Re Letwin, I was working in London in the mid 80s, his views at the time were pretty widely held, right or wrong. I know nothing of Letwin but I do enjoy a fuss like this, if only because it stops the pb Tories chucking the race card around for a day or two.
You know who you are, let's see you start a campaign to have Letwin removed, if a kipper had aired these views you'd be foaming at the mouth.
I think you'll find most if not all PB Tories have a notion of judging comments and actions in context, for example the era it was done in. See the discussion regarding Rhodes lately.
In which case please name a single example of where Tories have "foamed at the mouth" about comments made 30 years earlier by a Kipper which have subsequently been apologised for. Comments made yesterday which haven't been apologised for are not comparable.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I cannot imagine how much longer each work week would be for me to do all the research I do without access to the internet. It would certainly exceed a 168-hour week. I think it is easily possible now to research and learn in one year on the internet what would have been impossible in a lifetime just 30 years ago.
Twenty years ago I had a bookcase that was filled with computer manuals and books; everything from K&R C and Stroustrup's C++ to UML design and Steve McConnell's excellent 'Code Complete'. Now I have just a couple, kept for old time's sake alongside 'Structural Design of steelwork to BS 5950' from another life.
Why? Because the same information that was in the books is readily available online, albeit amongst acres of dross that needs filtering out. I found I was using them much less, until eventually, two house moves ago, I never bothered unpacking them.
The Internet is wonderful, *if* you can filter well. I've come across tutorial programming pages where they've got fundamentals utterly wrong and teach massively bad practice. Yet despite that caveat's it's wonderful.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I cannot imagine how much longer each work week would be for me to do all the research I do without access to the internet. It would certainly exceed a 168-hour week. I think it is easily possible now to research and learn in one year on the internet what would have been impossible in a lifetime just 30 years ago.
Twenty years ago I had a bookcase that was filled with computer manuals and books; everything from K&R C and Stroustrup's C++ to UML design and Steve McConnell's excellent 'Code Complete'. Now I have just a couple, kept for old time's sake alongside 'Structural Design of steelwork to BS 5950' from another life.
Why? Because the same information that was in the books is readily available online, albeit amongst acres of dross that needs filtering out. I found I was using them much less, until eventually, two house moves ago, I never bothered unpacking them.
The Internet is wonderful, *if* you can filter well. I've come across tutorial programming pages where they've got fundamentals utterly wrong and teach massively bad practice. Yet despite that caveat's it's wonderful.
Incidentally - when I was checking the spelling of Byrne yesterday his wiki page didn't exist. It's back-
2015 - not a bad year for a Spurs and English cricket supporting PB Tory betting against kippers and Team Ed & who got a superb new album from his fave band too....and saw them live. That exit poll at 10pm will take some beating however!! Fantasy footie coming right too vs a certain PB threadmaster also sees the year end high... I've not even mentioned the booming pensions advice market either or my profit on those annuity providers!
How can you forget the highlight of 2015? I drank about 4 red bulls at 5.30am on May 8th so I wouldn't miss it.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
You might look a the map of anti flood projects. The Humber Estuary £80m and the Boston Barrier £73m easily outspend Somerset Levels £15m Oh - and this still leaves the thick end of £2,3bn to spend.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
I'm not sure which is more astonishing, Trump as US president, or the very real possibility the president of the United States could be banned from Britain.
Banning Donald Trump and not Robert Mugabe* or Xi Jinping would look, to say the least, a little odd and something of an over-reaction. It would also probably not be conducive to good trans-Atlantic relations.
*Only the subject of an EU wide ban, as I understand it, not a UK one. Didn't Tatchell once try to arrest him?
Isn't UK part of the EU ?
The point being it was not a UK specific ban. We were quite happy to let him in until Brussels stopped us even though for some reason we banned Peter Chinkoga instead.
Regarding Oliver Letwin, there are people in all parties that you wonder why others rate them. For Labour...well actually, I haven't space to go through them all, but we'll just go with 'Ed Miliband': for the Liberal Democrats, Chris Rennard; for the SNP, John Swinney.
I think it must be that they are good at sucking up to the right people.
Letwin is very intelligent and honest with the truth but has a somewhat unworldly innocence.
He is very intelligent but naïve. So what is he doing in politics ? He is a time bomb ticking.
Good job he doesn't have a statue, the pitchfork-and-torch mob would be gathering to tear it down.
I truly despair of my country. The only saving grace is most of this mental illness takes place hundreds of miles from me, in what may as well be another, less happy land...
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
I don't remember many people on here predicting anything other than another hung Parliament in one form or another. I must admit I was one of those who thought it was almost certain.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
I don't remember many people on here predicting anything other than another hung Parliament in one form or another. I must admit I was one of those who thought it was almost certain.
I was saying Hung Parliament was free money for ages.
When the exit poll came out Tory maj was 10/1, and even after Nuneaton Tory Majority was around 2/1.
Was astonishing even after all that, the markets were still in denial.
Before 10pm I was confident on the Tories being the largest party by some distance, but was steeling myself for a Rainbow Alliance to keep the Tories out.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
Trump is a rather strident version of the saloon bar racist. "If I ran the country.." etc
If that is the bar to entry into the country, then immigration is going to be interesting. 30 second conversations on the opinion of the would be immigrant on the social/moral value of those who practise the Hindu religion would end up barring quite a few....
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time allowing people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I think the problem is that even silly fantasists can get lucky and cause real harm. To treat them as if they were not a threat is sending entirely the wrong message.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
Trump is a rather strident version of the saloon bar racist. "If I ran the country.." etc
If that is the bar to entry into the country, then immigration is going to be interesting. 30 second conversations on the opinion of the would be immigrant on the social/moral value of those who practise the Hindu religion would end up barring quite a few....
Oh sure.
However, as a piece of political positioning I'm not convinced it does her harm to distance herself from him. Even mainstream Republicans are poorly perceived in this country.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
Were they just fantasists? I thought they were actually making explosives, or was that part fantasy too?
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time allowing people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
More than just mere fantasy Mr Llama, according to the Telegraph the couple had already stockpiled chemicals to make bombs and were just days away from carrying out their plans.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
I don't remember many people on here predicting anything other than another hung Parliament in one form or another. I must admit I was one of those who thought it was almost certain.
I was predicting a majority up until February of this year. Granted, it was a Labour majority, and I switched to Lab most seats in the run up to the GE, but I avoided the common prediction for a time at least.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
I don't remember many people on here predicting anything other than another hung Parliament in one form or another. I must admit I was one of those who thought it was almost certain.
I was predicting a majority up until February of this year. Granted, it was a Labour majority, and I switched to Lab most seats in the run up to the GE, but I avoided the common prediction for a time at least.
I ruled out a Labour majority in 2011, stated in 2012 the Tories would win most votes, and held out the serious possibility of a majority during 2014 and early 2015, although I never believed it was odds-on. And in truth it never was odds-on.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time allowing people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I think the problem is that even silly fantasists can get lucky and cause real harm. To treat them as if they were not a threat is sending entirely the wrong message.
Yes I can see that but it still seems out of kilter to me. That couple had actually done nothing and caused harm to no one. Yet we have people spreading hate and pernicious messages designed to encourage others to attack the UK going about, without let or interference, by the authorities and claiming benefits to support themselves. For Goodness sake, the ghastly Hook-man even had the Metropolitan police close off roads so that he could spread his messages of hate during his open air sermons, and that was after his mosque threw him out.
2015 - not a bad year for a Spurs and English cricket supporting PB Tory betting against kippers and Team Ed & who got a superb new album from his fave band too....and saw them live. That exit poll at 10pm will take some beating however!! Fantasy footie coming right too vs a certain PB threadmaster also sees the year end high... I've not even mentioned the booming pensions advice market either or my profit on those annuity providers!
How can you forget the highlight of 2015? I drank about 4 red bulls at 5.30am on May 8th so I wouldn't miss it.
criminal omission - apologies to the pb world
Claire Perry @claire4devizes May 7 Hallelujah. Mark Reckless out. Don't let the door hit your fat arse as you leave.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
I don't remember many people on here predicting anything other than another hung Parliament in one form or another. I must admit I was one of those who thought it was almost certain.
I was predicting a majority up until February of this year. Granted, it was a Labour majority, and I switched to Lab most seats in the run up to the GE, but I avoided the common prediction for a time at least.
I ruled out a Labour majority in 2011, stated in 2012 the Tories would win most votes, and held out the serious possibility of a majority during 2014 and early 2015, although I never believed it was odds-on. And in truth it never was odds-on.
I think that's right. It's an example of a somewhat (not extremely) unlikely thing that happened.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I believe they had the materials to make the bombs, but lacked the detonator.
Also, if you're reading this Sophy - Ms Briskin thinks that you may have some food sensitivities (don't listen you her too much though - you would literally go mad)
Twenty years ago I had a bookcase that was filled with computer manuals and books; everything from K&R C and Stroustrup's C++ to UML design and Steve McConnell's excellent 'Code Complete'. Now I have just a couple, kept for old time's sake alongside 'Structural Design of steelwork to BS 5950' from another life.
Why? Because the same information that was in the books is readily available online, albeit amongst acres of dross that needs filtering out. I found I was using them much less, until eventually, two house moves ago, I never bothered unpacking them.
The Internet is wonderful, *if* you can filter well. I've come across tutorial programming pages where they've got fundamentals utterly wrong and teach massively bad practice. Yet despite that caveat's it's wonderful.
Trusted sources help, and then cross-checking of sources of unknown reliability. It usually does not take that long.
For me I have ready-made trusted sources - e.g. UN and government agencies, professional associations, journals, after action reports, published books (many of which are online in pdf format) - and plenty of news articles (which require some cross-checking), so it's not too hard to get to something approaching reliable data.
Of course, even trusted sources get it wrong sometimes, as the CDC website did on the appropriate PPE to wear while providing intensive patient care for Ebola victims. There are two nurses at Texas Presbyterian who can attest to that. So I tend to check data from government and UN sources against other official sources. But at some point it comes down to trust.
I have a new contract that will get me an office in NIH for a year or longer, with full access to their online library. Can't wait.
I think Alastair and others belittle themselves about the hung parliament. The overall votes actually suggested a hung parliament. Remember there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour, more so in England. It was the collapse of the Liberal Democrats which gave the Tories their majority. The Tories won 27 seats from the LDs to get their absolute majority.
Incredibly, every other party increased their vote share in 2015 from 2010 !
Had Labour not lost eight seats to the Tories, then Labour would have deprived the Tories of their majority.
Plus thanks to the superior Tory ground game, the Tory share of the vote went up in the marginals whereas Lab piled up votes in their safe seats.
Cameron's superiority to Miliband won the government but there's a very good case it was hedgies' money and Mark Clarke who won the majority.
Yes, it's the internet that is changing things. For instance, I've learned a totally new way of eating largely from internet research. But it has meant unlearning what I learned from TV, school, on the side of cereal packets, in magazines, etc., and re-learning (to use an extremely unfashionable word) 'wisdom' from previous generations. That mass communication that told us (amongst other things) that fat was bad, saturated fat the worst, and that synthetic added vitamins and minerals could replace naturally occurring ones, marks a blip whereby what granny said was discarded in favour of what the men on the wireless said. The internet is changing that as you rightly suggest, because it's not passively listening to a broadcast.
My mother in law is a fount of completely wrong information. She has a bunch of theories she's picked up over the years, most of which are completely wrong. This was without the benefit of TV (she didn't have one until she was in her 30s).
Trust me: the Internet and - even - the TV generation are much better informed than those that came before.
I'm still not entirely sure. the internet gives us 4-chan and ni-channel (the original [possibly more poisonous] japanese version) and enables ISIS and co. Probably the pluses outweigh the minuses.
plus this site (and the USA in general) has the massive global warming blindspot
There is no AGW blindspot on here. Just informed scepticism.
in your case, Richard i agree. You are indeed an informed sceptic. I think you are the exception though
''However, as a piece of political positioning I'm not convinced it does her harm to distance herself from him. Even mainstream Republicans are poorly perceived in this country. ''
Distancing yourself from Trump is one thing.
Banning him from the country as an extremist is quite something else.
One pix here for @HurstLlama #Top10 Political Eponyms: Boris bikes, Barnett formula, Short money, Baker days, Wilson doctrine, Belisha beacon.. https://t.co/qjJtqVFmMF
1. English words without a rhyme
Bulb Rhythm Chimney False Walrus Width (and depth) Cushion Wasp Filth (and filthy) Angel We also had patio, acrid, silver, purple, squadron and month. And most ordinal numbers from fifth to thousandth.
Without wanting to blow my own trumpet too much (well, actually, I do want to, but that's just the standard pre-amble to make me look slightly less dickheadish), I was one of the few this time last year to be predicting a good chance of a Tory majority. To such an extent that I was accused by Labour posters of being unduly negative. For me, the fundamental factors were that people thought Cameron fit the bill of a Prime Minister and "looked the part" at international conferences hobnobbing with Obama and Merkel, and because the overriding feeling among people I was talking to was that, although the country was still not in a great state, the Tories had only had 5 years and they hadn't messed up THAT badly, so it was worth giving them another shot. I correctly thought there was a narrow path to a Tory majority if they held on well in the Con-Lab marginals outside of London, and if they made the gains from the Lib Dems that the arithmetic was indicating all along (it was always going to be impossible for the Lib Dems' national vote to drop by two-thirds yet magically still hold up in all their own seats).
However, it's for those same reasons that I think people are wildly overestimating the Tories' chances in 2020. None of the candidates to replace Cameron match up to him in terms of natural PM-ish qualities, with Osborne especially not even in the same league. Further, when the government has been in for 10 years, people are ALWAYS less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt: if anything is wrong with the country (and make no mistake, people will ALWAYS find SOME things to be wrong with the country), they will be blaming the government of the day after that length of time, whereas after just 5 years they might still blame the last government and say that the current government hasn't been given a long enough stint to fix things yet.
2015 - not a bad year for a Spurs and English cricket supporting PB Tory betting against kippers and Team Ed & who got a superb new album from his fave band too....and saw them live. That exit poll at 10pm will take some beating however!! Fantasy footie coming right too vs a certain PB threadmaster also sees the year end high... I've not even mentioned the booming pensions advice market either or my profit on those annuity providers!
How can you forget the highlight of 2015? I drank about 4 red bulls at 5.30am on May 8th so I wouldn't miss it.
criminal omission - apologies to the pb world
Claire Perry @claire4devizes May 7 Hallelujah. Mark Reckless out. Don't let the door hit your fat arse as you leave.
Take 250 points from your Fantasy Football team as punishment.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I believe they had the materials to make the bombs, but lacked the detonator.
They were a serious threat.
On the published information, if they counted as a serious threat goodness knows what the minor ones are. I see from the Telegraph article that was referred to up-thread that this couple (a druggie and and his besotted girlfriend, without the means to put their fantasy into practice) was one of the Seven Major Plots foiled by MI5 in the last year. Well, really, if that constitutes a major plot then MI5 has gone seriously down market in the past 20 years.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
Trump is clearly a nasty ignorant and indeed hysteric figure. As President he would be appalling and it strikes me that any British PM would have to tell him so. As it happens it would be unlikely he would want to pop in for a game of golf and would probably not be invited for any state visit. As I believe someone has pointed out being President is far too close to a proper job for Trump who will be content to see his name promoted in the USA to make his money. If plain Mr Trump wants to visit then I would not care who told him to go to hell.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
Trump is a rather strident version of the saloon bar racist. "If I ran the country.." etc
If that is the bar to entry into the country, then immigration is going to be interesting. 30 second conversations on the opinion of the would be immigrant on the social/moral value of those who practise the Hindu religion would end up barring quite a few....
Oh sure.
However, as a piece of political positioning I'm not convinced it does her harm to distance herself from him. Even mainstream Republicans are poorly perceived in this country.
The point I am making is that it might be a subtle piece of positioning. Radical Islam generally expresses extreme racism against not just Jews, but non-Abrahamic faiths.
Banning the import of hate preachers on the grounds of manifest racism would be a difficult policy for the Common Purpose types to oppose.
''Trump is clearly a nasty ignorant and indeed hysteric figure. As President he would be appalling and it strikes me that any British PM would have to tell him so. As it happens it would be unlikely he would want to pop in for a game of golf and would probably not be invited for any state visit.''
This is more hysterical than anything Trump ever said.
''It was released / leaked on a slow news day.'' People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
Trump is clearly a nasty ignorant and indeed hysteric figure. As President he would be appalling and it strikes me that any British PM would have to tell him so. As it happens it would be unlikely he would want to pop in for a game of golf and would probably not be invited for any state visit. As I believe someone has pointed out being President is far too close to a proper job for Trump who will be content to see his name promoted in the USA to make his money. If plain Mr Trump wants to visit then I would not care who told him to go to hell.
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
She's expressing a view which seems to be very popular with the public. There have to be some Conservative members in that 500k.
Trump is clearly a nasty ignorant and indeed hysteric figure. As President he would be appalling and it strikes me that any British PM would have to tell him so. As it happens it would be unlikely he would want to pop in for a game of golf and would probably not be invited for any state visit. As I believe someone has pointed out being President is far too close to a proper job for Trump who will be content to see his name promoted in the USA to make his money. If plain Mr Trump wants to visit then I would not care who told him to go to hell.
There are as many who have signed petitions with opposite views, and I seem to remember that a lot of those signatories are not based in Britain.
May is kneejerking as foolishly as she has before. She is not a stable, reliable, trustworthy politician with good judgement.
She is allowed one stupid decision, but this is a habit now.
2015 - not a bad year for a Spurs and English cricket supporting PB Tory betting against kippers and Team Ed & who got a superb new album from his fave band too....and saw them live. That exit poll at 10pm will take some beating however!! Fantasy footie coming right too vs a certain PB threadmaster also sees the year end high... I've not even mentioned the booming pensions advice market either or my profit on those annuity providers!
How can you forget the highlight of 2015? I drank about 4 red bulls at 5.30am on May 8th so I wouldn't miss it.
criminal omission - apologies to the pb world
Claire Perry @claire4devizes May 7 Hallelujah. Mark Reckless out. Don't let the door hit your fat arse as you leave.
Take 250 points from your Fantasy Football team as punishment.
are you still playing? I thought you'd given up............... tee hee......
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time allowing people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I think the problem is that even silly fantasists can get lucky and cause real harm. To treat them as if they were not a threat is sending entirely the wrong message.
Yes I can see that but it still seems out of kilter to me. That couple had actually done nothing and caused harm to no one. Yet we have people spreading hate and pernicious messages designed to encourage others to attack the UK going about, without let or interference, by the authorities and claiming benefits to support themselves. For Goodness sake, the ghastly Hook-man even had the Metropolitan police close off roads so that he could spread his messages of hate during his open air sermons, and that was after his mosque threw him out.
It is a consequence of our legal system and of our values as a society. And I am not at all sure I disagree with it either.
Freedom of speech - which would, I am afraid, cover much of what you describe as spreading hate and pernicious messages - is to me something of great value and to be protected even when what is being said is inconvenient, abusive or downright disgusting.
On the other hand plotting to commit an attack, even if the plotters are clearly incompetent and of limited but unknown danger to others, is a crime and should be treated as such.
Without wanting to blow my own trumpet too much (well, actually, I do want to, but that's just the standard pre-amble to make me look slightly less dickheadish), I was one of the few this time last year to be predicting a good chance of a Tory majority. To such an extent that I was accused by Labour posters of being unduly negative. For me, the fundamental factors were that people thought Cameron fit the bill of a Prime Minister and "looked the part" at international conferences hobnobbing with Obama and Merkel, and because the overriding feeling among people I was talking to was that, although the country was still not in a great state, the Tories had only had 5 years and they hadn't messed up THAT badly, so it was worth giving them another shot. I correctly thought there was a narrow path to a Tory majority if they held on well in the Con-Lab marginals outside of London, and if they made the gains from the Lib Dems that the arithmetic was indicating all along (it was always going to be impossible for the Lib Dems' national vote to drop by two-thirds yet magically still hold up in all their own seats).
However, it's for those same reasons that I think people are wildly overestimating the Tories' chances in 2020. None of the candidates to replace Cameron match up to him in terms of natural PM-ish qualities, with Osborne especially not even in the same league. Further, when the government has been in for 10 years, people are ALWAYS less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt: if anything is wrong with the country (and make no mistake, people will ALWAYS find SOME things to be wrong with the country), they will be blaming the government of the day after that length of time, whereas after just 5 years they might still blame the last government and say that the current government hasn't been given a long enough stint to fix things yet.
All fair points, Mr 565. However, is there not a danger that, whilst people in 2020 are looking for an alternative, Corbyn's Labour (whether or not he is still at the helm) will be seen as an unacceptable one. People may be unhappy with the government but that does not mean they will vote for the opposition party.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I believe they had the materials to make the bombs, but lacked the detonator.
They were a serious threat.
On the published information, if they counted as a serious threat goodness knows what the minor ones are. I see from the Telegraph article that was referred to up-thread that this couple (a druggie and and his besotted girlfriend, without the means to put their fantasy into practice) was one of the Seven Major Plots foiled by MI5 in the last year. Well, really, if that constitutes a major plot then MI5 has gone seriously down market in the past 20 years.
Viva mass immigration.... so what if a few want to live by different laws and kill us all
Without wanting to blow my own trumpet too much (well, actually, I do want to, but that's just the standard pre-amble to make me look slightly less dickheadish), I was one of the few this time last year to be predicting a good chance of a Tory majority. To such an extent that I was accused by Labour posters of being unduly negative. For me, the fundamental factors were that people thought Cameron fit the bill of a Prime Minister and "looked the part" at international conferences hobnobbing with Obama and Merkel, and because the overriding feeling among people I was talking to was that, although the country was still not in a great state, the Tories had only had 5 years and they hadn't messed up THAT badly, so it was worth giving them another shot. I correctly thought there was a narrow path to a Tory majority if they held on well in the Con-Lab marginals outside of London, and if they made the gains from the Lib Dems that the arithmetic was indicating all along (it was always going to be impossible for the Lib Dems' national vote to drop by two-thirds yet magically still hold up in all their own seats).
However, it's for those same reasons that I think people are wildly overestimating the Tories' chances in 2020. None of the candidates to replace Cameron match up to him in terms of natural PM-ish qualities, with Osborne especially not even in the same league. Further, when the government has been in for 10 years, people are ALWAYS less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt: if anything is wrong with the country (and make no mistake, people will ALWAYS find SOME things to be wrong with the country), they will be blaming the government of the day after that length of time, whereas after just 5 years they might still blame the last government and say that the current government hasn't been given a long enough stint to fix things yet.
It's unseemly and self indulgent to blast one's trumpet....but as you've started...I'll join in too. For almost the entire period of the last Parliament I was confidently - through all the polling nadirs - predicting a re-elected Tory government, and was often found comforting and consoling the more excitable manic-depressives of the blue luvvlies. I do confess to having a minor wobbly on polling day, particularly after the ICM Labour lead....but out I went joyfully and did my duty for young Mr Raab and my fellow Borough candidates: we increased our Council majority too.
We old pols, the poor bloody infantry in the secret army: we knows our stuffs.
By the way I commend Tim Ross's book on the election (which Santa thoughtfully included in my stocking).
If anybody's interested, my prediction on the Tuesday before the election was Con 35, Lab 30, Lib 10, Oth 25. Not because of any prescience on my part, but because round numbers made the sums easier...:-)
Without wanting to blow my own trumpet too much (well, actually, I do want to, but that's just the standard pre-amble to make me look slightly less dickheadish), I was one of the few this time last year to be predicting a good chance of a Tory majority. To such an extent that I was accused by Labour posters of being unduly negative. For me, the fundamental factors were that people thought Cameron fit the bill of a Prime Minister and "looked the part" at international conferences hobnobbing with Obama and Merkel, and because the overriding feeling among people I was talking to was that, although the country was still not in a great state, the Tories had only had 5 years and they hadn't messed up THAT badly, so it was worth giving them another shot. I correctly thought there was a narrow path to a Tory majority if they held on well in the Con-Lab marginals outside of London, and if they made the gains from the Lib Dems that the arithmetic was indicating all along (it was always going to be impossible for the Lib Dems' national vote to drop by two-thirds yet magically still hold up in all their own seats).
However, it's for those same reasons that I think people are wildly overestimating the Tories' chances in 2020. None of the candidates to replace Cameron match up to him in terms of natural PM-ish qualities, with Osborne especially not even in the same league. Further, when the government has been in for 10 years, people are ALWAYS less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt: if anything is wrong with the country (and make no mistake, people will ALWAYS find SOME things to be wrong with the country), they will be blaming the government of the day after that length of time, whereas after just 5 years they might still blame the last government and say that the current government hasn't been given a long enough stint to fix things yet.
It's unseemly and self indulgent to blast one's trumpet....but as you've started...I'll join in too. For almost the entire period of the last Parliament I was confidently - through all the polling nadirs - predicting a re-elected Tory government, and was often found comforting and consoling the more excitable manic-depressives of the blue luvvlies. I do confess to having a minor wobbly on polling day, particularly after the ICM Labour lead....but out I went joyfully and did my duty for young Mr Raab and my fellow Borough candidates: we increased our Council majority too.
We old pols, the poor bloody infantry in the secret army: we knows our stuffs.
By the way I commend Tim Ross's book on the election (which Santa thoughtfully included in my stocking).
PS And I won most of my bets with tim. That's what pbTories do.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time allowing people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I think the problem is that even silly fantasists can get lucky and cause real harm. To treat them as if they were not a threat is sending entirely the wrong message.
Yes I can see that but it still seems out of kilter to me. That couple had actually done nothing and caused harm to no one. Yet we have people spreading hate and pernicious messages designed to encourage others to attack the UK going about, without let or interference, by the authorities and claiming benefits to support themselves. For Goodness sake, the ghastly Hook-man even had the Metropolitan police close off roads so that he could spread his messages of hate during his open air sermons, and that was after his mosque threw him out.
It is a consequence of our legal system and of our values as a society. And I am not at all sure I disagree with it either.
Freedom of speech - which would, I am afraid, cover much of what you describe as spreading hate and pernicious messages - is to me something of great value and to be protected even when what is being said is inconvenient, abusive or downright disgusting.
On the other hand plotting to commit an attack, even if the plotters are clearly incompetent and of limited but unknown danger to others, is a crime and should be treated as such.
Freedom of speech has not, in the UK, ever extended to encouraging violence or an attack against the normal state of society. Such speech is in itself a criminal offence (actually one of a number, depending on the circumstances). Yet people who on the face of it are committing those offences are given aid by the state and allowed to continue, but silly fantasists that take heed of their message are classified as major terrorists and banged up for decades.
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
Yes, it is and therefore those sentences worry me. Is there not something wrong with banging up silly fantasists for decades whilst at the same time people who are serious threats to public safety are not only allowed to go freely about their poisonous business but supported by the state while they do so. I can't help feeling that the plot is being lost.
I believe they had the materials to make the bombs, but lacked the detonator.
They were a serious threat.
On the published information, if they counted as a serious threat goodness knows what the minor ones are. I see from the Telegraph article that was referred to up-thread that this couple (a druggie and and his besotted girlfriend, without the means to put their fantasy into practice) was one of the Seven Major Plots foiled by MI5 in the last year. Well, really, if that constitutes a major plot then MI5 has gone seriously down market in the past 20 years.
Viva mass immigration.... so what if a few want to live by different laws and kill us all
BBC - A husband and wife who plotted a terror attack in London have been jailed for a minimum of 27 and 25 years.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
Thank Allah some of these terrorists are so flipping dumb.
It is something out of Four Lions
.
I think the problem is that even silly fantasists can get lucky and cause real harm. To treat them as if they were not a threat is sending entirely the wrong message.
Yes I can see that but it still seems out of kilter to me. That couple had actually done nothing and caused harm to no one. Yet we have people spreading hate and pernicious messages designed to encourage others to attack the UK going about, without let or interference, by the authorities and claiming benefits to support themselves. For Goodness sake, the ghastly Hook-man even had the Metropolitan police close off roads so that he could spread his messages of hate during his open air sermons, and that was after his mosque threw him out.
It is a consequence of our legal system and of our values as a society. And I am not at all sure I disagree with it either.
Freedom of speech - which would, I am afraid, cover much of what you describe as spreading hate and pernicious messages - is to me something of great value and to be protected even when what is being said is inconvenient, abusive or downright disgusting.
On the other hand plotting to commit an attack, even if the plotters are clearly incompetent and of limited but unknown danger to others, is a crime and should be treated as such.
Freedom of speech has not, in the UK, ever extended to encouraging violence or an attack against the normal state of society. Such speech is in itself a criminal offence (actually one of a number, depending on the circumstances). Yet people who on the face of it are committing those offences are given aid by the state and allowed to continue, but silly fantasists that take heed of their message are classified as major terrorists and banged up for decades.
Makes no sense to me.
People will be calling them "bunglers" soon to make them seem less of a threat
Comments
One of the many fascinating aspects to that story is what constitutes, or does not constitute, 'the mainstream.'
People who get banned on political grounds tend to be extremists. And yet Trump could shortly be one of two people running off for the presidency of the world's most powerful nation.
It really is a quite breathtakingly astonishing decision by May. Read her words. Like she's dismissing some common or garden hate preacher.
As I say somebody is not living in the real world. Personally if I were on May for tory leader, I'd be getting off now.
Pun intended.
Why? Because the same information that was in the books is readily available online, albeit amongst acres of dross that needs filtering out. I found I was using them much less, until eventually, two house moves ago, I never bothered unpacking them.
The Internet is wonderful, *if* you can filter well. I've come across tutorial programming pages where they've got fundamentals utterly wrong and teach massively bad practice. Yet despite that caveat's it's wonderful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Byrne
all a bit worrying though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66RuTjG1Vvk
The Humber Estuary £80m and the Boston Barrier £73m easily outspend Somerset Levels £15m
Oh - and this still leaves the thick end of £2,3bn to spend.
Serious prison time - perhaps in future would be terrorists will think twice before opening Twitter accounts under dodgy names and asking followers what targets he should bomb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35198500
I truly despair of my country. The only saving grace is most of this mental illness takes place hundreds of miles from me, in what may as well be another, less happy land...
It is something out of Four Lions
When the exit poll came out Tory maj was 10/1, and even after Nuneaton Tory Majority was around 2/1.
Was astonishing even after all that, the markets were still in denial.
Before 10pm I was confident on the Tories being the largest party by some distance, but was steeling myself for a Rainbow Alliance to keep the Tories out.
If that is the bar to entry into the country, then immigration is going to be interesting. 30 second conversations on the opinion of the would be immigrant on the social/moral value of those who practise the Hindu religion would end up barring quite a few....
Reminds me of the old joke about the agenda for inaugural meeting of a new Trotskyist Group “Item 1 – the Split” https://t.co/NOS6SV6bHY
However, as a piece of political positioning I'm not convinced it does her harm to distance herself from him. Even mainstream Republicans are poorly perceived in this country.
Think I predicted EMWNPM!!!!
http://news.sky.com/story/1614317/state-school-id-rather-beg-letwins-gaffes
Claire Perry @claire4devizes May 7
Hallelujah. Mark Reckless out. Don't let the door hit your fat arse as you leave.
They were a serious threat.
For me I have ready-made trusted sources - e.g. UN and government agencies, professional associations, journals, after action reports, published books (many of which are online in pdf format) - and plenty of news articles (which require some cross-checking), so it's not too hard to get to something approaching reliable data.
Of course, even trusted sources get it wrong sometimes, as the CDC website did on the appropriate PPE to wear while providing intensive patient care for Ebola victims. There are two nurses at Texas Presbyterian who can attest to that. So I tend to check data from government and UN sources against other official sources. But at some point it comes down to trust.
I have a new contract that will get me an office in NIH for a year or longer, with full access to their online library. Can't wait.
Distancing yourself from Trump is one thing.
Banning him from the country as an extremist is quite something else.
With 'em.
Waltz
Tilth
For three.
However, it's for those same reasons that I think people are wildly overestimating the Tories' chances in 2020. None of the candidates to replace Cameron match up to him in terms of natural PM-ish qualities, with Osborne especially not even in the same league. Further, when the government has been in for 10 years, people are ALWAYS less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt: if anything is wrong with the country (and make no mistake, people will ALWAYS find SOME things to be wrong with the country), they will be blaming the government of the day after that length of time, whereas after just 5 years they might still blame the last government and say that the current government hasn't been given a long enough stint to fix things yet.
As it happens it would be unlikely he would want to pop in for a game of golf and would probably not be invited for any state visit.
As I believe someone has pointed out being President is far too close to a proper job for Trump who will be content to see his name promoted in the USA to make his money. If plain Mr Trump wants to visit then I would not care who told him to go to hell.
Banning the import of hate preachers on the grounds of manifest racism would be a difficult policy for the Common Purpose types to oppose.
As it happens it would be unlikely he would want to pop in for a game of golf and would probably not be invited for any state visit.''
This is more hysterical than anything Trump ever said.
May is kneejerking as foolishly as she has before. She is not a stable, reliable, trustworthy politician with good judgement.
She is allowed one stupid decision, but this is a habit now.
Freedom of speech - which would, I am afraid, cover much of what you describe as spreading hate and pernicious messages - is to me something of great value and to be protected even when what is being said is inconvenient, abusive or downright disgusting.
On the other hand plotting to commit an attack, even if the plotters are clearly incompetent and of limited but unknown danger to others, is a crime and should be treated as such.
We old pols, the poor bloody infantry in the secret army: we knows our stuffs.
By the way I commend Tim Ross's book on the election (which Santa thoughtfully included in my stocking).
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bookies-odds-general-election-results-9208205
The 2/1 was mentioned on the Nuneaton result thread by the wonderful Tissue_Price
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/664674/#Comment_664674
Makes no sense to me.
... and don't mention the M word
New Thread New Thread
Sigh...