Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
Completely off topic, but some good photos of the hotel that caught fire the other night. http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures#1 Looks like quite extensive damage to a number of rooms on one side of the residences , probably a dozen floors will need completely gutting and refitting. The hotel rooms on the levels below the terrace that was the seat of the fire look pretty much undamaged from the outside, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of smoke and water damage inside Unlike the previous couple of fires here, this building is owned and operated by a single company (Eamaar, a local constructor under The Address brand). It will be insured and the high profile nature of the location and the fire itself will see that once the forensics guys have finished on site it will very quickly be covered in scaffolding and tarpaulin so that remedial work can begin.
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and fire service have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable. One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured.
Another question seems to be why did the fire alarm system not detect the fire at an early stage. Eye witness were reporting the fire was well developed before it went off.
I guess the timing was very lucky. On another night, later in the night, when most people would have been in bed, could have been far worse. Instead, everybody was up and about getting ready to celebrate midnight.
I think the alarm was late to go off because the fire started on an outside terrace and initially spread quickly up the external cladding of the building, it probably took a couple of minutes before the building itself realised it was on fire. There were probably also people who saw the fire developing high up the building and decided to evacuate themselves via the lift rather than 40, 50 or 60 floors of stairs. The lifts in these buildings will cancel all requests and move to the ground floor the second the alarm goes off.
This video shows the initial spread of the fire up the outside of the building. It's moving up one floor every dozen seconds or so once it gets going. http://youtu.be/3RtWxVsjlqI
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
This video shows the initial spread of the fire up the outside of the building. It's moving up one floor every dozen seconds or so once it gets going. http://youtu.be/3RtWxVsjlqI
Grim. Ironically Youtube added an advert from a travel company, saying "Plan your escape with us!"
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
Fair comment, I have had the Bushmills single malt and agree that it is inferior to the Scottish equivalents in the same price range.
Mind you, my local off-licence is selling Famous Grouse for £13 a bottle, which makes the debate over blends rather redundant.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
Fair comment, I have had the Bushmills single malt and agree that it is inferior to the Scottish equivalents in the same price range.
Mind you, my local off-licence is selling Famous Grouse for £13 a bottle, which makes the debate over blends rather redundant.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
The most sensible argument that the Leave side can bring to the table is that there is no status quo option. What we now call the EU has expanded its powers both by formal treaty and by informal dictat and court decisions over the years. It's also ignored its own rules when politically expedient to do so, especially in trying to hold the Euro together in the past few years.
Unless the PM comes back with what's clearly a trade-based associate membership I'll be voting to leave, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his negotiations conclude.
Having said all that, and as mentioned earlier, I'm not expecting to be presented with rational arguments and nuanced positions - it'll be like Scotland on steroids, unfortunately.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
That can only really be the case for the Eurozone, unless and until the UK joins the Euro it can never fully be a part of an integrated EU, that also goes for Sweden, Denmark and some Eastern EU nations too which are also outside the Euro area
I understand that, but I believe HBO came to an agreement to delay the new season of Game of Thrones to much later in the year to allow the book to be published first in the spring. So they have shifted lots of things around for nothing.
Ah yes - I had forgotten. They should have seen that coming, quite frankly.
Yes, given his age, record and apparent state of health, I wouldn't bet on his ever finishing it.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
The most sensible argument that the Leave side can bring to the table is that there is no status quo option. What we now call the EU has expanded its powers both by formal treaty and by informal dictat and court decisions over the years. It's also ignored its own rules when politically expedient to do so, especially in trying to hold the Euro together in the past few years.
Unless the PM comes back with what's clearly a trade-based associate membership I'll be voting to leave, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his negotiations conclude.
Having said all that, and as mentioned earlier, I'm not expecting to be presented with rational arguments and nuanced positions - it'll be like Scotland on steroids, unfortunately.
Why are you hoping the PM comes back with some sort of associate membership when it's not on the table, he's flirting round the edges of migrant benefits but nothing else.
The referendum is about in or out, associate membership doesn't exist as much as the PM would like to fudge it.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
The most sensible argument that the Leave side can bring to the table is that there is no status quo option. What we now call the EU has expanded its powers both by formal treaty and by informal dictat and court decisions over the years. It's also ignored its own rules when politically expedient to do so, especially in trying to hold the Euro together in the past few years.
Unless the PM comes back with what's clearly a trade-based associate membership I'll be voting to leave, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his negotiations conclude.
Having said all that, and as mentioned earlier, I'm not expecting to be presented with rational arguments and nuanced positions - it'll be like Scotland on steroids, unfortunately.
I think that is right on all points. The only exception is that I don't believe there is any point waiting for the results of the renegotiation because even if Cameron got everything he is asking for it is still effectively nothing. It certainly isn't anything like a trade based associate membership.
From the Leave point of view I do think they should be pursuing a series of points on where the EU directly effects our lives on a daily basis.
I would start with the point that it is because of EU rules that we have 5% VAT on our home energy costs. VAT has always been claimed to be for luxury goods - hence the exemptions for food, books and children's clothes. Major should not have put VAT on home energy costs and it is one of those decisions that should have been reversed when the Opposition took power. Of course they could reduce it to 5% but they could not get rid of it completely because of EU rules.
It is these sorts of small but significant costs on peoples' lives that we should be highlighting as a means of persuading people that the EU does affect them and in an adverse way.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
That can only really be the case for the Eurozone, unless and until the UK joins the Euro it can never fully be a part of an integrated EU, that also goes for Sweden, Denmark and some Eastern EU nations too which are also outside the Euro area
But as with David H earlier you are pursuing a logic fallacy. Just because Eurozone membership is the most extreme example of integration at the moment does not mean that it is the only form of integration. There are huge areas of policy where further integration is ongoing and where we are continuing to be drawn further in. Focusing on Euro membership as a red line effectively gives the EU carte blanche for large swathes of further integration in other areas.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
Fair comment, I have had the Bushmills single malt and agree that it is inferior to the Scottish equivalents in the same price range.
Mind you, my local off-licence is selling Famous Grouse for £13 a bottle, which makes the debate over blends rather redundant.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
This is the single statement I - as a leave but EEA person - find most deliberately misleading. Why not create a body, manned by constitutional lawyers, and a mix of retired politicians and the like that monitors judgements by the ECJ and decisions taking by the EU to see they do not cross the boundaries of what have been agreed in treaties we have signed. If it believes they do, they can trigger a referendum on EU membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
That can only really be the case for the Eurozone, unle
But as with David H earlier you are pursuing a logic fallacy. Just because Eurozone membership is the most extreme example of integration at the moment does not mean that it is the only form of integration. There are huge areas of policy where further integration is ongoing and where we are continuing to be drawn further in. Focusing on Euro membership as a red line effectively gives the EU carte blanche for large swathes of further integration in other areas.
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
You appear to be hand wringing about the lack of hand wringing.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
I love Shortbread: A minor version of Scouselundt.
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
That can only really be the case for the Eurozone, unle
But as with David H earlier you are pursuing a logic fallacy. Just because Eurozone membership is the most extreme example of integration at the moment does not mean that it is the only form of integration. There are huge areas of policy where further integration is ongoing and where we are continuing to be drawn further in. Focusing on Euro membership as a red line effectively gives the EU carte blanche for large swathes of further integration in other areas.
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
Given he will negotiate little other than some vacuous vague wishy washy promise that will be forgotten immediately a YES vote is placed.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
I love Shortbread: A minor version of Scouselundt.
I thought you were away to the pub lurkio
PS: You have some taste then , anyone who does not like shortbread is not all there.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
You appear to be hand wringing about the lack of hand wringing.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The fact that you actually think you will encounter justice there.
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
You have changed what you were arguing. You were stating that the only sign of continued integration was Euro membership. It is not. If you think that is all it is then you (and many others labouring under the same misconception) are going to be rather upset when we continue to integrate after a Remain result.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The fact that you actually think you will encounter justice there.
Malcolm, you can clearly read, try working on your comprehension.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
I love Shortbread: A minor version of Scouselundt.
I thought you were away to the pub lurkio
PS: You have some taste then , anyone who does not like shortbread is not all there.
Sorry; clowns are not invited within Rushey-Green. Even Catford has standards....
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
That can only really be the case for the Eurozone, unle
But as with David H earlier you are pursuing a logic fallacy. Just because Eurozone membership is the most extreme example of integration at the moment does not mean that it is the only form of integration. There are huge areas of policy where further integration is ongoing and where we are continuing to be drawn further in. Focusing on Euro membership as a red line effectively gives the EU carte blanche for large swathes of further integration in other areas.
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
Given he will negotiate little other than some vacuous vague wishy washy promise that will be forgotten immediately a YES vote is placed.
I expect a result of Yes (Remain) 52% No (Leave) 48% or tighter, he just needs a vague enough promise to swing a few undecideds to Remain
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
You have changed what you were arguing. You were stating that the only sign of continued integration was Euro membership. It is not. If you think that is all it is then you (and many others labouring under the same misconception) are going to be rather upset when we continue to integrate after a Remain result.
Remain doesn't mean the status quo, the EU will interpret it as having us by the bollox. They'll have a point.
Great writer, but where some people when they find success do not get edited down when they should be, he clearly is not forced to hurry along like he should. I even understand the delays for the last few books, some major rewrites (eg, not going through with a planned 5 year timeskip), but even as a perfectionist he takes too long. I recall the excitement at receiving the fourth book in my first weeks at university. That was 11 years ago.
I bet HBO execs are super happy....well by happy I mean absolutely fuming...
The show is already beyond the books in some respects, and will clearly conclude well before them.
I understand that, but I believe HBO came to an agreement to delay the new season of Game of Thrones to much later in the year to allow the book to be published first in the spring. So they have shifted lots of things around for nothing.
Ah yes - I had forgotten. They should have seen that coming, quite frankly.
Considering this is another likely to be another 1000 word+ doorstopper and we must be over halfway if he thought he might finish, I don't see why he doesn't just split it into half and publish half of it
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The fact that you actually think you will encounter justice there.
Malcolm, you can clearly read, try working on your comprehension.
You trying to say you were being sarcastic, rather than being a fan of hanging , stoning and beheading.
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Nah, Remain means ever closer union, if we vote to stay it's for good. The Leave balloon will be burst forever.
membership.
It is not misleading at all. It is entirely accurate. After your first sentence, which is a statement of belief, the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking. If we vote to remain in we will not set up anything that will threaten that. This is, in part, because Cameron has not even tried to renegotiate the vast majority of our relationship and so has really drawn up no red lines. As such the EU will see no reason not to proceed with the project as they see fit.
A vote for Remain is a vote for more EU not less.
Isn't a vote for Remain simply a vote for the status quo? Any changes from that would go through the same negotiating process as we have now. How could or should it be otherwise?
The status quo is for 'ever closer union'.
The status quo is inside the EU but outside the Eurozone
With continuing integration.
That can only really be the case for the Eurozone, unle
But as with David H earlier you are pursuing a logic fallacy. Just because Eurozone membership is the most extreme example of integration at the moment does not mean that it is the only form of integration. There are huge areas of policy where further integration is ongoing and where we are continuing to be drawn further in. Focusing on Euro membership as a red line effectively gives the EU carte blanche for large swathes of further integration in other areas.
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
Given he will negotiate little other than some vacuous vague wishy washy promise that will be forgotten immediately a YES vote is placed.
I expect a result of Yes (Remain) 52% No (Leave) 48% or tighter, he just needs a vague enough promise to swing a few undecideds to Remain
Some further analysis of the Ashcroft poll of 20,000 people, - this time by which political party they voted for at the last GE. NB This subset of people say they actually voted at the GE so I'm assuming they're likely to vote in the referendum.
The surprising thing to me is how divided opinion is in all the parties (except UKIP which is overwhelmingly LEAVE). It makes old party canvassing returns of little use in GOTV. Will the LEAVE/REMAIN camps be able to do substantial canvassing?
It will also be interesting in how party activists respond. I assume they will align with the LEAVE/REMAIN camps rather than their own party machine, (except possibly UKIP and LDs).
Finally, on these figures, DC will need to persuade at least 75% of the undecided to back REMAIN if he wants REMAIN to win.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
I love Shortbread: A minor version of Scouselundt.
I thought you were away to the pub lurkio
PS: You have some taste then , anyone who does not like shortbread is not all there.
Sorry; clowns are not invited within Rushey-Green. Even Catford has standards....
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
Fair comment, I have had the Bushmills single malt and agree that it is inferior to the Scottish equivalents in the same price range.
Mind you, my local off-licence is selling Famous Grouse for £13 a bottle, which makes the debate over blends rather redundant.
A bully bargain at that price Hurst.
Indeed, Mr. G, and I thought that it can't last so I started picking up a bottle each time I walked past. However, after six weeks the deal is still on-going and the little co-op next door to the off-licence is knocking out Bells (yes, I know) at the same £13 a bottle just 1p more than the paint-stripper that is their own brand of whisky.
Something very odd seems to be going on in the whisky market just now, especially when one considers that the big supermarkets (Tesco Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer) haven't cut their prices at all. It seems very strange that small village shops can under-cut the big boys.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
As an atheist I think I'll give it a miss.
No drink either to numb the senses given you have little else to do legally. Immigration will be no issue there for sure.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The fact that you actually think you will encounter justice there.
Malcolm, you can clearly read, try working on your comprehension.
You trying to say you were being sarcastic, rather than being a fan of hanging , stoning and beheading.
No, I'm saying that if you don't abide by a country's laws you face the consequences. No sarcasm, no ambiguity, one of the reasons I won't go there.
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The fact that you actually think you will encounter justice there.
Malcolm, you can clearly read, try working on your comprehension.
You trying to say you were being sarcastic, rather than being a fan of hanging , stoning and beheading.
No, I'm saying that if you don't abide by a country's laws you face the consequences. No sarcasm, no ambiguity, one of the reasons I won't go there.
My point was obey them or not you still have a good chance of facing the same consequences if you upset the wrong person. Justice there is at the whim of a small elite and has little to do with actually doing something.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
I love Shortbread: A minor version of Scouselundt.
I thought you were away to the pub lurkio
PS: You have some taste then , anyone who does not like shortbread is not all there.
Sorry; clowns are not invited within Rushey-Green. Even Catford has standards....
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The desert is fantastic, well worth seeing and experiencing. Probably best to do it from Oman though (one can at least legally have a drink there).
I was reading a paper the other day on how the Saudi's might deal with the humungus problem they have got in that oil prices are not going above $50 anytime in the foreseeable future, if ever. Some diversification of their economy has to happen if they are not to return to camel herding and one of the options put forward was tourism. Aside from religious pilgrims who is going to go on holiday to Saudi Arabia?
Completely off topic, but some good photos of the hotel that caught fire the other night. http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures#1 Looks like quite extensive damage to a number of rooms on one side of the residences, probably a dozen floors will need completely gutting and refitting. The hotel rooms on the levels below the terrace that was the seat of the fire look pretty much undamaged from the outside, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a fair amount of smoke and water damage inside.
An interesting point on the design of the building, the mechanical/service floors are right at the bottom and right at the top, both areas that look pretty much unscathed.
Unlike the previous couple of fires here, this building is owned and operated by a single company (Emaar, a local constructor operated under The Address brand). It will be insured and the high profile nature of the location and the fire itself will see that once the forensics guys have finished on site it will very quickly be covered in scaffolding and tarpaulin so that remedial work can begin.
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and civil defence have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable (800 rooms and suites, many hosting NYE parties, seven restaurants and a ballroom, all fully booked). One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured, a lucky escape.
Err..
I used to work in steel framed buildings. All skyscrapers are steel framed. To prevent steel from overheating in fires (and hence buckling or worse), the steel beams are coated with a layer of paint which reacts to heat by expanding to form a skin which resists heat transmission..
If it was the UK, every steel beam affected would have to be stripped clean of fireproof paint, tested and probably replaced. Re-using a heat treated steel structure is liek having a time bomb waiting to go off. (depends on the heat and damage of course).
At the very least, new heat proof paint will have to be sprayed onto cleaned steel.
Deserve all you get if you drink pretendy cheap crap
Now, now, Mr. G., there are times when it is not appropriate to drink a single malt and on those occasions a blended Irish Whiskey such as Bushmills or even Jameson can be better than many of the blended Scotch Whiskies and are better value for money.
On the subject of Whisky one of the advantages of being old is that people tend to buy one bottles of it at Christmas (they know it will be appreciated and it saves having to think about a suitable present) and this year produced a bumper crop. Along with the usual favourites (Laphroaig, mostly) I was given a 10 year old Jura (superb, not as peaty as an Islay but full of flavour) and a bottle of The Glenlivet Founder's Reserve (from Tesco I believe and a lovely light toffee with fruits flavour, an excellent all occasion whisky and great value for money). I still have a couple of other to sample including "Glen Marnoch" an Islay single malt from Lidl, which my mate tells me is very good and very cheap (£17.99).
Bushmills also make single malts. I find Irish whiskey very drinkable, but it lacks the character of Scotch due to the triple distillation process.
All kidding aside , Bushmills is very pleasant.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
I love Shortbread: A minor version of Scouselundt.
I thought you were away to the pub lurkio
PS: You have some taste then , anyone who does not like shortbread is not all there.
Sorry; clowns are not invited within Rushey-Green. Even Catford has standards....
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
The Shia cleric who was executed seems to have been a Saudi native who has not encouraged violence, but has rather called for democratic elections.
Are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the barbaric Saudi regime and wants elections should flee to a country that respects freedom of assembly and speech? Like us??
Depending on what the PM negotiates there will probably be at least 45-49% of voters who will vote Out regardless and want a trade association or nothing, however I still think about 51%+ will accept membership of the EU provided we stay outside the Eurozone. If we ever got into a situation where our EU membership required membership of the Euro then the country would most likely vote Out as would I!
You have changed what you were arguing. You were stating that the only sign of continued integration was Euro membership. It is not. If you think that is all it is then you (and many others labouring under the same misconception) are going to be rather upset when we continue to integrate after a Remain result.
I am not too bothered about some integration on things like national security and cross-border police with rising terrorism, the thing I am most concerned about is the Euro which has been an economic disaster so as long as we stay out of that I will vote In, though I agree the result will be very tight and almost half the population will want Out if there is any more integration whether that involves joining the Euro or not
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Absolutely spot on, well said.
The problem comes when the law becomes a bit "mobile". In Thailand, for example, it's not unknown for the police to plant drugs and then ask for a bribe to "forget" about it.
If you are in some of the gulf states and a business deal goes wrong and one of the people you are dealing with is a either a princeling or connected to one, then it is quite routine for all kinds of things to turn up in your possession.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
As an atheist I think I'll give it a miss.
Yes and probably best not to take Richard Dawkins latest tome as your holiday reading if you ever venture there
True the EU is a tinderbox ready to catch fire like always, so the result of the EU referendum hinges on whether it will be a quiet year on their multitude problems.
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Some further analysis of the Ashcroft poll of 20,000 people, - this time by which political party they voted for at the last GE. NB This subset of people say they actually voted at the GE so I'm assuming they're likely to vote in the referendum.
The surprising thing to me is how divided opinion is in all the parties (except UKIP which is overwhelmingly LEAVE). It makes old party canvassing returns of little use in GOTV. Will the LEAVE/REMAIN camps be able to do substantial canvassing?
It will also be interesting in how party activists respond. I assume they will align with the LEAVE/REMAIN camps rather than their own party machine, (except possibly UKIP and LDs).
Finally, on these figures, DC will need to persuade at least 75% of the undecided to back REMAIN if he wants REMAIN to win.
So a majority of UKIP voters will vote to Leave and a majority of LDs will vote to Remain, Tory, Labour and SNP voters will be the swing voters in the referendum (the former leaning Out, the latter two In)
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The only two reasons for Brits to visit Saudi are for the Hajj pilgrimage, or because of very well paid work. They should all know the rules, they're not tourists.
Doesn't stop the British embassy here in Dubai having no end of problems with residents and holidaymakers that end up in the local clink, for reasons usually alcohol-related. As far as I'm aware, getting drunk and fighting, drinking and driving, public fornication and possession of drugs are all illegal in the UK and pretty much everywhere else - yet all of these have seen Brits jailed here recently.
Oh, and if you're sentenced to deportation, as usually happens to a foreigner convicted of any of the above, you'll be taken by the police from the prison to the airport and put on a plane. If you want to come back you can apply from your home country. Something the UK can learn from maybe?
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
The only two reasons for Brits to visit Saudi are for the Hajj pilgrimage, or because of very well paid work. They should all know the rules, they're not tourists.
Doesn't stop the British embassy here in Dubai having no end of problems with residents and holidaymakers that end up in the local clink, for reasons usually alcohol-related. As far as I'm aware, getting drunk and fighting, drinking and driving, public fornication and possession of drugs are all illegal in the UK and pretty much everywhere else - yet all of these have seen Brits jailed here recently.
Oh, and if you're sentenced to deportation, as usually happens to a foreigner convicted of any of the above, you'll be taken by the police from the prison to the airport and put on a plane. If you want to come back you can apply from your home country. Something the UK can learn from maybe?
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Absolutely spot on, well said.
So presumably conversely if someone there wants a society with values like ours they should come here?
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Absolutely spot on, well said.
So presumably conversely if someone there wants a society with values like ours they should come here?
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and civil defence have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable (800 rooms and suites, many hosting NYE parties, seven restaurants and a ballroom, all fully booked). One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured, a lucky escape.
Err..
I used to work in steel framed buildings. All skyscrapers are steel framed. To prevent steel from overheating in fires (and hence buckling or worse), the steel beams are coated with a layer of paint which reacts to heat by expanding to form a skin which resists heat transmission..
If it was the UK, every steel beam affected would have to be stripped clean of fireproof paint, tested and probably replaced. Re-using a heat treated steel structure is liek having a time bomb waiting to go off. (depends on the heat and damage of course).
At the very least, new heat proof paint will have to be sprayed onto cleaned steel.
Ain't going to be quick, easy or cheap.
Thanks for that, good to hear from a builder. I think this building, like most here, is poured concrete and rebar construction rather than steel frame, I guess they'll have to strip it right back to the concrete on the affected floors and see what it looks like. They'll be also replacing all the cladding on the whole building - it's obviously flammable and doesn't meet modern building codes, even though it was built only about 9-10 years ago (hotel opened in 2008).
It won't be quick, easy or cheap, that much is very true. But they'll do it anyway, there's far too much reputation at stake. It's literally next door to the worlds tallest building!
I honestly have little problem with this. It's a country with rules of law - like ours, or Thailand or Brunei.
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
LOL, you are easily persuaded. Chopping people's heads off on dubious grounds for misdemeanours, and some of which are trivial, on the whim of a ruling family does not encourage me to ever want to visit the dump.
Easily persuaded by what?
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
You can be executed in Saudi for homosexuality, paedophilia, apostasy, atheism, adultery, rape, sexual misconduct, murder, drug trafficking, drug offenses, armed robbery and witchcraft so provided you don't engage in any of that you should be alright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
Absolutely spot on, well said.
So presumably conversely if someone there wants a society with values like ours they should come here?
So if they apply and are turned down then what then? Same to the people you spoke about originally?
Your solution isn't a solution without reciprocal open borders.
Completely off topic, but some good photos of the hotel that caught fire the other night. http://www.thenational.ae/uae/a-closer-look-at-the-fire-damage-sustained-to-the-address-hotel---in-pictures I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and civil defence have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable (800 rooms and suites, many hosting NYE parties, seven restaurants and a ballroom, all fully booked). One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured, a lucky escape.
Err..
I used to work in steel framed buildings. All skyscrapers are steel framed. To prevent steel from overheating in fires (and hence buckling or worse), the steel beams are coated with a layer of paint which reacts to heat by expanding to form a skin which resists heat transmission..
If it was the UK, every steel beam affected would have to be stripped clean of fireproof paint, tested and probably replaced. Re-using a heat treated steel structure is liek having a time bomb waiting to go off. (depends on the heat and damage of course).
At the very least, new heat proof paint will have to be sprayed onto cleaned steel.
Ain't going to be quick, easy or cheap.
Thanks for that, good to hear from a builder. I think this building, like most here, is poured concrete and rebar construction rather than steel frame, I guess they'll have to strip it right back to the concrete on the affected floors and see what it looks like. They'll be also replacing all the cladding on the whole building - it's obviously flammable and doesn't meet modern building codes, even though it was built only about 9-10 years ago (hotel opened in 2008).
It won't be quick, easy or cheap, that much is very true. But they'll do it anyway, there's far too much reputation at stake. It's literally next door to the worlds tallest building!
After 30 units - and only getting started - my 3.5-day test bet has gone. Sorry FATJUGS...!
That always looked a long shot. I mean, for the Test to last 3.5 days either Amla and Du Plessis would have to remember which way up to hold the bat (hint: you usually hold the narrow end guys) or England would have had to bat for about 3.4 days. And that was never going to happen in a side with Stokes and Bairstow at 6 and 7.
I'm amazed we've had none of the handwringers complaining about Saudi executions today. To me it's easy, if you go there have a read up on the laws and don't break them, then they won't hang you.
You're eliding disagreement with national rights. We all have a right to have an opinion about Saudi laws, e.g. that their habit of beheading and hanging people is revolting. That's not pathetic handwringing, it's honourable dissent. That doesn't mean we are denying their right to have such laws, or that we should feel free to break them if we visit, or that they can reasonably make admission dependent on answering questions about our opinions.
The same applies to people who want to come to Britain. They need to follow our laws, but they don't have to pretend to like them and they're free to put a case for changing them. There is no shortage of Brits who dislike some laws already - including most of us, I expect.
I'd never heard of him. In fact, the only Burgon I ever heard of was the guy who composed the theme music for the original (the half-decent) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. So maybe he's trying desperately to get noticed in case he's sacked in favour of some even more complete nonentity in the next week?
I'd never heard of him. In fact, the only Burgon I ever heard of was the guy who composed the theme music for the original (the half-decent) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. So maybe he's trying desperately to get noticed in case he's sacked in favour of some even more complete nonentity in the next week?
Miss Plato, sounds like he's too busy to do his job.
Speaking of that, good news: as well as the eagerly anticipated Sir Edric's Temple (re-release) and Sir Edric's Treasure, some lesser known chap called George RR Martin might have his latest offering ready this year.
I'd never heard of him. In fact, the only Burgon I ever heard of was the guy who composed the theme music for the original (the half-decent) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. So maybe he's trying desperately to get noticed in case he's sacked in favour of some even more complete nonentity in the next week?
Ah well, if he's a Trot who's not doing his job properly he's probably safe enough. As we all know, the Jezziah only disapproves of those people who have principled disagreements with him or who prove highly effective at their jobs (and show him as the embarrassing no-hoper he undoubtedly is). Or in the case of Hilary Benn, both.
Robert S - forgive my silence over the proposed LD not improving on 2015 vote share of any 2916 by election wager; I'm mulling it over. My fear is LDs going from 2.6 to 2.7 in a constituency they have always come 3rd or 4th in...
Thanks for all this. As a matter of interest, what's the earthquake risk in the area? I know it's bad elsewhere in the ME, but how about there?
We got shaken up a couple of years ago by a 7 point something in Iran 1000km away, but I'm not aware of any huge local risk. On that occasion we watched light fittings swing around for a few seconds then walked down 22 floors of stairs, but no damage done.
I do recall they took earthquakes into account when building the Burj Khalifa as it's half a mile tall, but locally they're the same magnitude as the UK in recent times. http://earthquaketrack.com/ae-03-dubai/recent
I also wonder if they will set construction firms and universities the challenge of finding a way to retroactively fireproof the cladding on hundreds of towers that were built under the old building code. The aluminium/PVC cladding material is obviously unsuited to the task and here has turned a small fire into a major incident.
Thankfully the police and civil defence have confirmed no fatalities, with only a dozen or so minor injuries and two people kept overnight in hospital. Given that there would have been at least 5,000 people in the building that's quite remarkable (800 rooms and suites, many hosting NYE parties, seven restaurants and a ballroom, all fully booked). One photographer was rescued by the Civil Defence firefighters from a building maintenance unit outside the 48th floor, after waiting there stuck for an hour. Shocked but not injured, a lucky escape.
Err..
I used to work in steel framed buildings. All skyscrapers are steel framed. To prevent steel from overheating in fires (and hence buckling or worse), the steel beams are coated with a layer of paint which reacts to heat by expanding to form a skin which resists heat transmission..
If it was the UK, every steel beam affected would have to be stripped clean of fireproof paint, tested and probably replaced. Re-using a heat treated steel structure is liek having a time bomb waiting to go off. (depends on the heat and damage of course).
At the very least, new heat proof paint will have to be sprayed onto cleaned steel.
Ain't going to be quick, easy or cheap.
Thanks for that, good to hear from a builder. I think this building, like most here, is poured concrete and rebar construction rather than steel frame, I guess they'll have to strip it right back to the concrete on the affected floors and see what it looks like. They'll be also replacing all the cladding on the whole building - it's obviously flammable and doesn't meet modern building codes, even though it was built only about 9-10 years ago (hotel opened in 2008).
It won't be quick, easy or cheap, that much is very true. But they'll do it anyway, there's far too much reputation at stake. It's literally next door to the worlds tallest building!
If it's concrete, then I suspect detailed analysis is the only way to see if it's Ol.
No surprise that the two tested and proven failures as presidents are at the bottom.
The fact it looks like being Sarkozy v Hollande will boost Le Pen, if it was Juppe v Valls she would likely be squeezed
The French system means it will never be Le Pen.
She may repeat her father's success of getting through the first round but she won't win the second round. I wouldn't back her to win the second round at 100/1.
Richard Burgon is a left-wing[1] Labour Party politician in the United Kingdom who is the Member of Parliament (MP) for Leeds East, elected at the 2015 general election.[2]His performance in a Channel 4 interview shortly following his appointment as Shadow City Minister was universally considered as pisspoor[3][4].
"Miliband’s charity has received millions of pounds from Britain’s foreign aid budget"
It's not a charity then, it's a public sector organisation, and he (and his salary) should be accountable to the people of Britain.
No disagreement there from me
Well, it's both - obviously it gets money from numerous sources, one of which is Britain, because our elected Government thinks that this is the best way to channel the money in question. The accounts are not secret, and if there's something about them that we don't like we're free to take it up with our elected government, who can review whether they still think it's the best use.
I don't, in principle, object to the idea that a charity may deliver something that Britain wants efficiently and therefore be a good use of public funds, do you? - for instance, it's possible to argue that Eton performs a public service, even though I might not agree. Nor is it necessarily mistaken to think that a large charity is best run by a very well-paid CEO, though £400K does seem a lot.
Apart from your not being keen on Miliband, what exactly are you objecting to? Have you studied the organisation's accounts and reached a considered conclusion?
Comments
I don't eat any other offal - the smell of cooking kidney makes me barf. But liver is yummy.
This video shows the initial spread of the fire up the outside of the building. It's moving up one floor every dozen seconds or so once it gets going.
http://youtu.be/3RtWxVsjlqI
Mind you, my local off-licence is selling Famous Grouse for £13 a bottle, which makes the debate over blends rather redundant.
They don't make TV like this anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czrj4yJm6z0
Unless the PM comes back with what's clearly a trade-based associate membership I'll be voting to leave, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until his negotiations conclude.
Having said all that, and as mentioned earlier, I'm not expecting to be presented with rational arguments and nuanced positions - it'll be like Scotland on steroids, unfortunately.
The referendum is about in or out, associate membership doesn't exist as much as the PM would like to fudge it.
PS , my original comment was ,merely a dig at the pathetic Fluffy who had to add an "e" due to his hatred of all things Scottish.
From the Leave point of view I do think they should be pursuing a series of points on where the EU directly effects our lives on a daily basis.
I would start with the point that it is because of EU rules that we have 5% VAT on our home energy costs. VAT has always been claimed to be for luxury goods - hence the exemptions for food, books and children's clothes. Major should not have put VAT on home energy costs and it is one of those decisions that should have been reversed when the Opposition took power. Of course they could reduce it to 5% but they could not get rid of it completely because of EU rules.
It is these sorts of small but significant costs on peoples' lives that we should be highlighting as a means of persuading people that the EU does affect them and in an adverse way.
They won't hang you in SA whatever you do.
I can't think of any circumstances where I would visit Saudi.
PS: You have some taste then , anyone who does not like shortbread is not all there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country
If you don't want to get in trouble, respect them. I may not like them, but I don't live there. Hence my dislike of those who wish to bring forms of Sharia here. Or the ECJ or ECHR deciding for us either.
You want a society with those values - live there, not here.
Con 30% REMAIN, 27% undecided, 44% LEAVE
Lab 45% REMAIN, 23% undecided, 32% LEAVE
UKIP 4% REMAIN, 10% undecided, 87% LEAVE
LD 55% REMAIN. 19% undecided, 25% LEAVE
SNP 44% REMAIN, 19% undecided, 37% LEAVE
Total 34% REMAIN, 22% undecided, 44% LEAVE
The surprising thing to me is how divided opinion is in all the parties (except UKIP which is overwhelmingly LEAVE). It makes old party canvassing returns of little use in GOTV. Will the LEAVE/REMAIN camps be able to do substantial canvassing?
It will also be interesting in how party activists respond. I assume they will align with the LEAVE/REMAIN camps rather than their own party machine, (except possibly UKIP and LDs).
Finally, on these figures, DC will need to persuade at least 75% of the undecided to back REMAIN if he wants REMAIN to win.
Something very odd seems to be going on in the whisky market just now, especially when one considers that the big supermarkets (Tesco Sainsbury and Marks and Spencer) haven't cut their prices at all. It seems very strange that small village shops can under-cut the big boys.
You
Know
Feck
All
About
Sarf
Luhnduhn....
:talk-and-no-substence:
I was reading a paper the other day on how the Saudi's might deal with the humungus problem they have got in that oil prices are not going above $50 anytime in the foreseeable future, if ever. Some diversification of their economy has to happen if they are not to return to camel herding and one of the options put forward was tourism. Aside from religious pilgrims who is going to go on holiday to Saudi Arabia?
Anyway, why would anyone visit a country with no bars?
I used to work in steel framed buildings. All skyscrapers are steel framed. To prevent steel from overheating in fires (and hence buckling or worse), the steel beams are coated with a layer of paint which reacts to heat by expanding to form a skin which resists heat transmission..
If it was the UK, every steel beam affected would have to be stripped clean of fireproof paint, tested and probably replaced. Re-using a heat treated steel structure is liek having a time bomb waiting to go off. (depends on the heat and damage of course).
At the very least, new heat proof paint will have to be sprayed onto cleaned steel.
Ain't going to be quick, easy or cheap.
3.5-day test-match in Cape - Town? Any odds....
Are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the barbaric Saudi regime and wants elections should flee to a country that respects freedom of assembly and speech? Like us??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35213244
Off to the footy now. Leicester City need to improve their goal difference!
If you are in some of the gulf states and a business deal goes wrong and one of the people you are dealing with is a either a princeling or connected to one, then it is quite routine for all kinds of things to turn up in your possession.
Off topic, this is a great map of the GOP race.
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/683154511100182528
Doesn't stop the British embassy here in Dubai having no end of problems with residents and holidaymakers that end up in the local clink, for reasons usually alcohol-related. As far as I'm aware, getting drunk and fighting, drinking and driving, public fornication and possession of drugs are all illegal in the UK and pretty much everywhere else - yet all of these have seen Brits jailed here recently.
Oh, and if you're sentenced to deportation, as usually happens to a foreigner convicted of any of the above, you'll be taken by the police from the prison to the airport and put on a plane. If you want to come back you can apply from your home country. Something the UK can learn from maybe?
It won't be quick, easy or cheap, that much is very true. But they'll do it anyway, there's far too much reputation at stake. It's literally next door to the worlds tallest building!
Same to the people you spoke about originally?
Your solution isn't a solution without reciprocal open borders.
http://www.leparisien.fr/politique/sondage-pour-88-des-francais-la-classe-politique-ne-se-renouvelle-pas-assez-01-01-2016-5415081.php
Juppe 56%
Valls 38%
Le Pen 37%
Bayrou 33%
Sarkozy 24%
Hollande 24%
No surprise that the two tested and proven failures as presidents are at the bottom.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3381628/The-gilded-life-Miliband-look-away-Ed-emerges-ex-foreign-secretary-pockets-astonishing-400-000-boss-refugee-charity.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3381355/Blair-bragged-private-beaten-Cameron-2010-election-hadn-t-forced-Labour-leader-Brown.html
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=153955&page=16
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=153955&page=20
It's all poured concrete and rebar except for the curved section at the top, which is steel framed.
"Miliband’s charity has received millions of pounds from Britain’s foreign aid budget"
It's not a charity then, it's a public sector organisation, and he (and his salary) should be accountable to the people of Britain.
Mr. Hopkins, quite. Charity's fine, subscribe to mine...
Disturbing evidence that the shadow city minister wears guy liner: https://t.co/x2dOG79YK8
The same applies to people who want to come to Britain. They need to follow our laws, but they don't have to pretend to like them and they're free to put a case for changing them. There is no shortage of Brits who dislike some laws already - including most of us, I expect.
EDIT If he looked like Dave Navarro, he could carry it off.
Speaking of that, good news: as well as the eagerly anticipated Sir Edric's Temple (re-release) and Sir Edric's Treasure, some lesser known chap called George RR Martin might have his latest offering ready this year.
I do recall they took earthquakes into account when building the Burj Khalifa as it's half a mile tall, but locally they're the same magnitude as the UK in recent times.
http://earthquaketrack.com/ae-03-dubai/recent
As for flammable cladding... !!!!!
She may repeat her father's success of getting through the first round but she won't win the second round. I wouldn't back her to win the second round at 100/1.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/watch-richard-burgons-car-crash-channel-4-interview/
which led to this memorable intervention on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Burgon&oldid=685831873
Does Jeremy Corbyn want his Shadow Cabinet to look as ideologically pure and politically inept as possible?
New Thread New Thread
I don't, in principle, object to the idea that a charity may deliver something that Britain wants efficiently and therefore be a good use of public funds, do you? - for instance, it's possible to argue that Eton performs a public service, even though I might not agree. Nor is it necessarily mistaken to think that a large charity is best run by a very well-paid CEO, though £400K does seem a lot.
Apart from your not being keen on Miliband, what exactly are you objecting to? Have you studied the organisation's accounts and reached a considered conclusion?