Why don't you ask him? Farage has made some quite serious claims there, and they should be taken at face value.
If it's true, we've got to hope the police will get to the bottom off it, and he increases his own security. And if he's lying, it'll come out in time.
As I said in my previous post, surely the French police should have opened an investigation?
Where to start with such partisan drivel.
Nigel said he didn't want it taken further, he did nothing at the time until the press found out and contacted him. If he increases his security who foots the bill? Why on earth would the French police open an investigation when a foreigner says he doesn't want to pursue it?
Imagine the furore if Nigel had reported an assassination attempt, he has acted entirely appropriately
"Partisan drivel" sums up your posts really well, as shown above.
And as I keep on saying (yet Kippers such yourself seem to be incapable of understanding) - I don't belong to a political party.
The flaws in the rest of your post are all too obvious. For one thing, it's not just his life that is endangered by such actions, but also those of others in the car and other road users.
I don't care whether you belong to a party or not, your admitted dislike of Nigel means you continually spout nonsense about him, on this occasion hinting at him lying and suggesting he should increase his personal security.
As usual, you swerve the questions I raise in favour of more opprobrium. I'm surprised you haven't accused him of loosening the nuts himself as part of a publicity stunt.
If you read this thread back, you will see I was giving Farage the benefit of the doubt in this regard. Still, you've a record of disregarding evidence that don't fit your narrative.
As for swerving questions: with your track record that's a bit rich. Have you learnt anything about foreign aid yet, or are you still wallowing in angry ignorance based on hundreds of doorstep conversations?
As for your last line: that's just contemptible. Grow up.
Haha Jessop keep swerving now you're caught with your pants down again!
Come on, did Nigel lie and please explain who would pay for additional security.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
I have an arch feminist friend who lectures in Gender Studies at an eminent University. When she married, she did not take her husbands name, sticking to her her original one. It still niggled her though as she carried her fathers name rather than her mothers name (and of course her mother carried her grandfathers name and so on ad infinitum). Her solution was to renounce all these patriarchal names and choose her own name. She has been known by that name for 20 years now.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
She is quite a catch! Always up for fun, loves dancing, always has interesting opinions and is an excellent cook. We go back a long way, but I know her via an old boyfriend of hers. We met aged 18 fixing her Mini. She was a good mechanic and had her own welding kit. What more could a fella want at that age! but we have only ever been good platonic friends.
That's fair enough, feminism is a very divisive subject among women. I'm a great believer in gender equality, going back through generations to renounce male names seems a tad obsessive.
I think she is right though. To refuse your husband's name but keep your fathers one is not logical.
I also have married friends who kept their own names, and agreed that daughters would carry the wife's name and sons the father's name. As it happens they had two daughters.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
I have an arch feminist friend who lectures in Gender Studies at an eminent University. When she married, she did not take her husbands name, sticking to her her original one. It still niggled her though as she carried her fathers name rather than her mothers name (and of course her mother carried her grandfathers name and so on ad infinitum). Her solution was to renounce all these patriarchal names and choose her own name. She has been known by that name for 20 years now.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
She is quite a catch! Always up for fun, loves dancing, always has interesting opinions and is an excellent cook. We go back a long way, but I know her via an old boyfriend of hers. We met aged 18 fixing her Mini. She was a good mechanic and had her own welding kit. What more could a fella want at that age! but we have only ever been good platonic friends.
How did she go about choosing her own name? Did she come up with something unique (not sure that's possible)? There's probably some man with any surname who's done something wrong.
Anyway, more importantly, three games without a goal - Ranieri out?
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
I have an arch feminist friend who lectures in Gender Studies at an eminent University. When she married, she did not take her husbands name, sticking to her her original one. It still niggled her though as she carried her fathers name rather than her mothers name (and of course her mother carried her grandfathers name and so on ad infinitum). Her solution was to renounce all these patriarchal names and choose her own name. She has been known by that name for 20 years now.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
She is quite a catch! Always up for fun, loves dancing, always has interesting opinions and is an excellent cook. We go back a long way, but I know her via an old boyfriend of hers. We met aged 18 fixing her Mini. She was a good mechanic and had her own welding kit. What more could a fella want at that age! but we have only ever been good platonic friends.
That's fair enough, feminism is a very divisive subject among women. I'm a great believer in gender equality, going back through generations to renounce male names seems a tad obsessive.
I think she is right though. To refuse your husband's name but keep your fathers one is not logical.
I also have married friends who kept their own names, and agreed that daughters would carry the wife's name and sons the father's name. As it happens they had two daughters.
Each to their own, taking the conversation to its logical conclusion I'm not sure why she would want to marry. Love honour and cherish and all that.
Why don't you ask him? Farage has made some quite serious claims there, and they should be taken at face value.
If it's true, we've got to hope the police will get to the bottom off it, and he increases his own security. And if he's lying, it'll come out in time.
As I said in my previous post, surely the French police should have opened an investigation?
Where to start with such partisan drivel.
Nigel said he didn't want it taken further, he did nothing at the time until the press found out and contacted him. If he increases his security who foots the bill? Why on earth would the French police open an investigation when a foreigner says he doesn't want to pursue it?
Imagine the furore if Nigel had reported an assassination attempt, he has acted entirely appropriately
"Partisan drivel" sums up your posts really well, as shown above.
And as I keep on saying (yet Kippers such yourself seem to be incapable of understanding) - I don't belong to a political party.
The flaws in the rest of your post are all too obvious. For one thing, it's not just his life that is endangered by such actions, but also those of others in the car and other road users.
I don't care whether you belong to a party or not, your admitted dislike of Nigel means you continually spout nonsense about him, on this occasion hinting at him lying and suggesting he should increase his personal security.
As usual, you swerve the questions I raise in favour of more opprobrium. I'm surprised you haven't accused him of loosening the nuts himself as part of a publicity stunt.
If you read this thread back, you will see I was giving Farage the benefit of the doubt in this regard. Still, you've a record of disregarding evidence that don't fit your narrative.
As for swerving questions: with your track record that's a bit rich. Have you learnt anything about foreign aid yet, or are you still wallowing in angry ignorance based on hundreds of doorstep conversations?
As for your last line: that's just contemptible. Grow up.
Haha Jessop keep swerving now you're caught with your pants down again!
Come on, did Nigel lie and please explain who would pay for additional security.
And you ask me to grow up.
Yes, I do ask you to grow up.
Read my posts from the beginning and see if I was trying to 'get' at Farage.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A strain of thought which is deluded.
Surely men can call themselves whatever they want to. So why should women be any different?
What one may do, and what is the path of wisdom are, of course, two different things.
In what way can men call themselves what they want? There is only one standard male title: Mr.
Any individual can of course choose their own name by deed poll if they so desire but there is convention to the use of titles and that's just something that people who choose togo outside the norms, for whatever reason, will have to accept.
Isn't it you and those who would have preferred to keep the old conventions who have to accept something here? It's you who are expecting to find information where it is lacking. If (bit of a stretch here maybe) you meet La Thornberry at the next Momentum wine and cheese bash, and if you are introduced to her and her brother (if she has one) at the same time, you may assume they are married. But if you then have at the pinot noir a little too much and start making slightly awkward remarks about when their next baby is due, it's you who will have jumped to a false conclusion, not them.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
I have an arch feminist friend who lectures in Gender Studies at an eminent University. When she married, she did not take her husbands name, sticking to her her original one. It still niggled her though as she carried her fathers name rather than her mothers name (and of course her mother carried her grandfathers name and so on ad infinitum). Her solution was to renounce all these patriarchal names and choose her own name. She has been known by that name for 20 years now.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
She is quite a catch! Always up for fun, loves dancing, always has interesting opinions and is an excellent cook. We go back a long way, but I know her via an old boyfriend of hers. We met aged 18 fixing her Mini. She was a good mechanic and had her own welding kit. What more could a fella want at that age! but we have only ever been good platonic friends.
How did she go about choosing her own name? Did she come up with something unique (not sure that's possible)? There's probably some man with any surname who's done something wrong.
Anyway, more importantly, three games without a goal - Ranieri out?
You can come up with a unique surname if you want
A rather childish friend of mine decided one day at school that he wanted to be known by his IT logon number (IT9168 or something) as he said we are all just a number.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
I have an arch feminist friend who lectures in Gender Studies at an eminent University. When she married, she did not take her husbands name, sticking to her her original one. It still niggled her though as she carried her fathers name rather than her mothers name (and of course her mother carried her grandfathers name and so on ad infinitum). Her solution was to renounce all these patriarchal names and choose her own name. She has been known by that name for 20 years now.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
.
How did she go about choosing her own name? Did she come up with something unique (not sure that's possible)? There's probably some man with any surname who's done something wrong.
Anyway, more importantly, three games without a goal - Ranieri out?
She chose a name relating to her career, which is pretty much how surnames started.
Leicester fans are very happy with Ranieri. There were some very good shots on goal yesterday, and Bournemouth parked the bus fairly effectively. Vardy has not shaken off his groin strain that he picked up against Man U. He needs a couple of weeks off. Mahrez was poor yesterday, but has always been mercurial. I expect our squad will have some good winter signings.
Man City, Everton, Stoke and Liverpool all have very hectic January as busy in both cups and the league. Leicester and Arsenal have relatively quiet fixtures.
Though losing 4 nil at Saints, and scraping a single goal at home against a relegation candidate with a leaky defence would worry me if I were an Arsenal supporter!
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
I have an arch feminist friend who lectures in Gender Studies at an eminent University. When she married, she did not take her husbands name, sticking to her her original one. It still niggled her though as she carried her fathers name rather than her mothers name (and of course her mother carried her grandfathers name and so on ad infinitum). Her solution was to renounce all these patriarchal names and choose her own name. She has been known by that name for 20 years now.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
She is quite a catch! Always up for fun, loves dancing, always has interesting opinions and is an excellent cook. We go back a long way, but I know her via an old boyfriend of hers. We met aged 18 fixing her Mini. She was a good mechanic and had her own welding kit. What more could a fella want at that age! but we have only ever been good platonic friends.
How did she go about choosing her own name? Did she come up with something unique (not sure that's possible)? There's probably some man with any surname who's done something wrong.
Anyway, more importantly, three games without a goal - Ranieri out?
You can come up with a unique surname if you want
A rather childish friend of mine decided one day at school that he wanted to be known by his IT logon number (IT9168 or something) as he said we are all just a number.
A rather childish friend of mine decided one day at school that he wanted to be known by his IT logon number (IT9168 or something) as he said we are all just a number.
Saffers off to find the ball, after Stokes hits it well out of the ground! He's tearing up the record books this morning. 160 added to the overnight total without loss, and it's still half an hour until lunch!
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A strain of thought which is deluded.
Surely men can call themselves whatever they want to. So why should women be any different?
What one may do, and what is the path of wisdom are, of course, two different things.
In what way can men call themselves what they want? There is only one standard male title: Mr.
Any individual can of course choose their own name by deed poll if they so desire but there is convention to the use of titles and that's just something that people who choose togo outside the norms, for whatever reason, will have to accept.
A lady of my acquaintance visited me recently and greeted me with "hi, I'm Stella .........". I was very bemused as that's not her name. She explained that she'd changed her name by deed poll as part of her new life.
Nothing untoward but it was very disconcerting.
I have a male friend who changed his name to something very, er, distinctive (that's a kind way of putting it). I'd already known him for several years and my brain refuses to relearn his name. He gets into a serious strop if I inadvertently use the old one though.
I don't often agree with you, Mr K, but on this we are in total alignment.
I would also point out that Saudi Arabia is no less a discriminatory state than South Africa was.
Saudi Arabia is a squalid country with whom we should sup with a very long spoon. It has refused to sign up to the UN Convention on Human Rights because it does not agree with the bit about freedom of religion. No great surprise there but why we permit it and its agents to use its money to spread its vile ideology in our country is a mystery.
Saudi Arabia has been able to behave in the way it does because it has ensured that the West was able to get the oil it needs, at a reasonable price. In return we offered it security, and turned a blind eye to it exporting its particularly unpleasant strain of Islamofascism.
But Saudi Arabia's time in the sun is drawing to a close, and therefore, also much of
And the dramatic improvements in battery and solar technology mean that our previously insatiable desire for oil may slow, and perhaps reverse.
ISIS and Al Queda have always depended on rich paymasters. In a world of $30 oil, there are no rich paymasters.
The main pernicious influence from Saudi Arabia is spread by their mosque building in Britain, other European countries and Northern America, (USA & Canada).
But not just any mosque: they are almost all huge buildings with giant minarets, meant to be overbearing and alien to their immediate surroundings. A not so subtle statement of Triumphant Islam and Wahabism, the Saudis own particular brand of Islam.
Very early mosques were fairly small with open courtyards, but within a century or so Islam copied and modified Byzantine church architecture to the form we see today with domes and minarets.
Mosques are built as large as possible and on sites previously used by other religions, as a military/political statement of conquest. The Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple mount in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sopia in Istanbul (and Blue Mosque on the old Byzantine palace) as well as the Ayodha mosque in India are all examples of this.
Synagogues by contrast are pretty nearly always discrete. My understanding is that they should never attempt to rival Soloman's Temple.
The fact that the Romans refused to allow the Jews to rebuild the Temple was a remarkable act of intolerance on their part.
Leicester fans are very happy with Ranieri. There were some very good shots on goal yesterday, and Bournemouth parked the bus fairly effectively. Vardy has not shaken off his groin strain that he picked up against Man U. He needs a couple of weeks off. Mahrez was poor yesterday, but has always been mercurial. I expect our squad will have some good winter signings.
Man City, Everton, Stoke and Liverpool all have very hectic January as busy in both cups and the league. Leicester and Arsenal have relatively quiet fixtures.
Though losing 4 nil at Saints, and scraping a single goal at home against a relegation candidate with a leaky defence would worry me if I were an Arsenal supporter!
I was at the Emirates with my daughter yesterday. (She's 8, and is a fanatical Gooner - much more than me who just enjoys the football.) It was a terrible match; Arsenal was comprehensively outplayed by Newcastle, and survived only because Cech is the best goalkeeper in the Premier League.
They did not look a league winning side yesterday.
How did she go about choosing her own name? Did she come up with something unique (not sure that's possible)? There's probably some man with any surname who's done something wrong.
Anyway, more importantly, three games without a goal - Ranieri out?
She chose a name relating to her career, which is pretty much how surnames started.
Leicester fans are very happy with Ranieri. There were some very good shots on goal yesterday, and Bournemouth parked the bus fairly effectively. Vardy has not shaken off his groin strain that he picked up against Man U. He needs a couple of weeks off. Mahrez was poor yesterday, but has always been mercurial. I expect our squad will have some good winter signings.
Man City, Everton, Stoke and Liverpool all have very hectic January as busy in both cups and the league. Leicester and Arsenal have relatively quiet fixtures.
Though losing 4 nil at Saints, and scraping a single goal at home against a relegation candidate with a leaky defence would worry me if I were an Arsenal supporter!
That makes sense. Quite how Arsenal are top of the league is a mystery. I suspect we'll lose comprehensively at Liverpool and Stoke and that will be that.
My aunt Dorothy changed her name to Sarah - never told us. I discovered after my mother's funeral when we held the wake at her house, and answered the door to a charming lady asking for Sarah.
I was Who's That? She lives here. No she doesn't... Awkward.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A strain of thought which is deluded.
Surely men can call themselves whatever they want to. So why should women be any different?
What one may do, and what is the path of wisdom are, of course, two different things.
In what way can men call themselves what they want? There is only one standard male title: Mr.
Any individual can of course choose their own name by deed poll if they so desire but there is convention to the use of titles and that's just something that people who choose togo outside the norms, for whatever reason, will have to accept.
A lady of my acquaintance visited me recently and greeted me with "hi, I'm Stella .........". I was very bemused as that's not her name. She explained that she'd changed her name by deed poll as part of her new life.
Nothing untoward but it was very disconcerting.
I have a male friend who changed his name to something very, er, distinctive (that's a kind way of putting it). I'd already known him for several years and my brain refuses to relearn his name. He gets into a serious strop if I inadvertently use the old one though.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A strain of thought which is deluded.
Surely men can call themselves whatever they want to. So why should women be any different?
What one may do, and what is the path of wisdom are, of course, two different things.
In what way can men call themselves what they want? There is only one standard male title: Mr.
Any individual can of course choose their own name by deed poll if they so desire but there is convention to the use of titles and that's just something that people who choose togo outside the norms, for whatever reason, will have to accept.
Isn't it you and those who would have preferred to keep the old conventions who have to accept something here? It's you who are expecting to find information where it is lacking. If (bit of a stretch here maybe) you meet La Thornberry at the next Momentum wine and cheese bash, and if you are introduced to her and her brother (if she has one) at the same time, you may assume they are married. But if you then have at the pinot noir a little too much and start making slightly awkward remarks about when their next baby is due, it's you who will have jumped to a false conclusion, not them.
What is the point of a title unless to convey information about the person to others - and if so, there has to be a commonly understood set of meanings to those titles otherwise they become meaningless.
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A strain of thought which is deluded.
Surely men can call themselves whatever they want to. So why should women be any different?
What one may do, and what is the path of wisdom are, of course, two different things.
In what way can men call themselves what they want? There is only one standard male title: Mr.
Any individual can of course choose their own name by deed poll if they so desire but there is convention to the use of titles and that's just something that people who choose togo outside the norms, for whatever reason, will have to accept.
Isn't it you and those who would have preferred to keep the old conventions who have to accept something here? It's you who are expecting to find information where it is lacking. If (bit of a stretch here maybe) you meet La Thornberry at the next Momentum wine and cheese bash, and if you are introduced to her and her brother (if she has one) at the same time, you may assume they are married. But if you then have at the pinot noir a little too much and start making slightly awkward remarks about when their next baby is due, it's you who will have jumped to a false conclusion, not them.
What is the point of a title unless to convey information about the person to others - and if so, there has to be a commonly understood set of meanings to those titles otherwise they become meaningless.
Well, Mr/Ms/Mrs etc convey sex. Whether there's any point in that I'm not sure. We could all just be known by our surnames (turning the country into a giant prep school).
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A strain of thought which is deluded.
Surely men can call themselves whatever they want to. So why should women be any different?
What one may do, and what is the path of wisdom are, of course, two different things.
In what way can men call themselves what they want? There is only one standard male title: Mr.
Any individual can of course choose their own name by deed poll if they so desire but there is convention to the use of titles and that's just something that people who choose togo outside the norms, for whatever reason, will have to accept.
Isn't it you and those who would have preferred to keep the old conventions who have to accept something here? It's you who are expecting to find information where it is lacking. If (bit of a stretch here maybe) you meet La Thornberry at the next Momentum wine and cheese bash, and if you are introduced to her and her brother (if she has one) at the same time, you may assume they are married. But if you then have at the pinot noir a little too much and start making slightly awkward remarks about when their next baby is due, it's you who will have jumped to a false conclusion, not them.
What is the point of a title unless to convey information about the person to others - and if so, there has to be a commonly understood set of meanings to those titles otherwise they become meaningless.
Indeed. If fact, the same could be said of given names and surnames.
The self-possession of names is another symptom of the little emperor generation.
Really? I wasn't even a former minister, but when my wife and I were going on holiday in in Denmark in 2001 I enquired (as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think) whether there was anything interesting to visit while I was there, and we were invited to stay at the Ambassador's residence - nice guy, pleasant place - and take part in a reception. I gathered that this was a common courtesy for MPs when possible.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
Really? I wasn't even a former minister, but when my wife and I were going on holiday in in Denmark in 2001 I enquired (as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think) whether there was anything interesting to visit while I was there, and we were invited to stay at the Ambassador's residence - nice guy, pleasant place - and take part in a reception. I gathered that this was a common courtesy for MPs when possible.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
I was discussing 9/11 with my IT-worker colleagues in the same tone. I don't think it's a politician thing, more that some people get bored if they have to just stand around emoting for more than a few minutes. There's probably an overlap with people who found the Diana aftermath tiresome (raises hand).
Really? I wasn't even a former minister, but when my wife and I were going on holiday in in Denmark in 2001 I enquired (as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think) whether there was anything interesting to visit while I was there, and we were invited to stay at the Ambassador's residence - nice guy, pleasant place - and take part in a reception. I gathered that this was a common courtesy for MPs when possible.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
I'm sure the embassies are happy to bend over backwards to accommodate visiting MPs and other VIPs. However the examples given in the article are of a Mr Blair and Mr Straw, who were quite clearly taking the piss in getting the embassy to set up business meetings for them with local politicians, after they had left political office.
Saffer bowlers will be looking forward to lunch. Eng 513/5 have added 196 in the morning session without loss - Stokes 204* with the fastest ever 200 by an Englishman, with Bairstow supporting on 95*
Just so everyone knows, the largest cricketing victory was an innings and 579 runs, by England vs Australia at the Oval in 1910. If Stokes and Bairstow can push this onto a 900 lead by close of play today...
Just so everyone knows, the largest cricketing victory was an innings and 579 runs, by England vs Australia at the Oval in 1910. If Stokes and Bairstow can push this onto a 900 lead by close of play today...
Why set our sites so low....Lets go for 4 figures....1000..Easy...Easy...Easy....
Just so everyone knows, the largest cricketing victory was an innings and 579 runs, by England vs Australia at the Oval in 1910. If Stokes and Bairstow can push this onto a 900 lead by close of play today...
That was before they stopped after five days though!
Just so everyone knows, the largest cricketing victory was an innings and 579 runs, by England vs Australia at the Oval in 1910. If Stokes and Bairstow can push this onto a 900 lead by close of play today...
That was before they stopped after five days though!
Which is why Stokes and Bairstow need to get it to 900 tonight
Just noticed interesting thing about the EuroRef polling. Phone polling has lower DK figure than online polling. That is the opposite of the Indy Ref and surely gives a lie to the "more engaged" line about the problems of online polling?
Really? I wasn't even a former minister, but when my wife and I were going on holiday in in Denmark in 2001 I enquired (as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think) whether there was anything interesting to visit while I was there, and we were invited to stay at the Ambassador's residence - nice guy, pleasant place - and take part in a reception. I gathered that this was a common courtesy for MPs when possible.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
I don't think you were wrong at all, other than possibly taking the wrong tone in the wrong place. But it is the job of national politicians and of diplomats to understand these things, their consequences and potential next actions - you were both right to compare notes.
Just so everyone knows, the largest cricketing victory was an innings and 579 runs, by England vs Australia at the Oval in 1910. If Stokes and Bairstow can push this onto a 900 lead by close of play today...
At his present rate of scoring Stokes should be breaking the record for the highest ever score around an hour or so before the close of play.
Mr. 1000, one suspects the future of Mr. Cameron will be decided by Mrs. Cameron.
Ha, true. He gives the impression of being a family man who would like to spend time watching his kids grow up, away from the pressure of office. It's a side-effect of politicians becoming younger, and of people in general marrying later in life.
Not to me he, comes across as a snake oil salesman. He will be on lots of boards enriching himself even further for a few hours attendance a year like all these privileged elite plonkers do.
Really? I wasn't even a former minister, but when my wife and I were going on holiday in in Denmark in 2001 I enquired (as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think) whether there was anything interesting to visit while I was there, and we were invited to stay at the Ambassador's residence - nice guy, pleasant place - and take part in a reception. I gathered that this was a common courtesy for MPs when possible.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
I don't think you were wrong at all, other than possibly taking the wrong tone in the wrong place. But it is the job of national politicians and of diplomats to understand these things, their consequences and potential next actions - you were both right to compare notes.
That's also very true. Heck, in the event of a nuclear attack I'd hope the governing class was dispassionate in analysing and reacting to it.
Anyone now thinks this test will last more than 3.5 days (3-days, 1.5 sessions)...
Yes. Getting 20 wickets on this pitch is going to be very hard. A follow on puts huge pressure on the bowlers too. Of course SA may be so demoralised they might just roll over but they still have 3 serious batsmen, Elgar, Amla and of course the great AB.
All we need is Anderson and Broad to put the odd ball in the block-hole. It hink we should declate now....
Nah, not with Bairstow five short of a ton and Stokes in the mood to write Graeme Gooch out of the record books. Declaration at tea maybe, or when the current pair are both out.
Just noticed interesting thing about the EuroRef polling. Phone polling has lower DK figure than online polling. That is the opposite of the Indy Ref and surely gives a lie to the "more engaged" line about the problems of online polling?
Maybe. Is it possible being more engaged makes you less sure?
Mr. 1000, one suspects the future of Mr. Cameron will be decided by Mrs. Cameron.
Ha, true. He gives the impression of being a family man who would like to spend time watching his kids grow up, away from the pressure of office. It's a side-effect of politicians becoming younger, and of people in general marrying later in life.
Not to me he, comes across as a snake oil salesman. He will be on lots of boards enriching himself even further for a few hours attendance a year like all these privileged elite plonkers do.
A fair description, IMHO! One of Malc's better posts.
So, if SA can score a quick 800 they can put England under pressure on the last day?
There was a county game (Essex v Lancs) in about 1990 where Essex scored 700 declared, only for Neil Fairbrother to lead Lancs to 863 and putting the pressure on, as you put it!
All we need is Anderson and Broad to put the odd ball in the block-hole. It hink we should declate now....
Nah, not with Bairstow five short of a ton and Stokes in the mood to write Graeme Gooch out of the record books. Declaration at tea maybe, or when the current pair are both out.
I think we may even have a better chance of winning if we delay the declaration and try to demoralise SA with a piss-taking total. Of course, they'll be batting well before the end of the day regardless.
I was discussing 9/11 with my IT-worker colleagues in the same tone. I don't think it's a politician thing, more that some people get bored if they have to just stand around emoting for more than a few minutes. There's probably an overlap with people who found the Diana aftermath tiresome (raises hand).
Erm, yes, good spot. There's quite often a communications problem in that - people who feel overwhelmed by emotion think that those who aren't are almost autistic and indifferent, people who hastily switch into analytical mode sometimes are not indifferent but scared of plunging into grief. There are traditional national, cultural and gender differences involved too. I'm a traditional British male - stiff upper lip and all that - and it's important to me, but it's not the only way to live.
Two spellbinding hours. An absolute privilege to watch that from Stokes (and Bairstow). I can't remember seeing many better things in sport. Fantastic.
Mr. 1000, one suspects the future of Mr. Cameron will be decided by Mrs. Cameron.
Ha, true. He gives the impression of being a family man who would like to spend time watching his kids grow up, away from the pressure of office. It's a side-effect of politicians becoming younger, and of people in general marrying later in life.
One thing he has going for him is that he doesn't seem to be utterly obsessed with being PM. On the John Major <-> Gordon Brown scale (0-10) I would put him at about 3 in terms of The-Job-Is-My-Life.
The book by David Owen about the feedback loop between power and personality is a must read.
Just so everyone knows, the largest cricketing victory was an innings and 579 runs, by England vs Australia at the Oval in 1910. If Stokes and Bairstow can push this onto a 900 lead by close of play today...
That was before they stopped after five days though!
Which is why Stokes and Bairstow need to get it to 900 tonight
They have the highest English 6th wicket partnership (prev: Flintoff/Thorpe 281 v NZ at Christchurch, 2002) - highest 6th wicket partnership by anybody Watling/Williamson (NZ) 365* v SL at Wellington, Jan 2015. Also still some distance away from the highest English partnership for any wicket in SA (Hutton/Washbrook at Johannesburg, 1948).
Really? I wasn't even a former minister, but when my wife and I were going on holiday in in Denmark in 2001 I enquired (as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I think) whether there was anything interesting to visit while I was there, and we were invited to stay at the Ambassador's residence - nice guy, pleasant place - and take part in a reception. I gathered that this was a common courtesy for MPs when possible.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
I don't think you were wrong at all, other than possibly taking the wrong tone in the wrong place. But it is the job of national politicians and of diplomats to understand these things, their consequences and potential next actions - you were both right to compare notes.
I think that's absolutely right. While the dangers of over-detachment are probably real, calm and rational assessment of emotive subjects, even to the point of seeming cold, is an important political and diplomatic function, though of course we would be wary of a politician who did appear so cold publicly, as sometimes we demand an emotional reaction, however rationally and coolly they may be considering matters.
Just noticed interesting thing about the EuroRef polling. Phone polling has lower DK figure than online polling. That is the opposite of the Indy Ref and surely gives a lie to the "more engaged" line about the problems of online polling?
Maybe. Is it possible being more engaged makes you less sure?
It's the fact that it is the opposite of the Indy Ref that is causing me confusion.
It would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall of their upper echelons.
They are having to massively cut government spending this year - due to the low oil price that they've engineered themselves in an attempt to drive out the Russian and unconventional US suppliers in the O&G sector. This is risking local population upsets a la Bahrain a few years ago.
I guess they realise that they're only at the top table because of the realpolitik of the international dependence on their production, and that without that dependence they would be very much in the cold from a Western point of view.
OPEC is now pretty much dead as a concept, with most smaller producers desparate to keep the oil price up. There was an interview on local radio here last week with the CFO of Emirates, he suggests that for his company $80/bl was the sweet spot - lower is better in terms of his costs, but too low and he starts losing customers and those he retains start flying in cheaper cabins as they carefully manage their costs.
My inkling is that the one reason Saudi is producing oil now is because as the world shifts to Solar and batteries unless you sell it now you may never sell it.
Best to take $30 now rather than nothing later....
That Emirates view is surely unique to them and probably Eastern (who fly mainly to Aberdeen). For anyone else lower oil prices just means lower costs.
My personal opinion is that the Saudis are pumping like mad to delay the switch to alternatives, but this is driven by their desperate need to remain relevant geopoliticaly. Once the oil goes, they will just be a bunch of guys with alot of sand.
Talking of black swans what price this -
Daesh is driven back to the point of collapse in the next year or two. The conquerors in Iraq and elsewhere do not abide by Hague 1898, PACE ;-) or any other damn rule. The result is a flood of refugees. I think we can safely say that the no-ethnic-extremist-is-too-extreme-for-us group in the Labour party would want to take such charming people in....
I can only assume Ms Thornberry’s appointment is a two fingered gesture to white van man.
Great decision, what can go wrong..?
Ms Thornberry
Actually - no, she's not a lesbian so it should be Mrs Thornberry - except that also she seems unable to manage the simplest tasks and change her married surname to Mrs Nugee.
Almost as absent-minded as the LoTO who forgot to add his name to the birth certificate of his son.
'Mrs' Thornberry implies that she's married to, or widowed from, Mr Thornberry. I think the use of Ms in this case is correct.
There is a strain of thought that women can call themselves what they want without it "implying" anything.
A lot of married female doctors (and other professionals) continue to work under their unmarried names, partly because they have established a reputation, and partly because of security. Female doctors can attract stalkers fairly easily and having a different name outside work helps.
Imagine marrying your friend.
She is quite a catch! Always up for fun, loves dancing, always has interesting opinions and is an excellent cook. We go back a long way, but I know her via an old boyfriend of hers. We met aged 18 fixing her Mini. She was a good mechanic and had her own welding kit. What more could a fella want at that age! but we have only ever been good platonic friends.
How did she go about choosing her own name? Did she come up with something unique (not sure that's possible)? There's probably some man with any surname who's done something wrong.
Anyway, more importantly, three games without a goal - Ranieri out?
You can come up with a unique surname if you want
A rather childish friend of mine decided one day at school that he wanted to be known by his IT logon number (IT9168 or something) as he said we are all just a number.
That reminds me of a Viz Top Tip I read years ago. It was advice on how to save money on expensive personalized car registrations by changing your name via deed poll. The advice was from a Mr KVL741Y
Just noticed interesting thing about the EuroRef polling. Phone polling has lower DK figure than online polling. That is the opposite of the Indy Ref and surely gives a lie to the "more engaged" line about the problems of online polling?
Maybe. Is it possible being more engaged makes you less sure?
Or online polling panels are infested by astroturfers still waiting for the memo from party hq.
On topic: I am struggling to appreciate the "real political nous" shown by Corbyn in this move, assuming that the pre-briefing is reliable (which it of course may not be).
If so, the hard left's reasoning for moving against Benn and Eagle now probably goes something like this. Firstly, Corbyn feels that he has his party on his side on the specific issue (Syria) that brought out into the open the rift. Secondly, he feels that it is better to assert his authority now when (in the aftermath of Oldham) he is yet to be exposed as a serial election loser, in the window before the May elections. He knows that there will be a move to challenge his leadership in 2016 or 2017 and he would prefer it to be now rather than later.
All that apparent tactical nous is underpinned though by an utter lack of strategic political nous, due to the hard left's fallacy that Labour under Corbyn can somehow win if he abandons all pretence to be operating a broad church in favour or asserting the hard left's dominance at all levels of the party. His initial broad based set of appointments to the Shadow Cabinet gave the appearance of the latter, but this move will expose it as an utter pretence.
And tactically, it may not be that astute either. Firstly, had Corbyn persisted with the pretence of a broad church approach, the inevitable challenge that would have eventually emerged would have been seen as being divisive, against a leader who was still trying to be inclusive. Corbyn will by this move nail his colours to his mast as a divisive leader, alienating many in the wider party in the process. Secondly, Benn is well regarded by the wider public and Thornberry is anything but, so it is hard to see any Shadow Cabinet reshuffle that could do more damage to his authority than this one. And finally, while Corbyn may be seeking to pre-empt an early challenge to his leadership, it still requires his opponents to rise to the bait.
I still very much doubt that we will see a leadership challenge this side of May. What TSE regards as "impotence" I would regard as showing restraint in the face of provocation. It's called giving Corbyn enough rope to hang himself.
Fun fact for the day: virtually none of the test batting records are held by Englishmen, but the bowling records are dominated by them. The top 5 test bowlers - by lowest average - are all English.
Just noticed interesting thing about the EuroRef polling. Phone polling has lower DK figure than online polling. That is the opposite of the Indy Ref and surely gives a lie to the "more engaged" line about the problems of online polling?
Maybe. Is it possible being more engaged makes you less sure?
Or online polling panels are infested by astroturfers still waiting for the memo from party hq.
Agreed - spot on. Rather as the way this site has become infested with the sillier end of europhobia and cameroonaphobia recently. there is so much bitterness following the election in May - while the great majority of the public get on with their lives.
@OliverCooper: If Corbyn makes Thornberry Shadow Foreign Secretary, Labour will be led by the MPs for Islington North and Islington South. A broad church.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. ...."
It is interesting how the word "provoke" / "provocation" is often used or misused in politics or diplomacy. North Korea is always complaining about South Korea or Japan "provoking" it every time it does any routine naval exercises or makes comments about human rights or whatever.
It has occurred to me that if A "provokes" B, that often means no more than that A is doing something fairly routine or inoffensive which B happens to dislike. If A wears a T-shirt depicting Mohammed, and if B (a Muslim) is offended by the picture, then it is easy for B to fall into the trap of thinking that A is wearing the shirt deliberately to offend, or to provoke, B. If A is oblivious to the fact that B is offended, then A will continue wearing the T-shirt and the situation will escalate as B continues to feel provoked. The same would have applied to young men provocatively minding their own business by having long hair in the 1960s, or (not so long ago) transvestite men wearing dresses but being arrested for behaviour "likely to cause a breach of the peace".
In this case, if Corbyn sacks Benn as Shadow Fon Setry, then he is merely exercising the usual standard of collective responsibility of the front bench team rather than allowing an anarchic free-for-all. If the reactionary thought-criminals of the PLP think they are being "provoked" by Corbyn, they are hallucinating.
@OliverCooper: If Corbyn makes Thornberry Shadow Foreign Secretary, Labour will be led by the MPs for Islington North and Islington South. A broad church.
In regard to surnames and keeping or leaving them the Spanish have a rather good and an odd way of doing them.
A few years ago t was working with some Spanish ladies in an office in London and they explained that the surnames off the offspring are both mother and fathers surnames so that was good insofar no argument about names. Children hold both.
However in the event that the father is not known ( or named ) then the offspring is given the mothers surname twice. Hence you can always tell right away the father is not known simply from the make up of the persons surname.
I have no idea if that is actually correct but having no reason to disbelieve the explanation it seemed odd to me to label someone at birth like that. As most were / are Catholic I think I put it down to that influence ?
@OliverCooper: So Labour's Shadow Education Secretary doesn't want children to be "forced" to learn times tables? Incredible. https://t.co/6XXAK8NmZ4
@OliverCooper: Britain: "Hi, Labour - what cause do you want to champion today?" Labour: "We don't want kids learning their times tables." Oh.
Of course. It should be up to the children if they want to learn times tables or not. Those that don't are special in many other ways and their 'facilitators' and 'learners' can get the best out of every child according to the child's own wishes and abilities.
< / sarcasm > In case anyone ought I might be serious! Back to the cricket!
Apropos of nothing, there is an interview with Ruth Davidson in today's Telegraph that is worth reading. A very interesting lady and a politician that could make a very good contribution if she could be persuaded to come to Westminster.
In regard to surnames and keeping or leaving them the Spanish have a rather good and an odd way of doing them.
A few years ago t was working with some Spanish ladies in an office in London and they explained that the surnames off the offspring are both mother and fathers surnames so that was good insofar no argument about names. Children hold both.
However in the event that the father is not known ( or named ) then the offspring is given the mothers surname twice. Hence you can always tell right away the father is not known simply from the make up of the persons surname.
I have no idea if that is actually correct but having no reason to disbelieve the explanation it seemed odd to me to label someone at birth like that. As most were / are Catholic I think I put it down to that influence ?
Yes you have it right but precedence does always go to the male surname - Me gusta España! Also cause me many problems when I tried to book on-line tickets for the Alhambra - I had to put my surname twice before it would accept the booking
" If the reactionary thought-criminals of the PLP think they are being "provoked" by Corbyn, they are hallucinating.
In a sense I agree - the opposition to Corbyn has been at times openly hostile, so anything he does is provocation in one sense - although if he escalates the cold war or instigates a new front, he might still be considered the provocateur. I think he's right, as leader, to want a team that at least partially supports him - I am not convinced that the level of open hostility and near contempt from some he has faced is just usual business - and might as well do it now as better for both sides in the long run, but they cannot get offended. I think even Dan Hodges was a little mocking of the Labour rebels acting offended.
@OliverCooper: If Corbyn makes Thornberry Shadow Foreign Secretary, Labour will be led by the MPs for Islington North and Islington South. A broad church.
But if he appoints Abbott he will have a far broader Islington North and Hackney North combination.
It is the standard work. Go with the kindle edition at £20 if you just want to read it, or the £80 hardback if you want to collect the set. Or go back in time and win the copy that was a prize on pb iirc.
I've got 2005 and 2010 on hardback, both of which I received as gifts, this year I didn't get it and since I have the other two I figure I might as well get the hard back if I bother with it.
Fun fact for the day: virtually none of the test batting records are held by Englishmen, but the bowling records are dominated by them. The top 5 test bowlers - by lowest average - are all English.
@OliverCooper: So Labour's Shadow Education Secretary doesn't want children to be "forced" to learn times tables? Incredible. https://t.co/6XXAK8NmZ4
@OliverCooper: Britain: "Hi, Labour - what cause do you want to champion today?" Labour: "We don't want kids learning their times tables." Oh.
It's the new Lucy Labour mantra 'educashon educashon' - she's not mastered number 3 yet.
This is not about times tables which are standard fare anyway (at least up to 10) but about testing -- teachers are generally opposed to tests; HMG is using this as a Trojan horse for computerised testing.
" If the reactionary thought-criminals of the PLP think they are being "provoked" by Corbyn, they are hallucinating.
In a sense I agree - the opposition to Corbyn has been at times openly hostile, so anything he does is provocation in one sense - although if he escalates the cold war or instigates a new front, he might still be considered the provocateur. I think he's right, as leader, to want a team that at least partially supports him - I am not convinced that the level of open hostility and near contempt from some he has faced is just usual business - and might as well do it now as better for both sides in the long run, but they cannot get offended. I think even Dan Hodges was a little mocking of the Labour rebels acting offended.
Maggie purged the 'wets' as the weren't 'One of us'. Corby should do the same.
Corbyn will only be toppled once he starts losing by-elections to UKIP or if he loses the London Mayoral election next year on top of dreadful results elsewhere. Having won Oldham he can still say he has some electoral appeal alongside the endorsement of members and as long as that remains the case he has a mandate to reshuffle the Shadow Cabinet as he likes. Remember it was only once the Tories came third in the Brent East by-election in September 2003, two years into his leadership, that Tory MPs finally felt that they had sufficient ammunition to move against him, on that basis we can expect him to survive until 2017 at least.
Interesting too that while Tony Benn caused problems for Kinnock from the left and ultimately stood against him for leader in 1988, now Hilary Benn is causing problems for Corbyn to his right. In any case as is suggested Benn is unlikely to be sacked but moved to another role
@OliverCooper: So Labour's Shadow Education Secretary doesn't want children to be "forced" to learn times tables? Incredible. https://t.co/6XXAK8NmZ4
@OliverCooper: Britain: "Hi, Labour - what cause do you want to champion today?" Labour: "We don't want kids learning their times tables." Oh.
It's the new Lucy Labour mantra 'educashon educashon' - she's not mastered number 3 yet.
This is not about times tables which are standard fare anyway (at least up to 10) but about testing -- teachers are generally opposed to tests; HMG is using this as a Trojan horse for computerised testing.
So what? Maths is none subject that is very amenable to computerised testing.
Comments
Come on, did Nigel lie and please explain who would pay for additional security.
And you ask me to grow up.
I also have married friends who kept their own names, and agreed that daughters would carry the wife's name and sons the father's name. As it happens they had two daughters.
One-to-remember....
I also have married friends who kept their own names, and agreed that daughters would carry the wife's name and sons the father's name. As it happens they had two daughters.
Each to their own, taking the conversation to its logical conclusion I'm not sure why she would want to marry. Love honour and cherish and all that.
Read my posts from the beginning and see if I was trying to 'get' at Farage.
I've read your posts and would like you to answer these questions I previously asked:
Is Nigel lying?
Why doesn't he increase security as you suggest?
They are perfectly reasonable questions based on what you posted earlier.
Leicester fans are very happy with Ranieri. There were some very good shots on goal yesterday, and Bournemouth parked the bus fairly effectively. Vardy has not shaken off his groin strain that he picked up against Man U. He needs a couple of weeks off. Mahrez was poor yesterday, but has always been mercurial. I expect our squad will have some good winter signings.
Man City, Everton, Stoke and Liverpool all have very hectic January as busy in both cups and the league. Leicester and Arsenal have relatively quiet fixtures.
Though losing 4 nil at Saints, and scraping a single goal at home against a relegation candidate with a leaky defence would worry me if I were an Arsenal supporter!
They did not look a league winning side yesterday.
I was Who's That? She lives here. No she doesn't... Awkward.
http://tinyurl.com/zn272zv
The self-possession of names is another symptom of the little emperor generation.
While we were there, 9/11 happened. The Ambassador and I were obviously shocked but immediately started discussing the implications - interesting that they were able to organise it, how long will preparations have been needed, etc. My wife was disgusted - "people are dying in their thousands and you're analysing it like a football match". She was right, I think - a good example of how political people can become over-detached.
I think this South African team is pretty fragile: I wouldn't be surprised to see them fall over for 150 odd.
The book by David Owen about the feedback loop between power and personality is a must read.
They have the highest English 6th wicket partnership (prev: Flintoff/Thorpe 281 v NZ at Christchurch, 2002) - highest 6th wicket partnership by anybody Watling/Williamson (NZ) 365* v SL at Wellington, Jan 2015. Also still some distance away from the highest English partnership for any wicket in SA (Hutton/Washbrook at Johannesburg, 1948).
Talking of black swans what price this -
Daesh is driven back to the point of collapse in the next year or two. The conquerors in Iraq and elsewhere do not abide by Hague 1898, PACE ;-) or any other damn rule. The result is a flood of refugees. I think we can safely say that the no-ethnic-extremist-is-too-extreme-for-us group in the Labour party would want to take such charming people in....
It was advice on how to save money on expensive personalized car registrations by changing your name via deed poll.
The advice was from a Mr KVL741Y
If so, the hard left's reasoning for moving against Benn and Eagle now probably goes something like this. Firstly, Corbyn feels that he has his party on his side on the specific issue (Syria) that brought out into the open the rift. Secondly, he feels that it is better to assert his authority now when (in the aftermath of Oldham) he is yet to be exposed as a serial election loser, in the window before the May elections. He knows that there will be a move to challenge his leadership in 2016 or 2017 and he would prefer it to be now rather than later.
All that apparent tactical nous is underpinned though by an utter lack of strategic political nous, due to the hard left's fallacy that Labour under Corbyn can somehow win if he abandons all pretence to be operating a broad church in favour or asserting the hard left's dominance at all levels of the party. His initial broad based set of appointments to the Shadow Cabinet gave the appearance of the latter, but this move will expose it as an utter pretence.
And tactically, it may not be that astute either. Firstly, had Corbyn persisted with the pretence of a broad church approach, the inevitable challenge that would have eventually emerged would have been seen as being divisive, against a leader who was still trying to be inclusive. Corbyn will by this move nail his colours to his mast as a divisive leader, alienating many in the wider party in the process. Secondly, Benn is well regarded by the wider public and Thornberry is anything but, so it is hard to see any Shadow Cabinet reshuffle that could do more damage to his authority than this one. And finally, while Corbyn may be seeking to pre-empt an early challenge to his leadership, it still requires his opponents to rise to the bait.
I still very much doubt that we will see a leadership challenge this side of May. What TSE regards as "impotence" I would regard as showing restraint in the face of provocation. It's called giving Corbyn enough rope to hang himself.
Problem solved then. There is nothing "insipid" about the gesture politics of Jez
It is interesting how the word "provoke" / "provocation" is often used or misused in politics or diplomacy. North Korea is always complaining about South Korea or Japan "provoking" it every time it does any routine naval exercises or makes comments about human rights or whatever.
It has occurred to me that if A "provokes" B, that often means no more than that A is doing something fairly routine or inoffensive which B happens to dislike. If A wears a T-shirt depicting Mohammed, and if B (a Muslim) is offended by the picture, then it is easy for B to fall into the trap of thinking that A is wearing the shirt deliberately to offend, or to provoke, B. If A is oblivious to the fact that B is offended, then A will continue wearing the T-shirt and the situation will escalate as B continues to feel provoked. The same would have applied to young men provocatively minding their own business by having long hair in the 1960s, or (not so long ago) transvestite men wearing dresses but being arrested for behaviour "likely to cause a breach of the peace".
In this case, if Corbyn sacks Benn as Shadow Fon Setry, then he is merely exercising the usual standard of collective responsibility of the front bench team rather than allowing an anarchic free-for-all. If the reactionary thought-criminals of the PLP think they are being "provoked" by Corbyn, they are hallucinating.
@OliverCooper:
Britain: "Hi, Labour - what cause do you want to champion today?"
Labour: "We don't want kids learning their times tables."
Oh.
A few years ago t was working with some Spanish ladies in an office in London and they explained that the surnames off the offspring are both mother and fathers surnames so that was good insofar no argument about names. Children hold both.
However in the event that the father is not known ( or named ) then the offspring is given the mothers surname twice. Hence you can always tell right away the father is not known simply from the make up of the persons surname.
I have no idea if that is actually correct but having no reason to disbelieve the explanation it seemed odd to me to label someone at birth like that. As most were / are Catholic I think I put it down to that influence ?
< / sarcasm > In case anyone ought I might be serious!
Back to the cricket!
Also cause me many problems when I tried to book on-line tickets for the Alhambra - I had to put my surname twice before it would accept the booking
Astounding batting.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-General-Election-2015/dp/1137366109/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1451821356&sr=8-1
Both centres of the 'progressive majority'.
Maths is over-rated, anyway. If everyone learnt maths, who'd be left to vote for Labour's economic policies?
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Bowling/BowlingAverages.asp?Stat=1
"I don't often agree with you, Mr K, but on this we are in total alignment.
I would also point out that Saudi Arabia is no less a discriminatory state than South Africa was."
Indeed as is Israel and the territory it occupies. Something often overlooked by its allies
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/israelis-charged-deadly-west-bank-arson-attack-160103090836011.html
Corby should do the same.