I can see the logic in not publishing propagandas videos / photos, but no names seems like a bad idea.
I posted a link to a Department of Justice (in the US) study into lone wolf terrorists - it said that they were primarily motivated by seeing their name in lights, and that you could significantly cut the number of attacks by denying perpetrators the oxygen of publicity.
Not just that but, as I pointed out yesterday, the bulk of the cost to society of terrorism comes from our (over)reaction to it. If we limit the publicity, we also limit that overreaction.
It is a fine line to walk - between informing and preparing the public for resilience, and limiting the effectiveness and hence attractiveness of terrorism in the first place.
You can only call it an overreaction if you treat all causes of death as equivalent, which is arbitrary and wrong. I am quite prepared to get more exercised over one terrorist killing than 1,000 road deaths.
Can you specify more precisely the areas in which we are over reacting to terrorists? Too much intelligence time, too many checks at airports, too many police on streets?
Certainly too many checks at airports. All the research on humans' ability to observe very rare events points to the fact that TSA bag- and body-checking are and will always be almost completely ineffectual (not so the behavioural analysis of people at the airport though), and this is backed up by the regularity of system failures when tested.
But I was rather talking of the total costs of an incident. I realize that comparing the costs of a lost human life or limb to property damage is fraught, but look at the costs to the US of the reaction to any major terrorist incident (including 9/11 and the anthrax letters) and they dwarf the costs of the immediate impacts of the incident (even if factoring in unchallenged the claimed benefits of prevented future terrorism).
However, if you are prepared to accept 1000 road deaths as equivalent to 1 death to terrorism, then I have no basis of arguing with you on this, as each time I make a case which you should accept, you'll merely change the exchange rate on me. And that is fine, if you really believe those exchange rates, then the answer is correct for you. It just may not be for everyone else.
How do you explain Trump's record high national poll numbers?
You mean like the ones for President Romney? Looking at polls during conventions is a mug's game (and that one has been highlighted more than once). Anyway, look into that teacking poll and it looks to have a house effect even larger than Rasmussen, it's early days for it though, so it may need time to settle down before we can see just how much. People could just as easily have posted this one.
Trump is not a traditional candidate and he has not yet found his ceiling. All else is noise.
The thing is that with trump things might change and things might get better.
Under Hilary just more of the same
Hilary = REMAIN
Yeah, but Trump isn't Brexit.
Trump has a tougher job to win than Brexit because he's actually a real person standing for a real office so he doesn't have the same capacity to collect protest votes.
Nevertheless, voting Trump is the only chance most Americans will ever get to make a meaningful vote against a fatalistic view of what progress looks like. Many of them will take it.
If the US were to start raising trade barriers, that would not be good for the world.
Was your support for Brexit predicated on the assumption that Trump would lose?
Surprised no one is picking up on the likely to go ahead today for the Hinkley Point project.
According to the interviews on R4 this am, afaicr the total cost atm is estimated at £18b, and the two similar builds being conducted currently by EDF are up to 3 times over original budget and up to 10 years over schedule. Does anyone (outside government) think this is an even half sane idea?
I was so astounded that that big rail tunnel project in Switzerland recently was apparently constructed on time and on budget, which I didn't think was a possibility with big projects. Presumably the actual cost of this, far more complicated project, will be £50bn. Why even pretend it will cost what is estimated?
It's not a problem if the scope is fully nailed down at the start (and that means details) and you have a very well integrated supply chain to deliver it.
It's a good piece, and well worth a read. I shall be buying his book.
Short version: the euro is shit.
The most sensible proposal was Nigel Lawson's Hard ECU. Essentially it would have been a parallel currency for Europe, and over time economies might have naturally migrated towards it. Countries - like Greece - would simply never have been able to fund themselves in Hard ECUs.
Nice to see a paper print that the Greek crisis of 2010 wasn't a crisis for Greece itself but for the German and French banks foolish enough to have loaned Greece money - Greece really should have just left the Euro then....
Greece had plenty of opportunities to leave the Euro, most recently with the full backing of the IMF. Germany even proposed that Germany should leave the Euro (temporarily) in order to sort out its debts,
It was the Greek politicians who bottled it.
'Germany even proposed that Germany should leave the Euro (temporarily) in order to sort out its debts'
If an airline was running a service with 100 seats, would they be allowed to cram 200 people on board? No. If you sit in a car you have to wear a seatbelt and to carry more passengers than there are proper seats with belts is a criminal offence. Why? Because of safety; if people are not properly seated and strapped in then the risk of injury or death is massively increased even at quite low speeds.
So will someone please explain why this principle does not apply to railways?
In 1988 we had the Clapham Rail Disaster. Three commuter trains, one stationary and two running a low speed all collided just outside Clapham Junction Station. Two of the trains were packed with standing passengers. 38 people died and 415 were injured. The toll of lives lost and ruined would have been far less had the railways been subject to the same rules as aeroplanes, private cars and coaches. In my commuting days I was involved several times in incidents when overcrowded trains suddenly had to brake very hard, people were hurt (fortunately none seriously that I saw).
Yet I read this morning that some commuter trains, and not only in and out of London, are still carrying twice or more the number of passengers that they are designed to carry. (London underground is probably even worse).
Why is this state of affairs allowed to continue? How will the money to be spent on HS2, actually help overcrowding on commuter routes (inter-city trains are mostly empty during the day).
The reason that the Clapham disaster was so bad is that a third train ploughed into the wreckage.
Train injuries are so rare (modern trains are far stronger than the Mk1s in the Clapham disaster) and capacity would be reduced so much that to enforce seatbelts is considered not to be reasonably practicable.
It is not considered reasonably practicable to have seats with seatbelts and ban standing and they have far more accidents.
If you did, fares would need to triple at peak times due to the capacity reduction.
The new Class 700 trains which are being introduced to Thameslink over the next two years have 660 seats and room for 1200 to stand.
The purpose of health and safety is to keep risks as low as reasonably practicable not as low as possible.
Yes, but why are railways held to a different standards than other forms of transport? You are silent on that point. If I chose to take four children in the back of my car at 20 mph to the rugger match I am guilty of a criminal offence. If Southern railway take 900 people in a train built for 420 that is OK. Sorry, old boy, that don't work at any level. The response that that is always the way it has always been and it would cost a lot to sort out (cost who? see post below) doesn't really work.
It's a good piece, and well worth a read. I shall be buying his book.
Short version: the euro is shit.
The most sensible proposal was Nigel Lawson's Hard ECU. Essentially it would have been a parallel currency for Europe, and over time economies might have naturally migrated towards it. Countries - like Greece - would simply never have been able to fund themselves in Hard ECUs.
It seems to be most Europeans are up for strong multilateral pan-European cooperation between national governments, where they agree to do so, but can get quite pissed off if the political structure of the EU force them to do something they don't want to do.
The euro shoehorned the lira, DM, Franc and peseta into the Euro overnight and just made it fit.
We're still living with the consequences of that (one of which being that visiting those countries is now just a little bit more boring as a result)
As a frequent business traveller, the Euro has saved me a fair amount. In the old days, I used to have a drawer full of loose change and small denomination notes from a dozen European countries.
I realise that is pretty narrow self interest, mind
How do you explain Trump's record high national poll numbers?
You mean like the ones for President Romney? Looking at polls during conventions is a mug's game (and that one has been highlighted more than once). Anyway, look into that teacking poll and it looks to have a house effect even larger than Rasmussen, it's early days for it though, so it may need time to settle down before we can see just how much. People could just as easily have posted this one.
Trump is not a traditional candidate and he has not yet found his ceiling. All else is noise.
The thing is that with trump things might change and things might get better.
Under Hilary just more of the same
Hilary = REMAIN
Yeah, but Trump isn't Brexit.
Trump has a tougher job to win than Brexit because he's actually a real person standing for a real office so he doesn't have the same capacity to collect protest votes.
Nevertheless, voting Trump is the only chance most Americans will ever get to make a meaningful vote against a fatalistic view of what progress looks like. Many of them will take it.
If the US were to start raising trade barriers, that would not be good for the world.
Was your support for Brexit predicated on the assumption that Trump would lose?
If the US isn't going to be signing an FTA with us (or anyone else), and China's deals continue to be incredibly lopsided, then I think maintaining tariff free access to the EU is going to be very important to us.
I can see the logic in not publishing propagandas videos / photos, but no names seems like a bad idea.
I posted a link to a Department of Justice (in the US) study into lone wolf terrorists - it said that they were primarily motivated by seeing their name in lights, and that you could significantly cut the number of attacks by denying perpetrators the oxygen of publicity.
Not just that but, as I pointed out yesterday, the bulk of the cost to society of terrorism comes from our (over)reaction to it. If we limit the publicity, we also limit that overreaction.
It is a fine line to walk - between informing and preparing the public for resilience, and limiting the effectiveness and hence attractiveness of terrorism in the first place.
You can only call it an overreaction if you treat all causes of death as equivalent, which is arbitrary and wrong. I am quite prepared to get more exercised over one terrorist killing than 1,000 road deaths.
Can you specify more precisely the areas in which we are over reacting to terrorists? Too much intelligence time, too many checks at airports, too many police on streets?
Certainly too many checks at airports. All the research on humans' ability to observe very rare events points to the fact that TSA bag- and body-checking are and will always be almost completely ineffectual (not so the behavioural analysis of people at the airport though), and this is backed up by the regularity of system failures when tested.
But I was rather talking of the total costs of an incident. I realize that comparing the costs of a lost human life or limb to property damage is fraught, but look at the costs to the US of the reaction to any major terrorist incident (including 9/11 and the anthrax letters) and they dwarf the costs of the immediate impacts of the incident (even if factoring in unchallenged the claimed benefits of prevented future terrorism).
However, if you are prepared to accept 1000 road deaths as equivalent to 1 death to terrorism, then I have no basis of arguing with you on this, as each time I make a case which you should accept, you'll merely change the exchange rate on me. And that is fine, if you really believe those exchange rates, then the answer is correct for you. It just may not be for everyone else.
I think what is correct for me, is correct for most voters - that is, governments will fall over 100 terrorist deaths when they wouldn't over 10,000 traffic deaths. And yes I have knocked down the exchange rate by an oom there.
Surprised no one is picking up on the likely to go ahead today for the Hinkley Point project.
According to the interviews on R4 this am, afaicr the total cost atm is estimated at £18b, and the two similar builds being conducted currently by EDF are up to 3 times over original budget and up to 10 years over schedule. Does anyone (outside government) think this is an even half sane idea?
I was so astounded that that big rail tunnel project in Switzerland recently was apparently constructed on time and on budget, which I didn't think was a possibility with big projects. Presumably the actual cost of this, far more complicated project, will be £50bn. Why even pretend it will cost what is estimated?
It's not a problem if the scope is fully nailed down at the start (and that means details) and you have a very well integrated supply chain to deliver it.
Guess what usually happens?
A whacking great contingency sum in the headline cost tends to help too
It's a good piece, and well worth a read. I shall be buying his book.
Short version: the euro is shit.
The most sensible proposal was Nigel Lawson's Hard ECU. Essentially it would have been a parallel currency for Europe, and over time economies might have naturally migrated towards it. Countries - like Greece - would simply never have been able to fund themselves in Hard ECUs.
It seems to be most Europeans are up for strong multilateral pan-European cooperation between national governments, where they agree to do so, but can get quite pissed off if the political structure of the EU force them to do something they don't want to do.
The euro shoehorned the lira, DM, Franc and peseta into the Euro overnight and just made it fit.
We're still living with the consequences of that (one of which being that visiting those countries is now just a little bit more boring as a result)
As a frequent business traveller, the Euro has saved me a fair amount. In the old days, I used to have a drawer full of loose change and small denomination notes from a dozen European countries.
I realise that is pretty narrow self interest, mind
Similar. In the old days we used to pay a double penalty in changing unused holiday money back into sterling when we came home. We just keep Euros because they are so much more flexible.
Not entirely sure that this advantage was worth wreaking a continental economy for, mind.
So will someone please explain why this principle does not apply to railways?
In 1988 we had the Clapham Rail Disaster. Three commuter trains, one stationary and two running a low speed all collided just outside Clapham Junction Station. Two of the trains were packed with standing passengers. 38 people died and 415 were injured. The toll of lives lost and ruined would have been far less had the railways been subject to the same rules as aeroplanes, private cars and coaches. In my commuting days I was involved several times in incidents when overcrowded trains suddenly had to brake very hard, people were hurt (fortunately none seriously that I saw).
Yet I read this morning that some commuter trains, and not only in and out of London, are still carrying twice or more the number of passengers that they are designed to carry. (London underground is probably even worse).
Why is this state of affairs allowed to continue? How will the money to be spent on HS2, actually help overcrowding on commuter routes (inter-city trains are mostly empty during the day).
The reason that the Clapham disaster was so bad is that a third train ploughed into the wreckage.
Train injuries are so rare (modern trains are far stronger than the Mk1s in the Clapham disaster) and capacity would be reduced so much that to enforce seatbelts is considered not to be reasonably practicable.
It is not considered reasonably practicable to have seats with seatbelts and ban standing and they have far more accidents.
If you did, fares would need to triple at peak times due to the capacity reduction.
The new Class 700 trains which are being introduced to Thameslink over the next two years have 660 seats and room for 1200 to stand.
The purpose of health and safety is to keep risks as low as reasonably practicable not as low as possible.
Yes, but why are railways held to a different standards than other forms of transport? You are silent on that point. If I chose to take four children in the back of my car at 20 mph to the rugger match I am guilty of a criminal offence. If Southern railway take 900 people in a train built for 420 that is OK. Sorry, old boy, that don't work at any level. The response that that is always the way it has always been and it would cost a lot to sort out (cost who? see post below) doesn't really work.
2000 odd people killed on the roads in the last 10 years.
Zero passengers killed on the railways in the last ten years
And still Trump leads in the Polls. Is Donald the new Jezza: The worse the media say about him, the more support he gets?
The issue is that Trump's base don't like the liberal media. The more hysterical they become, the more support he gets.
In this narrow sense, it is like Brexit. If some bien-pensant wanker that you already despise tells you you're a racist Little Englander, it's hardly going to change your mind.
That's not the aim. As per Corbyn, make his cultists evervmore angry and deranged and the centrists and sensible conservatives start to peel away. I just followed a Trump interview this morning about this and it's increasingly incoherent; feeding into the narrative that he is a danger to the USA. The tax releases is another issue, to point out how unamerican he is. It's probably worth a small flutter on Pence as president, given the direction of travel.
Snip
I am very wary of supposed pro Trump social media by the way, the Russian troll army has been very active in his support. I crossed swords with the, over Ukraine, they seek to close down debate and flood the internet.
A few of us are watching the DNC - I'd agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the narrative the Dems are trying to build.
The week started with a lot of angry Bernie or Busters shouting down speakers, but the Weds session was a masterclass in building broad appeal. The big keynote speakers
Biden (old school appeal to blue collar America, big sell on the optimistic vision of America's future) Bloomberg (billionaire shade throwing at Trump, very bitchy, appeal to aspirational white collar workers) Tim Paine (folksy charm, god-fearing 'regular' American, Dad jokes, decent track record) Obama (hope, internationalism, security)
Viewing figures so far for the DNC are bigger than the RNC. US based friends reported people glued to Biden speech in particular. Will be interesting to see if this translates into a post convention opinion poll bounce for Hillary. If not, its going to be a long hard campaign.
I think the big thing that people are picking g up on was that the RNC message was 'Not Hilary '.
It was reminiscent of Kerry's 'Not Bush' 2004 campaign.
Comments
But I was rather talking of the total costs of an incident. I realize that comparing the costs of a lost human life or limb to property damage is fraught, but look at the costs to the US of the reaction to any major terrorist incident (including 9/11 and the anthrax letters) and they dwarf the costs of the immediate impacts of the incident (even if factoring in unchallenged the claimed benefits of prevented future terrorism).
However, if you are prepared to accept 1000 road deaths as equivalent to 1 death to terrorism, then I have no basis of arguing with you on this, as each time I make a case which you should accept, you'll merely change the exchange rate on me. And that is fine, if you really believe those exchange rates, then the answer is correct for you. It just may not be for everyone else.
Guess what usually happens?
proposed that GREECE should leave the Euro
An object lesson for all legislators. Think how you enemies might use such legislation if they are in power before passing it...
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
Not entirely sure that this advantage was worth wreaking a continental economy for, mind.
Zero passengers killed on the railways in the last ten years