It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
The Shadow Attorney General accepting donations from any legal firm is questionable to say the least.
Mr. Topping, Banner Saga comes out on the 12th [for consoles]. Quite looking forward to it (unsure if I'll wait to see if there are bugs, or get it right away). No price announcement, but there's hints it'll be around £10 only (it's a popular independent game that was crowd-funded. Unsure of length).
Mr. L, message received and understood
I believe it is around 7-8 hours, presumably longer if you don't play on easy like I generally do.
With a due respect to the Dr Sox and any other luking medicos, I cannot take these general medical "guidelines" terribly seriously. In the first place they change so often. What was once held to be good for us suddenly becomes bad for us and sometimes good for us again (and in the case of red wine apparently bad for us for a second time). Physicians have fads and fashions the same as any other profession, and I wonder if there is not just as much half-baked research coming out of academic medicos as there is in other walks of science (a product of the "publish or die" phenomena that has corrupted our universities).
Secondly whenever I start to worry about general health warnings I think back to the Clapham rail disaster. All those bright young people who were doing the right thing, working hard, playing by the rules, looking forward to a good future and were wiped out by an accident. Worrying about units per week, exercise, salt intake, omega 3 good or bad and all the rest of it was of no help to them in the long run.
Furthermore, as one gets older naturally one sees ones friends and relatives start to fall off the perch in increasing numbers and in my experience there seems to be no strong correlation between the people who took the GMO's various advices seriously and those that just got doing what they fancied in a sensible sort of way. As my old GP explained it to me when I first became ill, "If you do everything we tell you then statistically you will live for an extra seven years. Of course, you could spend those seven years as a drooling vegetable in a nursing home and that assumes that you don't fall under a bus or pick up some virus we can't deal with".
So, it having passed 11 o'clock, I shall pour my morning whisky and get on with enjoying life.
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
Indeed - but Mr Meeks has perceptively noted that the Easter Rising comes first.
Other 2016 anniversaries that Corbyn could well cock up include, in chronological order:
Liberation of Kuwait (25th) Einstein's theory of relativity (100th) Death of Shakespeare (400th) England winning the World Cup (50th) Terry Waite's homecoming (25th) Attack on Pearl Harbor (75th) Birth of Jesus Christ (2016th)
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
Mr. kle4, thanks. A shade shorter than I was expecting, but good to know. And the sequel's due out this year (unsure if that's PC-only at launch, or will also release for consoles).
Just wish XCOM 2 were out for consoles. Inexplicable to me that it's launching as PC-only [and may or may not stay that way].
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
Getting the wrong note will be quite easy once you go beyond 'what a bloody waste' and 'what brave men'.
Questions of leadership, strategy and effect remain hugely contentious.
What many in Britain forget is that elsewhere, France and Germany were fighting an even bigger battle (and Germany still had spare resources to bail Austria out against the Russians).
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
Even if they were used to it, so what? It's wrong. That's all. It's not something to get used to or to get round or to find ways to avoid. It's wrong. How fucking difficult is it for politicians and others (not you) to understand this simple bloody point??
I agree wholeheartedly with what @DavidL wrote below. The only point I would take issue with him is this: it's not an issue of how we integrate these migrants. The first and most important question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be inviting them into our countries at all, given the well-known problems there are in the states and communities from which they come. Integration of those limited few we do let in comes later.
Ok, I'll take that on. It is a humanitarian and moral necessity given the current state of the world and the horrors within it to do what we can to help. Mostly, that will involve giving help in theatre as we have done. Occasionally, it means giving refuge to those who have escaped, come here and are in need. We cannot return them if their lives or safety would be at risk. We have moral and legal obligations to grant asylum. It would be unacceptably selfish to simply focus on those who are lucky enough to be British or here right now.
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our values right now are about as good as the world has produced and superior to any of the alternatives, especially alternatives based on religious codes drafted in radically different and inferior societies. We have learned and come to acknowledge over my life time that discriminating against people on account of their gender, sexual orientation, colour or religious beliefs is simply and absolutely wrong. It is not acceptable in this country.
Those to whom we offer refuge have to accept our view of these things. If they fundamentally disagree they should not take our offer of refuge or choose to be part of our society. We should not tolerate such discrimination under the guise of multiculturalism or any other guise. We absolutely should not accept the sexual abuse of children or a secondary role for women on such a basis. This betrays the human rights of UK citizens who are entitled to the opportunities our society gives to all. So every offer of asylum or indeed the right to remain as an immigrant is conditional upon accepting our view of what is right and what is wrong in relation to these matters. We need to be much, much more explicit about this.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
The Shadow Attorney General accepting donations from any legal firm is questionable to say the least.
Both main parties take money and/or sponsorship from companies. Whether it is an affront to democracy is another matter but it is the way the system currently works.
Mr. kle4, thanks. A shade shorter than I was expecting, but good to know. And the sequel's due out this year (unsure if that's PC-only at launch, or will also release for consoles).
Just wish XCOM 2 were out for consoles. Inexplicable to me that it's launching as PC-only [and may or may not stay that way].
Given it was a success, I believe, on console and even an iPad version (I think?), they'd be leaving money on the table to not port it at some point. Maybe they'll do that when they release an expansion like Enemy Within last time, release all at once on console.
Banner saga, I get the feeling it would have been longer if they'd had the money, but it was still a nice experience which I have replayed. I'm curious to see if, having sold pretty well, the next one is about the same length or is longer.
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
The Shadow Attorney General accepting donations from any legal firm is questionable to say the least.
Both main parties take money and/or sponsorship from companies. Whether it is an affront to democracy is another matter but it is the way the system currently works.
As the subject is the Shadow Attorney General accepting donations then a direct comparison would be the current Attorney General. – Again, you have missed the point quite deliberately.
I don't mind waiting a bit. I think Red Alert 3 did that, coming late to PS3 but having some extras.
It's nice to see a crowd-funding success. I wonder how the sequel, and the unrelated Kingdom Come: Deliverance (think Elder Scrolls without magic in 14th century Bohemia) will do.
Edited extra bit: there's bonus content for XCOM 2, but checking on Amazon it appears one piece comes out in Spring, and two in summer, perhaps suggesting when a console launch date could be.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
The Shadow Attorney General accepting donations from any legal firm is questionable to say the least.
Both main parties take money and/or sponsorship from companies. Whether it is an affront to democracy is another matter but it is the way the system currently works.
Thornberry accepting money from Leigh Day stinks. It's wrong on many levels, however much you may attempt to smear other parties.
My doctor always, always asks me about how much I drink when I go to see him. It actually puts me off going. I drink too much on occasions, most days I don't drink at all. I know the risks. I do not need lectures.
That's always an issue with public health. My mum was deeply insulted in the 50s when a social worker called to check if she was giving me enough orange juice every day. The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts or don't like to think about them, and professionals need to check that they're taking risks in full understanding of the facts - especially when not just the individual but children are involved as in my mum's case. Probably if you told your GP what you've just told us and said with a smile that he was risking deterring you from seeing him, it would work?
"The problem is that a lot of people really don't know the facts". That REALLY is the problem.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
One thing is for sure , it is a load of bollocks and in isolation means absolutely nothing as you point out. It is meaningless drivel that does not help anyone to make an informed choice , rather just makes you think these people are just jobsworths spouting cheap mumbo jumbo as science. Everyone knows if you spend all day eating fast food, smoking and drinking you are harming your self , the millions of other permutations are completely variable.
Good morning all. My love affair with booze ended about ten years ago. Odd, in that I didn't make a conscious decision (unlike when I gave up the drugs & ciggies). A while back my step-daughter mentioned to a friend (within hearing) "John's teetotal"...and I thought, yea I suppose I am .
For those complaining; we're going to be inundated with this kind of thing. Given the projected rise in healthcare costs, the state will be frantically thrashing around in a vain attempt to ensure that we'll all be fit and healthy old 'uns. Better than the Logan's Run scenario, I suppose.
If people reduce alcohol intake, it may save on A&E and cancer wards but increase the dementia cases by those who haven't died of the booze. Don't forget the loss to the Exchequer of the duty and tax on alcohol.
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
The Shadow Attorney General accepting donations from any legal firm is questionable to say the least.
No, no - its only tories that can be in the pocket of big business don't ya know.
As we all know being in the pocket of Unions is absolutely fine too.
Being offered a home here should never preclude being deported. Australia has the right idea. Don't care how long you've been here, get a serious criminal conviction and back you go.
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
Ok, I'll take that on. It is a humanitarian and moral necessity given the current state of the world and the horrors within it to do what we can to help. Mostly, that will involve giving help in theatre as we have done. Occasionally, it means giving refuge to those who have escaped, come here and are in need. We cannot return them if their lives or safety would be at risk. We have moral and legal obligations to grant asylum. It would be unacceptably selfish to simply focus on those who are lucky enough to be British or here right now.
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our values right now are about as good as the world has produced and superior to any of the alternatives, especially alternatives based on religious codes drafted in radically different and inferior societies. We have learned and come to acknowledge over my life time that discriminating against people on account of their gender, sexual orientation, colour or religious beliefs is simply and absolutely wrong. It is not acceptable in this country.
Those to whom we offer refuge have to accept our view of these things. If they fundamentally disagree they should not take our offer of refuge or choose to be part of our society. We should not tolerate such discrimination under the guise of multiculturalism or any other guise. We absolutely should not accept the sexual abuse of children or a secondary role for women on such a basis. This betrays the human rights of UK citizens who are entitled to the opportunities our society gives to all. So every offer of asylum or indeed the right to remain as an immigrant is conditional upon accepting our view of what is right and what is wrong in relation to these matters. We need to be much, much more explicit about this.
Scottish Government is technically correct that they have increased revenue budgets in real terms, they have done so at a level which lags pitifully behind the increases from the coalition and Tory governments in England.
Vote for Independence to save the NHS from the Tories SNP......
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
Odd, the BBC panel shows had no issue tearing into Ed M
Or any Tory
Well yes, but that's a given. I swear, until the result of the GE they were harsher on Ed than Cameron.
Mr Dancer - on crowd funding successes, Pillars of Eternity is among the best I think - I never played the Baldurs Gate and similar games at the time (though I have now), and think it captures the style, with better presentation than they were able back then, very well.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
Odd, the BBC panel shows had no issue tearing into Ed M Any politician is fair game for comedians, certainly if the number of pig jokes on all the reviews of the year last week was anything to go by!
Court News UK Press ordered out of ex-Kids Company psychologist Helen Winter's MDMA disciplinary for the sixth time to protect her privacy #OpenJustice
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
Getting the wrong note will be quite easy once you go beyond 'what a bloody waste' and 'what brave men'.
Questions of leadership, strategy and effect remain hugely contentious.
What many in Britain forget is that elsewhere, France and Germany were fighting an even bigger battle (and Germany still had spare resources to bail Austria out against the Russians).
Indeed. Actually Verdun 100 is next month isn't it. I wonder how the French will mark it.
Given that young German women seem to be unused to this type of behaviour, I'd say that it's not common among young German men.
Ok, I'll take that on. It is a humanitarian and moral necessity given the current state of the world and the horrors within it to do what we can to help. Mostly, that will involve giving help in theatre as we have done. Occasionally, it means giving refuge to those who have escaped, come here and are in need. We cannot return them if their lives or safety would be at risk. We have moral and legal obligations to grant asylum. It would be unacceptably selfish to simply focus on those who are lucky enough to be British or here right now.
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our values right now are about as good as the world has produced and superior to any of the alternatives, especially alternatives based on religious codes drafted in radically different and inferior societies. We have learned and come to acknowledge over my life time that discriminating against people on account of their gender, sexual orientation, colour or religious beliefs is simply and absolutely wrong. It is not acceptable in this country.
Those to whom we offer refuge have to accept our view of these things. If they fundamentally disagree they should not take our offer of refuge or choose to be part of our society. We should not tolerate such discrimination under the guise of multiculturalism or any other guise. We absolutely should not accept the sexual abuse of children or a secondary role for women on such a basis. This betrays the human rights of UK citizens who are entitled to the opportunities our society gives to all. So every offer of asylum or indeed the right to remain as an immigrant is conditional upon accepting our view of what is right and what is wrong in relation to these matters. We need to be much, much more explicit about this.
The thing is that over my lifetime, the authorities have moved on from regarding anti-discrimination as being about stopping spiteful behaviour towards people, to being all about promoting equal outcomes between groups, and (paradoxically) promoting diversity as being a good and worthwhile aim in itself. If one takes the view that British society is, by its very nature, discriminatory, then it becomes unfair discrimination to expect immigrants to adhere to our values.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
Don't be so simple. It's donations in kind: ie they will have provided secondees. No different to the accountancy firms with all parties. There are lots of reasons to dislike Leigh Day: they're glorified ambulance chasers with a cloak of sanctimony for example but getting outraged about this. No.
Ok, I'll take that on. It is a humanitarian and moral necessity given the current state of the world and the horrors within it to do what we can to help. Mostly, that will involve giving help in theatre as we have done. Occasionally, it means giving refuge to those who have escaped, come here and are in need. We cannot return them if their lives or safety would be at risk. We have moral and legal obligations to grant asylum. It would be unacceptably selfish to simply focus on those who are lucky enough to be British or here right now.
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our values right now are about as good as the world has produced and superior to any of the alternatives, especially alternatives based on religious codes drafted in radically different and inferior societies. We have learned and come to acknowledge over my life time that discriminating against people on account of their gender, sexual orientation, colour or religious beliefs is simply and absolutely wrong. It is not acceptable in this country.
Those to whom we offer refuge have to accept our view of these things. If they fundamentally disagree they should not take our offer of refuge or choose to be part of our society. We should not tolerate such discrimination under the guise of multiculturalism or any other guise. We absolutely should not accept the sexual abuse of children or a secondary role for women on such a basis. This betrays the human rights of UK citizens who are entitled to the opportunities our society gives to all. So every offer of asylum or indeed the right to remain as an immigrant is conditional upon accepting our view of what is right and what is wrong in relation to these matters. We need to be much, much more explicit about this.
Good post. The point is that the obligation to accept refugees is not predicated on "if you think they are nice". We have an absolute legally-binding obligation to accept genuine refugees even if we think some are nasty characters with unpleasant habits and disgusting opinions. However, the converse is also true: the fact that someone is a refugee should not make us think they are therefore splendid people whose behaviour should not be challenged. Any large-scale migration is going to have a mixed bag of people - some wonderful, some nasty - and that's true even if we try to screen them in some way.
We need to specify clearly what they can and can't do, just as we do for everyone else. There is a good article on this, linking to the handling of the child gang abuse issue, here:
Let's remind ourselves as to what happened at Leigh Day.
'A leading firm of solicitors which destroyed a key document at the centre of a controversial inquiry into the actions of the British Armed forces in Iraq is being investigated by the solicitors’ watchdog.
The document had the potential to stop legal proceedings in their tracks − saving the taxpayer at least £27 million − but it was shredded by solicitors acting for nine Iraqi former detainees.
It appeared to show that the men, at the centre of what is known as the Al-Sweady Public Inquiry, were members of an armed insurgency militia, not the innocent farmers and students they claimed to be.
Although the document was given to the London-based firm Leigh Day in 2007, it was not made public until last year. Remarkably, it was then destroyed the day before it was due to be handed over to the inquiry’s officials.'
We are not given the evidence on drinking, just an instruction, and we're supposed to take it on trust.
To make an informed judgement on whether to cut down on my drinking from say 28 to 21 units a week I need to know what effect the evidence shows that has on my life expectancy. Then I can make an informed tradeoff.
Alcohol allegedly increases the chances of dying of cancer and possibly heart disease. (I suspect there is real evidence for this). So drinking alcohol must DECREASE the chances of dying from some other causes including dementia as there is100% chance of my dying.
So if I cut my drinking from 28 to 21 units a week by how much does it INCREASE my chance of dying of dementia? As a punter, these are the sort of facts I need because I personally want to apply the tradeoff between enjoying alcohol and the consequences, and not rely on some professional who doesn't know my preferences.
NB Data that compares mortality of people drinking over 21 units a week with those drinking under 21 are of no use because the former includes people drinking over 100 units a week. It needs to be stratified to be of any use.
I am aware of the phenomemon of denial. I'm also aware of the phenomemon of confirmation bias in professionals attracted into this area. I'd just like some objective facts so I can decide for myself.
Barnesian: agreed about detailed public health advice - the difficulty is that the details tend to change as research evolves, so a full account is more complex and hedged than the average bloke wants to or sometimes even can cope with. Saying "on average, smokers' life expectancy is TEN YEARS less than non-smokers, do you like a fag enough to forego 10 years of your life?" is (as I understand it) largely true, and pretty effective - certainly it was enough to decide me. I suspect there are intervening variables, though - the sort of people who smoke a lot tend also to eat unhealthy food, etc. Perhaps the real figure is 6 years, or 8, but we can't expect the public to read ten scientific papers on the issue. I think a general hedge that "the best current estimate is..." is probably as far as it can be taken in general, naturally with references to follow up if people want to.
Mr. Palmer, I don't think we do have a duty to accept rapists into this country because their own is going to Hell (worth noting a majority of the migrants aren't Syrian anyway).
I see the Guardian are back on the Rhodes statue thing...They will still be banging on about that when they have long since pushed Cologne, sorry German, sorry Europe wide attacks under the carpet. And the opinion piece on Cologne includes this cracker...
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
I remember NY Police turned their backs on the Mayor of the City recently, perhaps British troops should do the same to the shadow defence secretary.
British troops are better than that.
There are plenty of others who will hold Lady Nugee to account, I'm sure an enterprising journalist might ask Dan Jarvis what he thinks on the subject?
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
Don't be so simple. It's donations in kind: ie they will have provided secondees. No different to the accountancy firms with all parties. There are lots of reasons to dislike Leigh Day: they're glorified ambulance chasers with a cloak of sanctimony for example but getting outraged about this. No. They still chose to accept the donation from these scumbags. There's plenty of more ethical law firms out there they could have used for advice.
Ok, I'll take that on. It is a humanitarian and moral necessity given the current state of the world and the horrors within it to do what we can to help. Mostly, that will involve giving help in theatre as we have done. Occasionally, it means giving refuge to those who have escaped, come here and are in need. We cannot return them if their lives or safety would be at risk. We have moral and legal obligations to grant asylum. It would be unacceptably selfish to simply focus on those who are lucky enough to be British or here right now.
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our
Good post. The point is that the obligation to accept refugees is not predicated on "if you think they are nice". We have an absolute legally-binding obligation to accept genuine refugees even if we think some are nasty characters with unpleasant habits and disgusting opinions. However, the converse is also true: the fact that someone is a refugee should not make us think they are therefore splendid people whose behaviour should not be challenged. Any large-scale migration is going to have a mixed bag of people - some wonderful, some nasty - and that's true even if we try to screen them in some way.
We need to specify clearly what they can and can't do, just as we do for everyone else. There is a good article on this, linking to the handling of the child gang abuse issue, here:
The problem with that argument is that one is essentially saying that a government must be willing to allow some of its citizens to suffer harm, in order to fulfil its obligations towards refugees.
Mr. Barnesian, some studies suggest an alcohol link to dementia, I think (not sure how strong that evidence is).
Could be. Damaged brain cells. My main point was that I don't think reduced alcohol intake will save the government money. Very old people, even if relatively healthy still need care and pensions.
I think the driver is the harm done by very excessive drinking - well in excess of 21 units a week. But these new guidelines are a blunt unstrument and likely to be counter productive as they will be seen as unreasonable and nannystate.
There may be common cause between liberals and kippers here in dismissing or ignoring these guidelines .
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
Don't be so simple. It's donations in kind: ie they will have provided secondees. No different to the accountancy firms with all parties. There are lots of reasons to dislike Leigh Day: they're glorified ambulance chasers with a cloak of sanctimony for example but getting outraged about this. No.
They still chose to accept the donation from these scumbags. There's plenty of more ethical law firms out there they could have used for advise.
Except this firm tick all the Corbynista boxes. Anti-establishment, anti-armed forces etc
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
A candlelight supper for her sister Violet with the Mercedes, sauna, swimming pool and room for a pony?
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
A candlelight supper for her sister Violet with the Mercedes, sauna, swimming pool and room for a pony?
Good post. The point is that the obligation to accept refugees is not predicated on "if you think they are nice". We have an absolute legally-binding obligation to accept genuine refugees even if we think some are nasty characters with unpleasant habits and disgusting opinions. However, the converse is also true: the fact that someone is a refugee should not make us think they are therefore splendid people whose behaviour should not be challenged. Any large-scale migration is going to have a mixed bag of people - some wonderful, some nasty - and that's true even if we try to screen them in some way.
We need to specify clearly what they can and can't do, just as we do for everyone else. There is a good article on this, linking to the handling of the child gang abuse issue, here:
I see the Guardian are back on the Rhodes statue thing...They will still be banging on about that when they have long since pushed Cologne, sorry German, sorry Europe wide attacks under the carpet. And the opinion piece on Cologne includes this cracker...
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
What is Stage III? I've seen it mentioned here a few times but no explanation.
''The problem with that argument is that one is essentially saying that a government must be willing to allow some of its citizens to suffer harm, in order to fulfil its obligations towards refugees. ''
Is that what this is? Germany fulfilled its obligations to refugees a thousand times over.
Its much worse than that. Germany has put large numbers of its citizens in harms way in favour of a policy nobody voted for and few support.
Furthermore the government has reacted in an oppressive and threatening way when handfuls of those citizens dared to protest.
The truth is we can no longer trust those who govern us. They really don't like us.
SkyNews Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
I wonder how many hours, potentially days, it will take the BBC to report this? They managed to quote extensively from a Bild article yesterday, but still claimed we don't know the origins of these people. Except the original Bild article stated that a police source had told them I think 12 out of 13 were asylum seekers.
Mr. Quidder, it's a reference to people trying to shut down legitimate condemnation of vile acts (terrorism, for example) by shrieking about the unacceptable way (in this example, probably Islamophobia) they're doing it.
We have an absolute legally-binding obligation to accept genuine refugees even if we think some are nasty characters with unpleasant habits and disgusting opinions.
I can't see that legally-binding obligation surviving too much longer (say 10 years) in its current form. Can you? It was written for a very different world.
Ok, I'll take that on. It is a humanitarian and moral necessity given the current state of the world and the horrors within it to do what we can to help. Mostly, that will involve giving help in theatre as we have done. Occasionally, it means giving refuge to those who have escaped, come here and are in need. We cannot return them if their lives or safety would be at risk. We have moral and legal obligations to grant asylum. It would be unacceptably selfish to simply focus on those who are lucky enough to be British or here right now.
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our values right now are about as good as the world has produced and superior to any of the alternatives, especially alternatives based on religious codes drafted in radically different and inferior societies. [snip]
Those to whom we offer refuge have to accept our view of these things. If they fundamentally disagree they should not take our offer of refuge or choose to be part of our society. We should not tolerate such discrimination under the guise of multiculturalism or any other guise. We absolutely should not accept the sexual abuse of children or a secondary role for women on such a basis. This betrays the human rights of UK citizens who are entitled to the opportunities our society gives to all. So every offer of asylum or indeed the right to remain as an immigrant is conditional upon accepting our view of what is right and what is wrong in relation to these matters. We need to be much, much more explicit about this.
Good post. The point is that the obligation to accept refugees is not predicated on "if you think they are nice". We have an absolute legally-binding obligation to accept genuine refugees even if we think some are nasty characters with unpleasant habits and disgusting opinions.
...
Then the law needs to change. There should be no obligation on this country to take in refugees whose behaviour is already known to be nasty and whose views are disgusting. Further, the government should have the right to deport such individuals who abuse refugee status to engage in criminal or subversive activity. Ideally, such people could be sent to a third country who will accept them as refugees but if not, they go back where they came from. That option should only be used in extreme circumstances but it should remain all the same.
It's all very well saying that refugees and migrants need to behave, follow the law and fit in with social norms and customs - but under what sanction? Many of course will happily do so but what means exist to compel those who won't - those who laughed in the face of German police?
SkyNews Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
Legally, what is the situation if an asylum seeker makes it to your territory and then applies for asylum? Can you just deport them or do they have to have due process?
If the BBC is taking its cue from a political editor who didn't report on the split at the heart of government over a 10 year period, then it may perhaps be making a mistake.
The reason people criticise Corbyn so much is that he's off his bloody rocker. Cameron isn't as bad/doesn't make as many mistakes because Cameron isn't demented.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
A candlelight supper for her sister Violet with the Mercedes, sauna, swimming pool and room for a pony?
I see the Guardian are back on the Rhodes statue thing...They will still be banging on about that when they have long since pushed Cologne, sorry German, sorry Europe wide attacks under the carpet. And the opinion piece on Cologne includes this cracker...
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
What is Stage III? I've seen it mentioned here a few times but no explanation.
Stage III is the part of this far too often repeated cycle where politicians, media, etc have moved past this was wrong, Je Suis Charlie etc, and now it is all about how it has nothing to do with Islam, we must be extremely careful not to create a backlash as there are far too many people wanting to do so.
Good post. The point is that the obligation to accept refugees is not predicated on "if you think they are nice". We have an absolute legally-binding obligation to accept genuine refugees even if we think some are nasty characters with unpleasant habits and disgusting opinions. However, the converse is also true: the fact that someone is a refugee should not make us think they are therefore splendid people whose behaviour should not be challenged. Any large-scale migration is going to have a mixed bag of people - some wonderful, some nasty - and that's true even if we try to screen them in some way.
We need to specify clearly what they can and can't do, just as we do for everyone else. There is a good article on this, linking to the handling of the child gang abuse issue, here:
''Mr. Quidder, it's a reference to people trying to shut down legitimate condemnation of vile acts (terrorism, for example) by shrieking about the unacceptable way (in this example, probably Islamophobia) they're doing it.''
To be fair to the Guardian's readership Mr Morris, they are in general disgusted by that article, if the comments are anything to go by.
Putting aside the despicable nature of the crimes committed, the German attacks are interesting politically as they put two touchstone issues of the late 20th/early 21st century in direct opposition - migration and women's rights. I think it is very notable, for example, that - in stark contrast to Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford etc - the Guardian seems to be giving more coverage to what has happened than any other UK media outlet. I wonder if that it is because it has traditionally taken such a strong position on women's issues.
SkyNews Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
Legally, what is the situation if an asylum seeker makes it to your territory and then applies for asylum? Can you just deport them or do they have to have due process?
Is asylum seeker the same thing as refugee?
This is the problem...Where are you going to deport some people to. If they are Syrian, are you going to drop them off at the airport in Damascus? Frau Merkel doesn't seem to have thought this one though before her comments.
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
Getting the wrong note will be quite easy once you go beyond 'what a bloody waste' and 'what brave men'.
Questions of leadership, strategy and effect remain hugely contentious.
What many in Britain forget is that elsewhere, France and Germany were fighting an even bigger battle (and Germany still had spare resources to bail Austria out against the Russians).
Indeed. Actually Verdun 100 is next month isn't it. I wonder how the French will mark it.
Yes. 21 February. It lasted almost until Christmas. By the time it was finished, 300000 men were dead and perhaps a million overall were casualties. In one battle.
One of the reasons the Somme offensive began in the first place was to relieve German pressure on the French.
Putting aside the despicable nature of the crimes committed, the German attacks are interesting politically as they put two touchstone issues of the late 20th/early 21st century in direct opposition - migration and women's rights. I think it is very notable, for example, that the Guardian seems to be giving more coverage to what has happened than any other UK media outlet. I wonder if that it is because it has traditionally taken such a strong position on women's issues.
They have taken a fairly strong stance on FGM as well, but they still can't help do a dance around certain things.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
A candlelight supper for her sister Violet with the Mercedes, sauna, swimming pool and room for a pony?
My grandfather was an infantry private at the battle of the Somme and died in the 1960s. It doesn't mean that there was no risk at the Somme, just as some people are lucky enough to get away with it!
Speaking of the Somme, it's 100th anniversary this year may be a political event of some significance.
Cameron and Corbyn will mark it very different ways, I suspect. The Somme is at the heart of a certain strand of British pacifism which Corbyn might tap into, but I expect he'll manage to strike the wrong note (going out on a limb here).
Getting the wrong note will be quite easy once you go beyond 'what a bloody waste' and 'what brave men'.
Questions of leadership, strategy and effect remain hugely contentious.
What many in Britain forget is that elsewhere, France and Germany were fighting an even bigger battle (and Germany still had spare resources to bail Austria out against the Russians).
Indeed. Actually Verdun 100 is next month isn't it. I wonder how the French will mark it.
Yes. 21 February. It lasted almost until Christmas. By the time it was finished, 300000 men were dead and perhaps a million overall were casualties. In one battle.
One of the reasons the Somme offensive began in the first place was to relieve German pressure on the French.
I wonder if it is still politically charged, in France, to talk about Pétain in connection with Verdun. We will see, I suppose.
I see the Guardian are back on the Rhodes statue thing...They will still be banging on about that when they have long since pushed Cologne, sorry German, sorry Europe wide attacks under the carpet. And the opinion piece on Cologne includes this cracker...
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
What is Stage III? I've seen it mentioned here a few times but no explanation.
Stage III is the part of this far too often repeated cycle where politicians, media, etc have moved past this was wrong, Je Suis Charlie etc, and now it is all about how it has nothing to do with Islam, we must be extremely careful not to create a backlash as there are far too many people wanting to do so.
Putting aside the despicable nature of the crimes committed, the German attacks are interesting politically as they put two touchstone issues of the late 20th/early 21st century in direct opposition - migration and women's rights. I think it is very notable, for example, that the Guardian seems to be giving more coverage to what has happened than any other UK media outlet. I wonder if that it is because it has traditionally taken such a strong position on women's issues.
They have taken a fairly strong stance on FGM as well, but they still can't help do a dance around certain things.
Yep - just added a line to the original post along those lines. The Guardian has gone very strong on both FGM and the German situation, in stark contrast to its coverage of Rotherham, Rochdale etc.
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
Lots of lovely canapés, and doilies.
Presumably a kind of candlelit supper
'The Bucket residence, the lady of the house speaking...no my defence review will not look at withdrawing from NATO. This is a white, slimeline telephone with automatic redail and has no connection to any Blairites.'
It is understood to be the second Leigh Day Christmas party Ms Thornberry has attended, after accepting almost £50,000 in donations-in-kind from the firm when she was shadow attorney general between 2012 and 2014.
The Labour Party also accepted donations from Leigh Day, amounting to almost £20,000 in "staff costs" in 2012.
It seems Mrs Bucket likes a good party.
Lots of lovely canapés, and doilies.
Presumably a kind of candlelit supper
'The Bucket residence, the lady of the house speaking...no my defence review will not look at withdrawing from NATO. This is a white, slimeline telephone with automatic redail and has no connection to any Blairites.'
I see the Guardian are back on the Rhodes statue thing...They will still be banging on about that when they have long since pushed Cologne, sorry German, sorry Europe wide attacks under the carpet. And the opinion piece on Cologne includes this cracker...
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
What is Stage III? I've seen it mentioned here a few times but no explanation.
Stage III is the part of this far too often repeated cycle where politicians, media, etc have moved past this was wrong, Je Suis Charlie etc, and now it is all about how it has nothing to do with Islam, we must be extremely careful not to create a backlash as there are far too many people wanting to do so.
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
Odd, the BBC panel shows had no issue tearing into Ed M
Or any Tory
Well yes, but that's a given. I swear, until the result of the GE they were harsher on Ed than Cameron.
Mr Dancer - on crowd funding successes, Pillars of Eternity is among the best I think - I never played the Baldurs Gate and similar games at the time (though I have now), and think it captures the style, with better presentation than they were able back then, very well.
Comedians and commentators are essentially bullies: they'll always pick on the weak and unpopular. Miliband was seen as that; Corbyn is seen as that. Once Labour get a popular leader, it'll end.
Actually, Labour has a structural advantage is it's still seen to be the party of the underprivileged while the Tories represent the establishment. Whatever the truth of that, the Tories are regarded more as fair game and of two leaders with equal (un)popularity, the Tory would get less favourable coverage. That's life. In that same circumstance, the Tories would probably get more funding. Swings and roundabouts.
I see the Guardian are back on the Rhodes statue thing...They will still be banging on about that when they have long since pushed Cologne, sorry German, sorry Europe wide attacks under the carpet. And the opinion piece on Cologne includes this cracker...
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
What is Stage III? I've seen it mentioned here a few times but no explanation.
Stage III is the part of this far too often repeated cycle where politicians, media, etc have moved past this was wrong, Je Suis Charlie etc, and now it is all about how it has nothing to do with Islam, we must be extremely careful not to create a backlash as there are far too many people wanting to do so.
Stage III - 'Ladies, it's all your fault. Stop drinking, and wear a Burqa'. Ah sorry, that's Stage II.
SkyNews Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
Legally, what is the situation if an asylum seeker makes it to your territory and then applies for asylum? Can you just deport them or do they have to have due process?
Is asylum seeker the same thing as refugee?
One has to have some form of process to consider the application for asylum. A refugee is someone whose claim for asylum has been accepted.
WRT criminals, my understanding is that the 1951 Convention does allow for asylum applications to be denied on the ground that the applicant is guilty of a serious criminal offence, or indeed, for asylum to be revoked on the ground that the applicant commits a criminal offence in the host country. But, that principle has been eroded by subsequent case law.
Comedians and commentators are essentially bullies: they'll always pick on the weak and unpopular. Miliband was seen as that; Corbyn is seen as that. Once Labour get a popular leader, it'll end.
Actually, Labour has a structural advantage is it's still seen to be the party of the underprivileged while the Tories represent the establishment. Whatever the truth of that, the Tories are regarded more as fair game and of two leaders with equal (un)popularity, the Tory would get less favourable coverage. That's life. In that same circumstance, the Tories would probably get more funding. Swings and roundabouts.
I think that is spot on about Ed. It was just such easy pickings. And they are still doing Cameron Pig gags months after the news and further investigations that showed it has no evidence to back up the claim. But again, its an easy go to gag.
Charlie Brookers Yearly Wipe was just one massive Cameron pig gag (bit disappointed tbh, quite like the weekly wipe stuff, as it isn't always taking the easy gag).
SkyNews Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
Legally, what is the situation if an asylum seeker makes it to your territory and then applies for asylum? Can you just deport them or do they have to have due process?
Is asylum seeker the same thing as refugee?
This is the problem...Where are you going to deport some people to. If they are Syrian, are you going to drop them off at the airport in Damascus? Frau Merkel doesn't seem to have thought this one though before her comments.
Yes. If they can't behave in Europe then send them back to Syria. After the first plane load the rest might get the message.
SkyNews Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
Legally, what is the situation if an asylum seeker makes it to your territory and then applies for asylum? Can you just deport them or do they have to have due process?
Is asylum seeker the same thing as refugee?
This is the problem...Where are you going to deport some people to. If they are Syrian, are you going to drop them off at the airport in Damascus? Frau Merkel doesn't seem to have thought this one though before her comments.
Yes. If they can't behave in Europe then send them back to Syria. After the first plane load the rest might get the message.
Maybe they can put on a RyanAir version of the flight i.e Today we will be flying to a local airport in the vicinity of Damascus, where upon you may take a bus to your final destination. Today we will be landing in Damascus International Airport, Raqqa.
Surprised no-one seems to have posted these on here - they are magnificent satire, and have fooled several of our esteemed press corps on Twitter this morning...
In recent months brains at the BBC have undertaken a number of steps to tackle ‘anti-Corbyn bias’ head on at the corporation. After the Beeb’s former political editor Nick Robinson wrote to colleagues warning them against anti-Corbyn bias in the political coverage, the message was then picked up by the comedy department. Barry Humphries revealed this week that he was told he could not do a planned Corbyn joke on a BBC comedy show — unless he also did one about David Cameron.
While there is now a petition calling for Kuenssberg’s removal from her position, Mr S suspects that the Corbynistas ought not be so hard on her for doing her job. After all, who was it that Jeremy Corbyn’s right hand man Seumas Milne trusted enough in his first few weeks to turn to for advice on how to do his job? Only Kuenssberg — who spent an hour talking to him, before giving him this gem of advice: ‘If you want to communicate with a nation you have to actually do it. You can’t just call everybody b——-.’
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
Odd, the BBC panel shows had no issue tearing into Ed M
Or any Tory
Well yes, but that's a given. I swear, until the result of the GE they were harsher on Ed than Cameron.
Mr Dancer - on crowd funding successes, Pillars of Eternity is among the best I think - I never played the Baldurs Gate and similar games at the time (though I have now), and think it captures the style, with better presentation than they were able back then, very well.
Comedians and commentators are essentially bullies: they'll always pick on the weak and unpopular. Miliband was seen as that; Corbyn is seen as that. Once Labour get a popular leader, it'll end.
Actually, Labour has a structural advantage is it's still seen to be the party of the underprivileged while the Tories represent the establishment. Whatever the truth of that, the Tories are regarded more as fair game and of two leaders with equal (un)popularity, the Tory would get less favourable coverage. That's life. In that same circumstance, the Tories would probably get more funding. Swings and roundabouts.
You could tell Labour were going to lose the election when the leftie luvvies could find nothing to say about Miliband except "aw, bless..." Miliband WAS the joke. There was nothing else to laugh at.
Interesting that the Beeb thinks Corbyn needs special protection from rapier wit. He is indeed special. His needs are special....
Comments
If you don't eat and drink what we say, no treatment.
He's always despised the IRA.
If only Corbyn’s more vocal supporters could take note.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/laura-kuenssberg-gets-corbynistas-in-a-spin-over-reshuffle-scoop/
Just wish XCOM 2 were out for consoles. Inexplicable to me that it's launching as PC-only [and may or may not stay that way].
Questions of leadership, strategy and effect remain hugely contentious.
What many in Britain forget is that elsewhere, France and Germany were fighting an even bigger battle (and Germany still had spare resources to bail Austria out against the Russians).
You may not agree but where we are in agreement, I think, is that our aid or refuge is not unconditional. At the risk of being accused of being racist again I remain of the view that our values right now are about as good as the world has produced and superior to any of the alternatives, especially alternatives based on religious codes drafted in radically different and inferior societies. We have learned and come to acknowledge over my life time that discriminating against people on account of their gender, sexual orientation, colour or religious beliefs is simply and absolutely wrong. It is not acceptable in this country.
Those to whom we offer refuge have to accept our view of these things. If they fundamentally disagree they should not take our offer of refuge or choose to be part of our society. We should not tolerate such discrimination under the guise of multiculturalism or any other guise. We absolutely should not accept the sexual abuse of children or a secondary role for women on such a basis. This betrays the human rights of UK citizens who are entitled to the opportunities our society gives to all. So every offer of asylum or indeed the right to remain as an immigrant is conditional upon accepting our view of what is right and what is wrong in relation to these matters. We need to be much, much more explicit about this.
Both main parties take money and/or sponsorship from companies. Whether it is an affront to democracy is another matter but it is the way the system currently works.
Stephen Bush
Every man thinks he has the prettiest wife at home. https://t.co/D4y28BANTU
Banner saga, I get the feeling it would have been longer if they'd had the money, but it was still a nice experience which I have replayed. I'm curious to see if, having sold pretty well, the next one is about the same length or is longer.
Odd, the BBC panel shows had no issue tearing into Ed M
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/01/how-convince-labour-doubter-stay-party
As the subject is the Shadow Attorney General accepting donations then a direct comparison would be the current Attorney General. – Again, you have missed the point quite deliberately.
I don't mind waiting a bit. I think Red Alert 3 did that, coming late to PS3 but having some extras.
It's nice to see a crowd-funding success. I wonder how the sequel, and the unrelated Kingdom Come: Deliverance (think Elder Scrolls without magic in 14th century Bohemia) will do.
Edited extra bit: there's bonus content for XCOM 2, but checking on Amazon it appears one piece comes out in Spring, and two in summer, perhaps suggesting when a console launch date could be.
Thornberry accepting money from Leigh Day stinks. It's wrong on many levels, however much you may attempt to smear other parties.
Or any Tory
No, no - its only tories that can be in the pocket of big business don't ya know.
As we all know being in the pocket of Unions is absolutely fine too.
Citizenship should be contingent on that rule.
Scottish Government is technically correct that they have increased revenue budgets in real terms, they have done so at a level which lags pitifully behind the increases from the coalition and Tory governments in England.
Vote for Independence to save the NHS from the Tories SNP......
https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/scottish-government-health-spending/
Well yes, but that's a given. I swear, until the result of the GE they were harsher on Ed than Cameron.
Mr Dancer - on crowd funding successes, Pillars of Eternity is among the best I think - I never played the Baldurs Gate and similar games at the time (though I have now), and think it captures the style, with better presentation than they were able back then, very well.
Lots of lovely canapés, and doilies.
Any politician is fair game for comedians, certainly if the number of pig jokes on all the reviews of the year last week was anything to go by!
Press ordered out of ex-Kids Company psychologist Helen Winter's MDMA disciplinary for the sixth time to protect her privacy #OpenJustice
Or perhaps not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35260475
An Islamic State militant carried out a public "execution" of his mother because she asked him to leave the group, activists say.
Ali Saqr, 21, killed his mother, Lena al-Qasem, 45, outside the post office in Raqqa, Syria, eyewitnesses said.
I remember NY Police turned their backs on the Mayor of the City recently, perhaps British troops should do the same to the shadow defence secretary.
Don't be so simple. It's donations in kind: ie they will have provided secondees. No different to the accountancy firms with all parties. There are lots of reasons to dislike Leigh Day: they're glorified ambulance chasers with a cloak of sanctimony for example but getting outraged about this. No.
We need to specify clearly what they can and can't do, just as we do for everyone else. There is a good article on this, linking to the handling of the child gang abuse issue, here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve
'A leading firm of solicitors which destroyed a key document at the centre of a controversial inquiry into the actions of the British Armed forces in Iraq is being investigated by the solicitors’ watchdog.
The document had the potential to stop legal proceedings in their tracks − saving the taxpayer at least £27 million − but it was shredded by solicitors acting for nine Iraqi former detainees.
It appeared to show that the men, at the centre of what is known as the Al-Sweady Public Inquiry, were members of an armed insurgency militia, not the innocent farmers and students they claimed to be.
Although the document was given to the London-based firm Leigh Day in 2007, it was not made public until last year. Remarkably, it was then destroyed the day before it was due to be handed over to the inquiry’s officials.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10806582/Iraqis-solicitor-shredded-torture-file.html
"But that’s not quite why it has taken nearly a week to piece together the story of a spate of muggings and sexual attacks carried out that night by seemingly organised gangs of young men. Many Germans are asking why politicians, police and broadcasters seem so reluctant to discuss what happened under cover of the crowds (the state broadcaster EZF apologised for not covering the attacks until Tuesday), and whether it’s because the attackers are widely described as looking Arab or north African. Which is why, of course, liberals like me are reluctant to talk about it."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve
I don't give a s##t what the origin is terms of if I think we should being talking about this, but you do. If they were German Neo Nazi's you would be all over it, but because they are migrants you won't. 1000-2000 criminals involved in organized widespread criminality. What is there to be reluctant to talk about...Oh wait...Stage III...Stage III...
There are plenty of others who will hold Lady Nugee to account, I'm sure an enterprising journalist might ask Dan Jarvis what he thinks on the subject?
They still chose to accept the donation from these scumbags. There's plenty of more ethical law firms out there they could have used for advice.
I think the driver is the harm done by very excessive drinking - well in excess of 21 units a week. But these new guidelines are a blunt unstrument and likely to be counter productive as they will be seen as unreasonable and nannystate.
There may be common cause between liberals and kippers here in dismissing or ignoring these guidelines .
Except this firm tick all the Corbynista boxes. Anti-establishment, anti-armed forces etc
A candlelight supper for her sister Violet with the Mercedes, sauna, swimming pool and room for a pony?
SkyNews
Interior Ministry: 18 of 29 foreigners questioned by German police over robbery and sex attacks in #Cologne on NYE were asylum seekers
Presumably a kind of candlelit supper
Riiiiiccccccccccccccccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhharddddddddddddddd
Is that what this is? Germany fulfilled its obligations to refugees a thousand times over.
Its much worse than that. Germany has put large numbers of its citizens in harms way in favour of a policy nobody voted for and few support.
Furthermore the government has reacted in an oppressive and threatening way when handfuls of those citizens dared to protest.
The truth is we can no longer trust those who govern us. They really don't like us.
It's all very well saying that refugees and migrants need to behave, follow the law and fit in with social norms and customs - but under what sanction? Many of course will happily do so but what means exist to compel those who won't - those who laughed in the face of German police?
Is asylum seeker the same thing as refugee?
The reason people criticise Corbyn so much is that he's off his bloody rocker. Cameron isn't as bad/doesn't make as many mistakes because Cameron isn't demented.
Mind the pedestrian, Richard!
To be fair to the Guardian's readership Mr Morris, they are in general disgusted by that article, if the comments are anything to go by.
One of the reasons the Somme offensive began in the first place was to relieve German pressure on the French.
Mr. Urquhart, Merkel's pronouncement (both the original 'come hither' idiocy and now) shows she's thinking with her heart, making her brain redundant.
But worry about the man in the white van with the England flag...
Stage I it's not happening and made up by right wing fascists
Stage II it is happening but it's the victims' fault and not half as bad as they say anyway
Stage III we mustn't upset the persecuted perpetrators in case they get really angry and harm us. It's all our fault.
Really? Let's face Guardian is pretty selective in the women's issue positions it takes. Just as many feminists are.
'The Bucket residence, the lady of the house speaking...no my defence review will not look at withdrawing from NATO. This is a white, slimeline telephone with automatic redail and has no connection to any Blairites.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmryk1v550
Mr Dancer - on crowd funding successes, Pillars of Eternity is among the best I think - I never played the Baldurs Gate and similar games at the time (though I have now), and think it captures the style, with better presentation than they were able back then, very well.
Comedians and commentators are essentially bullies: they'll always pick on the weak and unpopular. Miliband was seen as that; Corbyn is seen as that. Once Labour get a popular leader, it'll end.
Actually, Labour has a structural advantage is it's still seen to be the party of the underprivileged while the Tories represent the establishment. Whatever the truth of that, the Tories are regarded more as fair game and of two leaders with equal (un)popularity, the Tory would get less favourable coverage. That's life. In that same circumstance, the Tories would probably get more funding. Swings and roundabouts.
That's pretty much the only reason. Haig did not want to attack there and he did not want to attack then. The French forced his hand.
WRT criminals, my understanding is that the 1951 Convention does allow for asylum applications to be denied on the ground that the applicant is guilty of a serious criminal offence, or indeed, for asylum to be revoked on the ground that the applicant commits a criminal offence in the host country. But, that principle has been eroded by subsequent case law.
Charlie Brookers Yearly Wipe was just one massive Cameron pig gag (bit disappointed tbh, quite like the weekly wipe stuff, as it isn't always taking the easy gag).
New Thread New Thread
https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/status/685396313291264000
http://michaelspicer.tumblr.com/post/136874386880
Actually, Labour has a structural advantage is it's still seen to be the party of the underprivileged while the Tories represent the establishment. Whatever the truth of that, the Tories are regarded more as fair game and of two leaders with equal (un)popularity, the Tory would get less favourable coverage. That's life. In that same circumstance, the Tories would probably get more funding. Swings and roundabouts.
You could tell Labour were going to lose the election when the leftie luvvies could find nothing to say about Miliband except "aw, bless..." Miliband WAS the joke. There was nothing else to laugh at.
Interesting that the Beeb thinks Corbyn needs special protection from rapier wit. He is indeed special. His needs are special....