They believe that it is important to draw a line now, in order to lay a marker for the BBC’s coverage over the Labour party over the coming years. The argument over the Doughty affair may have a way yet to run.
Surely the next guy who resigns is going to properly do it live on TV without a word to anyone..? Except this time it will be the lead story on the Ten, not on the DP with no-one watching.
Has anyone ever 'crossed the floor' during a sitting in parliament? Doing so during PMQ's would certainly make a statement. Stand up, make your way down, cross the DMZ, and sit in a seat kept empty for you.
Although I daresay there a whole load of conventions against it, and the Speaker will not like it. But it would certainly make an impact.
Brocklebank - Fowler did it in 1981 when he left the Tories to join the SDP.
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
The scene: Windsor Castle Spring 2017 Lord Chamberlain: Mr Seumas Milne, Your Majesty. A knighthood for services to the Conservative Party. The Queen:Arise Sir Shameless. Have you come far? Sir Shameless: No. From Islington. Via Winchester and Stalingrad. The Queen:Remind me what you do. Sir Shameless: I am on leave from the Guardian.I wanted to be Peter Mandelson. But I just wasn't up to it.
'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '
Are you seriously saying that justice is dependant upon whether a country is successful in war? You are certainly implying something rather venal - that the normal rules do not apply to the victors - ie that countries may commit whatever atrocities they see fit as long as they make sure that they win. You clearly have a lot in common with the morality of Adolf Hitler!
You always bring up Hitler when you're losing the argument. You also keep referring to atrocities and forgetting the important bit about 'alleged'. You fool nobody.
'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '
Are you seriously saying that justice is dependant upon whether a country is successful in war? You are certainly implying something rather venal - that the normal rules do not apply to the victors - ie that countries may commit whatever atrocities they see fit as long as they make sure that they win. You clearly have a lot in common with the morality of Adolf Hitler!
No, and your trying to bring Hitler and the SS into the argument is doing yourself no favours.
The UK allows anyone to claim for "Justice" against it in a number of ways. If someone has been aggrieved by the UK or it's representatives, the government or its SoS for the relevant department will happily see them in court. This is how litigation against the government has worked for centuries in this country, which I remind you again is not Germany in 1945 and has a stable and democratic government which subjects itself to a number of international treaties.
What's not acceptable is for a bunch of vexatious claims be logged against individual members of the British military in UK courts, paid for by British legal aid, purely for the purpose of generating a bill from the scumbag lawyers involved.
People are not 'sued' in the civil courts for serious allegations such as murder and rape - they are 'prosecuted' in the criminal courts. The idea that the UK taxpayer should foot the bill for any successful claim against the UK Government for compensation is quite obscene. Your comments give rise to a strong suspicion that some of the accused have something to hide.
She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
Except NPXMP wants a socialist nirvana where everybody can have Barbour coats and fancy wellies - methinks his chums are fibbing when they tell us how much they really want to borrow to fund that kind of largesse.
Bild newspaper has published allegations that police forces around the country are under orders not to report crimes involving refugees to the press.
But Bild quoted a senior police officer in Frankfurt as saying it was standard policy to keep offences by asylum-seekers from the media.
“There are strict orders from the chiefs not to report offences by refugees,” the unnamed officer said. “We are only allowed to answer if journalists ask specifically about such incidents.”
The Frankfurt authorities said police spokesmen had been told to be careful when speaking about asylum-seekers.
“Press spokesmen were warned the far-Right could exploit cases involving refugees to stoke sentiment against those seeking protection,”
There are also reports that the equivalent on Crime Watch (on ZDF I believe) dropped a case of a serious sex crime, whom the police believe was committed by an migrant. Now it is Bild, which is not exactly known as the Times of Germany, but still....the stink of a cover up just makes things worse.
' “There are strict orders from the chiefs not to report offences by refugees,” the unnamed officer said. '
Doubtless the more closed-minded PBers will accuse that officer of 'Germanophobia' or 'grotesque bigotry' for revealing that.
She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
Except NPXMP wants a socialist nirvana where everybody can have Barbour coats and fancy wellies - methinks his chums are fibbing when they tell us how much they really want to borrow to fund that kind of largesse.
'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '
No, and your trying to bring Hitler and the SS into the argument is doing yourself no favours.
The UK allows anyone to claim for "Justice" against it in a number of ways. If someone has been aggrieved by the UK or it's representatives, the government or its SoS for the relevant department will happily see them in court. This is how litigation against the government has worked for centuries in this country, which I remind you again is not Germany in 1945 and has a stable and democratic government which subjects itself to a number of international treaties.
What's not acceptable is for a bunch of vexatious claims be logged against individual members of the British military in UK courts, paid for by British legal aid, purely for the purpose of generating a bill from the scumbag lawyers involved.
People are not 'sued' in the civil courts for serious allegations such as murder and rape - they are 'prosecuted' in the criminal courts. The idea that the UK taxpayer should foot the bill for any successful claim against the UK Government for compensation is quite obscene. Your comments give rise to a strong suspicion that some of the accused have something to hide.
The lawyers basically went around Iraq like ambulance chasers, finding people to bad-mouth British soldiers in order to generate work for themselves in acting for these Iraqis making complaints to the military in the UK. If you really think that's "Justice" then why are the lawyers involved subject to a professional tribunal that could see individuals banned from practicing law?
I'm not going to engage with you any further on this as you're quite clearly trolling and keep bringing the discussion back to Hitler.
0.8kg of venison 0.8kg of duck breast (skin off) (Get the butcher to mince this together for you.)
I large bulb of fennel I small chilli 2 cloves of garlic a large handful of fresh, chopped rosemary salt and pepper 2 medium red onions, chopped fine 2 large glasses of red wine 600 ml of chicken stock a generous dash of Worcester sauce a desert spoon of maple syrup a table spoon of tomato puree a tin of chopped tomatoes olive oil 3 crushed juniper berries
for the mash:
2/3 packs of deluxe mashed potato (or you can be a slave to the kitchen and make you own) a couple of handfuls of grated Parmesan 2 teaspoons of whole-grain mustard
To make the pie:
- Take the woody part out of the fennel and finely chop the remaining white flesh
- Put the fennel, onion, crushed garlic, finely chopped chilli (leave out the seeds if you don't want it hot), juniper berries and rosemary into a casserole dish. Gently sweat the onions in olive oil on the hob until opaque (about 5 mins)
- in a separate frying pan, add a little olive oil and brown the meat on a very high heat to sear it. When the meat is brown, add to the casserole dish that has the onion and fennel. Turn up the heat on the casserole and add the red wine and the tomato puree. Let it bubble for 3-4 minutes then add the chopped tomatoes, chicken stock, the maple syrup and the generous dash of Worcester sauce. Add salt and pepper. Bring back to a simmer for a minute, put a lid on the casserole dish and place into a slow oven (140 degrees C) for four hours. Give it a stir every hour or so. Make sure it doesn't dry out - it should still have quite a bit of liquid at the end of the four hours.
- for the mash, bring the mash to room temperature at least an hour before this stage, then put into food mixer and beat the packs of mash together with the Parmesan and the mustard (can do it by hand if needs be).
- take the casserole from the oven and use a slotted spoon to spoon the mixture into a large shallow baking dish. Important not to have the mixture TOO wet, but spoon a couple of table spoons of the juices over the mince. You can reheat and reduce down these juices nearer to serving to intensify the flavour.
THIS IS IMPORTANT: let the meat mixture cool completely before spooning the mash on top, or the mash will sink. Fluff up the mash with a fork to make ridges, sprinkle with more grated Parmesan if you like - and a generous dash of salt and pepper.
Place in the oven at 180 degrees C for 30-40 minutes until the mash is brown on top. Serve with the remainder of the gravy reheated and reduced down.*
(*This meat mixture is also wonderful as a chilli - add beans in the last 30 minutes and serve with rice or potato wedges...)
Justin, if the civil claims (not legal aid funded) had validity it would then be perfectly acceptable for the cps to prosecute individuals.
The first port of call should not be government funded lawsuits against the government or its operatives. Even for a lefty hand wringer, that would be a particularly stupid suggestion. Think how many nurses could have been been employed with the monies claimed by lawyers working on these cases that subsequently collapsed or were thrown out.
She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
Except NPXMP wants a socialist nirvana where everybody can have Barbour coats and fancy wellies - methinks his chums are fibbing when they tell us how much they really want to borrow to fund that kind of largesse.
Free Owls for everyone.....
Free Owls? Why should a £175 waxed jacket be considered beyond the pale? John Lewis do one for £149
We used to go to Center Parcs when it first opened in the late 1980s when not many people had heard of it. It was very relaxing, unlike these days when they over-book the place.
'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '
Are you seriously saying that justice is dependant upon whether a country is successful in war? You are certainly implying something rather venal - that the normal rules do not apply to the victors - ie that countries may commit whatever atrocities they see fit as long as they make sure that they win. You clearly have a lot in common with the morality of Adolf Hitler!
You're very fond of comparing the British government and its officials to the Nazis eg Arbeit Macht Frei. You need to get a grip.
"Why Germany can't face the truth about migrant sex attacks: Sue Reid finds a nation in denial as a wave of horrific attacks is reported across Europe"
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
They were inspired by the legendary firm Messrs, Sue, Grabbit and Run?
I like how in the Trafigura case, Martyn Day personally billed 5,500 hours at £900 an hour in less than three years, then added a 100% uplift success fee - for a total of £10m. And somehow expected that Trafigura would just pay it!
They are clearly such ethical people. No wonder they actively fund people as amazing as Thornberry.
Ah - thank you for making the connection.
A friend working in a city bank remarked about that Trafigura case that he was astonished that the lawyers on the other side were sleezier than Trafigura. Astonished because Trafigura are legendary.
Some say that Trafigura were turned down for membership in Spectre because of ethical concerns...
FPT and in response to @ Blackburn63 who said this:-
"where have you seen that initial reaction? Everybody I've spoken to has said the polar opposite. Should this happen here I dread to think of the consequences.
I was referring to the response of the Cologne mayor and the local police which seemed to be placing the burden on women.
Did the police blame the women? The only person I can see who said there should be a code of conduct for women was the newly elected Mayor of Cologne - who hardly speaks for the whole of Germany and was roundly condemned- and is also a woman.
My personal favourite was the one regarding allegations of rape etc concerning troops training in Kenya - which all collapsed. Due to things like the soldiers in question being provably on a different continent on the dates alleged etc.
One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.
After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
Is it possible for the Government to request an UQ in the commons or is that just for opposition parties
The Government version is a Statement. They can make as many Statements as they like, and sometimes will have three on one day (which tend to cut into the time to debate whatever else is up that day - sometimes it's thought wicked whips do this deliberately). For instance, Cameron will make a statement on returning from a European summit.
It would be odd to frame it as a Question, which is by definition posed to themselves.
FPT and in response to @ Blackburn63 who said this:-
"where have you seen that initial reaction? Everybody I've spoken to has said the polar opposite. Should this happen here I dread to think of the consequences.
I was referring to the response of the Cologne mayor and the local police which seemed to be placing the burden on women.
Did the police blame the women? The only person I can see who said there should be a code of conduct for women was the newly elected Mayor of Cologne - who hardly speaks for the whole of Germany and was roundly condemned- and is also a woman.
I wasn't talking about blame. But about the burden of protection being on women eg the police advice to keep men at arms length. And yes that silly female Mayor deserves all the criticism she got.
' “There are strict orders from the chiefs not to report offences by refugees,” the unnamed officer said. '
Doubtless the more closed-minded PBers will accuse that officer of 'Germanophobia' or 'grotesque bigotry' for revealing that.
Hang on - I'm surprised that the police see it as part of their job to report offences by anyone to the press, especially as the accused won't have been tried yet. I know it happens, but in Britain it's normally seen as due to some juionr officer leaking it unofficially, and it's frowned on. Obviously if it's a case that's excited public concern they will announce if they've made an arrest, but typically it's something like "A 47-year-old man has been detained and charged with the offence". If they add "And it's a refugee!"" or "And it's a Tory!" or any other extraneous detail, they're breaking the rules.
My personal favourite was the one regarding allegations of rape etc concerning troops training in Kenya - which all collapsed. Due to things like the soldiers in question being provably on a different continent on the dates alleged etc.
One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.
After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
It seems to me that there's rather a lot for the SRA to investigate.
@JournoStephen: Struck by the number of Labour friends who say they'll vote Tory for the first time if Labour abandons Trident. https://t.co/kuYlMjCKef
Unbelievably toxic.
The general public aren't interested in the detail - they just go for general impression, big picture.
Having a GE campaign where every single day the message is being banged out loud and clear that "Labour will leave the country defenceless .... in a dangerous world ...." is going to mean carnage for Labour.
Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.
Only the general impression, big picture will get through and it's going to be absolutely devastating.
And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?
Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
My personal favourite was the one regarding allegations of rape etc concerning troops training in Kenya - which all collapsed. Due to things like the soldiers in question being provably on a different continent on the dates alleged etc.
One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.
After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
It seems to me that there's rather a lot for the SRA to investigate.
The smarter lawyers will simply have avoided knowing things. The idiots who shredded actual documents will get nailed to the wall.
The problem is infinite free legal aid for any claim given to private firms. Imagine, a junior trainee notices a problem that means the client was lying. Congratulations - you have just cost the firm a million quid.... all the incentives are in the wrong direction...
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
@JournoStephen: Struck by the number of Labour friends who say they'll vote Tory for the first time if Labour abandons Trident. https://t.co/kuYlMjCKef
Unbelievably toxic.
The general public aren't interested in the detail - they just go for general impression, big picture.
Having a GE campaign where every single day the message is being banged out loud and clear that "Labour will leave the country defenceless .... in a dangerous world ...." is going to mean carnage for Labour.
Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.
Only the general impression, big picture will get through and it's going to be absolutely devastating.
I don't agree. The case for Trident rests upon a total lack of debate on the issue.
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.
Portillo's argument is that he can't envisage a scenario where we'd use our weapons without the USA having already done so. Worse still, I'd argue that the scenario we'd use our nukes without the Americans using theirs is one where the USA can't be seen to be using theirs.
I suppose another argument would be that if we didn't have them no one would seriously propose getting nuclear weapons. But, on the whole I'm happy to renew trident as it shows we're committed to playing our part in NATO.
What will do for Labour is that they'll be portrayed as being anti defence full stop.
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'
I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.
Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
O'Brian - the guy who leads Winston along into thinking he's a member of the Brotherhood against The Party but turns out to be a member of the Thought Police and totally loyal. I think he says it after Winston has been arrested and during his 're-education'.
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
It'll be discussed some more in the next few months too.
In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
It'll be discussed some more in the next few months too.
In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
lol That's very true. I don't think the Government will be doing this by stealth.
Perhaps some gentle reminders of the end of the Major government and the start of the Blair government - Labour spinners were *writing* stories for journalists to use (some printed without change!) and planning events in concert with with signed up newspapers etc. The grid was far more than just a plan....
Perhaps some gentle reminders of the end of the Major government and the start of the Blair government - Labour spinners were *writing* stories for journalists to use (some printed without change!) and planning events in concert with with signed up newspapers etc. The grid was far more than just a plan....
Unfortunately for them, Blair is the Emmanuel Goldstein of British politics.
It'll be discussed some more in the next few months too.
In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
lol That's very true. I don't think the Government will be doing this by stealth.
I can imagine the Cabinet deciding that Trident renewal is a very big decision, has lots of money allocated to it over a period of decades. It's therefore only right that we allow a full week's debate in Parliament, followed by a month of Committee work, followed by three days in the Lords then another full week's Parliamentary time, and so on until Labour can agree on what exactly their policy is on the subject!!
British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.
If you want justice to wait for lawyers to start acting ethically and stop being greedy...you'll be waiting a long time.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost. The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain. The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent. The Spanish despised trade and industry. Spain expelled many of their useful minorities. The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Very simplified:
Three reasons: 1. Economic. The flow of gold from the New World did the Spanish economy no favours. It depressed economic activity and encouraged rent seeking at a time when there was enormous technological change.
2. Political. Spain, after Philip II, was blessed with a series of incompetent, inbred rulers.
3. Military. Spain spent a lot of its money in attempting to hold together a far flung empire. The Habsburg dominions under Charles V encompassed much of Germany, Spain and Portugal, the Netherlands (which included Belgium) and chunks of Italy. Oh yes, and the New World. But although the Habsburgs ruled this huge area, the Spaniards refused to subsidise the Italians and vice-versa. This led to lots of wars where it was everyone else against Spain and the Habsburgs.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
That's enormously complicated but the short answer is:
A. Gold of itself is interesting but inflationary and inflation bouts rent Spain repeatedly; B. Spanish society was utterly stratified and frozen. Compare to the dynamism of Dutch and English (including North America). C. The Spanish empire was in the wrong place for the valuable commodities for the 18th century. Look at the economics of the VOC and the U(EIC).
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost. The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain. The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent. The Spanish despised trade and industry. Spain expelled many of their useful minorities. The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.
For England the opposites happened.
Good point about the Catholic Church.
Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.
Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
Simon Sebag Montefiori's "Blood and Gold: The Making of Spain" is still on the BBC iPlayer. Episode 3 answers JJ's question.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost. The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain. The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent. The Spanish despised trade and industry. Spain expelled many of their useful minorities. The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.
For England the opposites happened.
Good point about the Catholic Church.
Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.
Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
Braudel has written many of the standards of the era.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
One word. Capitalism.
The British and Spanish Empires were organised slightly differently. Both had their share of stupid noblemen heading private armies to futz around, but the Brits eventually bent their will to money-making activities (planting tea, planting tobacco, selling opium, coughcoughslaverycoughcough, etc) and prioritised things like trade. The Spanish bent their will to conquest for its own sake, religious-conversion-or-else, and their colonies (although huge) were neither prosperous nor well-run. The Brits generated wealth, the Spanish destroyed it, with the obvious result
Additionally (and famously), the Spanish confused "money" and "wealth". When they discovered stacks of gold they thought it made them rich, so they bought it back and invented inflation.
British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.
If you want justice to wait for lawyers to start acting ethically and stop being greedy...you'll be waiting a long time.
I'm entirely ethical and can happily justify my rate in the context of skill and amounts involved. I just don't don a cloak of a higher moral purpose and look to have taxpayers pay for it.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost. The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain. The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent. The Spanish despised trade and industry. Spain expelled many of their useful minorities. The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.
For England the opposites happened.
Good point about the Catholic Church.
Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.
Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
We had our own civil wars and 'the' civil war was a terrible affair. We did break the power of the Church thanks to Henry VIII. Perhaps it was the unifying compromise arrived at to bring about the restoration and the rise in power of the Royal Navy.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
One word. Capitalism.
The British and Spanish Empires were organised slightly differently. Both had their share of stupid noblemen heading private armies to futz around, but the Brits eventually bent their will to money-making activities (planting tea, planting tobacco, selling opium, coughcoughslaverycoughcough, etc) and prioritised things like trade. The Spanish bent their will to conquest for its own sake, religious-conversion-or-else, and their colonies (although huge) were neither prosperous nor well-run. The Brits generated wealth, the Spanish destroyed it, with the obvious result
Additionally (and famously), the Spanish confused "money" and "wealth". When they discovered stacks of gold they thought it made them rich, so they bought it back and invented inflation.
Niall Ferguson's "Civilisation" has a fascinating comparison of Spanish colonial South America and English colonial North America along those lines.
The Devil visited a Solicitor's office and made him an offer.
"I can arrange some things for you, " the Devil said. "I'll increase your income ten-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll never lose a case and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity and I want you to murder a tramp'
The solicitor thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop
I cheated.
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ? Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ... (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
Please don't spoil the image... I rather like the thought of you discussing the war of Spanish Succession with a toddler.
British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.
If you want justice to wait for lawyers to start acting ethically and stop being greedy...you'll be waiting a long time.
I'm entirely ethical and can happily justify my rate in the context of skill and amounts involved. I just don't don a cloak of a higher moral purpose and look to have taxpayers pay for it.
Lawyers don't don cloaks of a higher moral purpose?
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Brocklebank-Fowler
Evening all.
Calling it a ‘media operation’ is gilding the lily somewhat, it’s as hopeless and dysfunctional as the amateur running it. #SaveSeamusMilne.
Doubtless the more closed-minded PBers will accuse that officer of 'Germanophobia' or 'grotesque bigotry' for revealing that.
https://youtu.be/zn0QYIinIk0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12083609/Lawyers-face-prospect-of-being-struck-off-over-Iraq-abuse-claims.html
The lawyers are being taken to a professional tribunal for destroying evidence among other charges. An enquiry into a battle in Iraq concluded that the allegations were the product of "Deliberate and calculated lies".
The lawyers basically went around Iraq like ambulance chasers, finding people to bad-mouth British soldiers in order to generate work for themselves in acting for these Iraqis making complaints to the military in the UK. If you really think that's "Justice" then why are the lawyers involved subject to a professional tribunal that could see individuals banned from practicing law?
I'm not going to engage with you any further on this as you're quite clearly trolling and keep bringing the discussion back to Hitler.
But is it allowed under government guidelines ?
The first port of call should not be government funded lawsuits against the government or its operatives. Even for a lefty hand wringer, that would be a particularly stupid suggestion. Think how many nurses could have been been employed with the monies claimed by lawyers working on these cases that subsequently collapsed or were thrown out.
John Lewis do one for £149
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35264042
I do wonder if he had overlooked Anthony Jay's cunning propaganda for Public Choice Theory.
http://reviewsindepth.com/2010/03/yes-prime-minister-the-most-cunning-political-propaganda-ever-conceived/
http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/litigation/costs/court-appeal-upholds-decision-cut-leigh-days-trafigura-costs-bill
They were the lawyers that helped a bunch of poor people get £1000 each, but submitted a bill of over £100m in the process.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391075/Why-Germany-t-face-truth-migrant-sex-attacks-SUE-REID-finds-nation-denial-wave-horrific-attacks-reported-Europe.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/406fiy/more_on_twitters_corrupt_hack_michael_margolis/
How the Remain vote broke down across Britain in 1975 --> (Butler & Kitzinger) https://t.co/hTlRZv21bQ
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html
Negative Nationalism
A friend working in a city bank remarked about that Trafigura case that he was astonished that the lawyers on the other side were sleezier than Trafigura. Astonished because Trafigura are legendary.
Some say that Trafigura were turned down for membership in Spectre because of ethical concerns...
The only person I can see who said there should be a code of conduct for women was the newly elected Mayor of Cologne - who hardly speaks for the whole of Germany and was roundly condemned- and is also a woman.
remember the time when you needed a banker or doc to sign your pic for your passport anyone??
One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.
After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
It would be odd to frame it as a Question, which is by definition posed to themselves.
The general public aren't interested in the detail - they just go for general impression, big picture.
Having a GE campaign where every single day the message is being banged out loud and clear that "Labour will leave the country defenceless .... in a dangerous world ...." is going to mean carnage for Labour.
Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.
Only the general impression, big picture will get through and it's going to be absolutely devastating.
The problem is infinite free legal aid for any claim given to private firms. Imagine, a junior trainee notices a problem that means the client was lying. Congratulations - you have just cost the firm a million quid.... all the incentives are in the wrong direction...
In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'
I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.
Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
Strange old world.
http://msxnet.org/orwell/1984
I suppose another argument would be that if we didn't have them no one would seriously propose getting nuclear weapons. But, on the whole I'm happy to renew trident as it shows we're committed to playing our part in NATO.
What will do for Labour is that they'll be portrayed as being anti defence full stop.
http://george-orwell.org/1984/19.html
In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview
Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview
As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
(*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain.
The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent.
The Spanish despised trade and industry.
Spain expelled many of their useful minorities.
The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.
For England the opposites happened.
Trump: 36%
Cruz: 19%
Rubio: 13%
Carson: 6%
Paul 5%
Bush 4%
Christie 4%
Kasich 4%
Without Trump
Cruz 34%
Rubio 17%
Carson 8%
Paul 7%
Bush 7%
Christie 7%
Kasich 5%
https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/09/ted-cruzs-moment-gaining-national-gop-support-and-/
Does it have something to do with you being a man?
Three reasons:
1. Economic. The flow of gold from the New World did the Spanish economy no favours. It depressed economic activity and encouraged rent seeking at a time when there was enormous technological change.
2. Political. Spain, after Philip II, was blessed with a series of incompetent, inbred rulers.
3. Military. Spain spent a lot of its money in attempting to hold together a far flung empire. The Habsburg dominions under Charles V encompassed much of Germany, Spain and Portugal, the Netherlands (which included Belgium) and chunks of Italy. Oh yes, and the New World. But although the Habsburgs ruled this huge area, the Spaniards refused to subsidise the Italians and vice-versa. This led to lots of wars where it was everyone else against Spain and the Habsburgs.
A. Gold of itself is interesting but inflationary and inflation bouts rent Spain repeatedly;
B. Spanish society was utterly stratified and frozen. Compare to the dynamism of Dutch and English (including North America).
C. The Spanish empire was in the wrong place for the valuable commodities for the 18th century. Look at the economics of the VOC and the U(EIC).
Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.
Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
Female redheads are my Achilles' heel.
The British and Spanish Empires were organised slightly differently. Both had their share of stupid noblemen heading private armies to futz around, but the Brits eventually bent their will to money-making activities (planting tea, planting tobacco, selling opium, coughcoughslaverycoughcough, etc) and prioritised things like trade. The Spanish bent their will to conquest for its own sake, religious-conversion-or-else, and their colonies (although huge) were neither prosperous nor well-run. The Brits generated wealth, the Spanish destroyed it, with the obvious result
Additionally (and famously), the Spanish confused "money" and "wealth". When they discovered stacks of gold they thought it made them rich, so they bought it back and invented inflation.
Perhaps it was the unifying compromise arrived at to bring about the restoration and the rise in power of the Royal Navy.
The Devil visited a Solicitor's office and made him an offer.
"I can arrange some things for you, " the Devil said. "I'll increase your income ten-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll never lose a case and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity and I want you to murder a tramp'
The solicitor thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
Isn't that what lawyers do by definition?