
AWNWT15-16PL
http://www.cherwell.org/profile/brian-kwoba
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/681589615787175936
Jeremy Corbyn challenges David Cameron to annual TV debate
'No political leader should shrink from the chance to engage more fully with the public'
http://ind.pn/1NSXphD
Q: Did you overspend?
A: No
As many as 70 per cent of first-debate viewers said that they now knew “more about what the party leaders were like” while three-fifths said that they now knew “more about some of the policies that were being put forward”.
Hmmmm...sounds like some right s##t research. 50% of people tuned into something they weren't interested in, really? Really? I mean really? Just flicking through and just couldn't resist the sexiness of Cameron, Ed and Nick?
Question was "How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements. Should the UK...?
Trust [David Cameron/Jeremy Corbyn] to safeguard Britain's national security"
Options were strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree - no DK.
Cameron 13/41/31/15 (net strongly: -2)
Corbyn 7/23/33/38 (net strongly: -31)
(Edited to remove question which turns out to be a general Firefox issue, sorry)
Edit: also people who've made up their mind enough to say "strongly" at thus stage of the Parliament will be difficult to move.
You are looking at net agree v disagree (which is more logical). That gives +8 for Cameron, -40 (after allowing for rounding that gets to 101) for Corbyn.
Slam dunk either measure though.
What would happen downstream then is anybody's guess but my guess it it would need major works to ensure that water flushed out to sea without hindrance as well.
Then it would not rain again for decades.
If Corbyn was down essentially because a lot of people were on the "agree/disagree" cusp, and the absence of a Don't Know option made them settle, just, on the "disagree" side (because they're cautious or think that Corbyn hasn't proved himself on this issue yet) then there's an argument that Corbyn could narrow this gap fairly easily. For example, a promise of more public spending, better conditions for those serving their country, and a campaign on some issue or another (e.g. "fighting for wounded veterans to have the right to proper medical care instead of evil Tory cuts") might do the trick.
For so many people to strongly feel that Corbyn can't be trusted with security rather blows that argument out of the water. And top marks to the Tory spin team who started pushing the issue from day one. Brand the chap before he can brand himself. His team of spinners look pretty woeful so I am struggling to see how he can "unbrand" himself from what the Tories have heaped on him.
I am not sure they need to fly to Canada to ensure their safety but if they wait much longer it will take the SAS to rescue them.
The world is really complex, and people peddling simple solutions are - in general - either stupid or liars.
Dredging is no panacea. If you dredge one part of a river, but not another, then you can cause significant issues. And this is one of the reasons why rivers are one of the few areas where there have been supra-national bodies with meaningful powers that long pre-date the UN or the EU. (I would point people to the Commissions of the Danube, among others.)
In mainland Europe, all the EU did was consolidate the various mechanism for the management of river basins. (These ensured that one man's dredging didn't cause another man's flooding.)
But it is by no means clear why we are a part of this scheme. British rivers do not flow - as the Danube or the Rhine do - across many, many countries. While our inclusion is more likely accidental than Machiavellian, we have found ourselves involved in a system that brings us no benefit, and much cost.
If flood management and dredging was solely a national affair - as far as the UK was concerned - we would at least have "one throat to choke". It should be returned to our purview.
Saudi Arabia's budget deficit soared to $98bn (£65.7bn) this year as the world's biggest oil exporter counted the cost of falling crude prices.
In the first budget under King Salman, the kingdom said revenues reached 608bn riyals (£108.7bn; $162bn), down 15% on official expectations."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35188807
I'll get my coat
As A matter Of Interest - How do Ireland manage their rivers?
But incest is something you should keep in the family
I agree with you about mitigation but in this case there are genuine policies that have a proven track record and that we have stopped following because of EU directives.
The TLDR version of the report is that dredging is not a silver bullet and must be combined with multiple other approaches and many, many times would not stop flooding taking place simply speed up draining of flooded areas post-fact.
I think the only party he hasn't been a member of is The Ulster Unionists
I now return you to your sincerely-held discussion about whether the EU causes flooding. As opposed to, say, rain.
He died in the 80s and I suspect his house, along with all those of his neighbours, was gentrified as so many were at that time. Fitted kitchens and carpets. The sort of stuff everyone seems to expect as basic standards these days. Not of course conducive to a property that floods on a regular basis.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/dec/28/tory-party-patronage-ruins-popular-culture
Who says the left blame the Tories for everything...