Some people just attack the BBC no matter what. It's an ideological thing.
And you treat this organisation like a religion where those who disagree are heretics.
I worked at the highest levels with them for over three years and was an enormous fan in the 90s. They're nothing compared to their former selves now. A huge fall from grace.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. The BBC takes far more shit than it deserves and is a national asset that we should develop for UK Plc.
It's quite difficult to improve it when suggesting it can be improved (which implies that there is something about it which isn't perfect) is treated as heresy.
A. It is too successful, damages commercial programming. B. It is not successful enough, it's not what it was in the good old days before Netflix C. It shows programme X they I do not like
That's it.
Check this out: in extreme Remoaner land there is now a meme that the BBC is pro-Brexit, in hock to UKIP, and maybe quasi-Fascist.
Miss Plato, said it before, but I considered sending Sir Edric (politically incorrect comedy) to various people/organisations just so their wailing and gnashing of teeth might get me some free publicity. Of course, I'm too decent a chap to actually do that. Though it was rather tempting...
I don't think the burning (or attempted burning) of the homeless man will change much in Germany. The PR system is practically designed to prevent a single party gaining power, so even if AfD leapt forward in the polls, the other parties would unite to stop them getting in.
[snip].
That's true to an extent but two of the last three elections have resulted in CDU/CSU-SPD coalitions because nothing else workable was possible, which is not a healthy state of affairs. The same will likely be the case after the 2017 election.
But as ever, opposition always rises. And as usual, the minor party in a coalition tends to suffer the most - the SPD was back at just 20% in the polls today. While it will be easy enough to keep AfD out, the old guard of CDU, SPD and FDP are at a historic (post-1949) low. They cannot continue to club together defensively against the newer parties without risking leaking still more of their support to those parties on the opposition benches.
A. It is too successful, damages commercial programming. B. It is not successful enough, it's not what it was in the good old days before Netflix C. It shows programme X they I do not like
That's it.
Check this out: in extreme Remoaner land there is now a meme that the BBC is pro-Brexit, in hock to UKIP, and maybe quasi-Fascist.
Given the sensitivity of the story Kuenssberg has an obligation to reveal whether her source was Gove or someone affiliated with the Leave campaign. The only person present who has gone on the record is Clegg (who was apparently seated next to the Queen) and he has a different recollection.
Looking back, 2016 will be the year 24/7 dystopian surveillance by our gadgets really took off. Our phones and tablets and dashcams know where we go and hear what we say, and you can bet your bottom $ that T May will be working on legislation providing for the police to have the right to make the mfrr provide a back door to get in. In the interest of national security, obv.
A. It is too successful, damages commercial programming. B. It is not successful enough, it's not what it was in the good old days before Netflix C. It shows programme X they I do not like
That's it.
Check this out: in extreme Remoaner land there is now a meme that the BBC is pro-Brexit, in hock to UKIP, and maybe quasi-Fascist.
Given the sensitivity of the story Kuenssberg has an obligation to reveal whether her source was Gove or someone affiliated with the Leave campaign. The only person present who has gone on the record is Clegg (who was apparently seated next to the Queen) and he has a different recollection.
Why does she have an obligation to reveal her source?
A. It is too successful, damages commercial programming. B. It is not successful enough, it's not what it was in the good old days before Netflix C. It shows programme X they I do not like
That's it.
Check this out: in extreme Remoaner land there is now a meme that the BBC is pro-Brexit, in hock to UKIP, and maybe quasi-Fascist.
Given the sensitivity of the story Kuenssberg has an obligation to reveal whether her source was Gove or someone affiliated with the Leave campaign. The only person present who has gone on the record is Clegg (who was apparently seated next to the Queen) and he has a different recollection.
Why does she have an obligation to reveal her source?
Because the implication of her story is that the Sun's front page has been corroborated. If the source is the same then it hasn't. As a minimum she should compare notes with the Sun journalist.
A. It is too successful, damages commercial programming. B. It is not successful enough, it's not what it was in the good old days before Netflix C. It shows programme X they I do not like
That's it.
Check this out: in extreme Remoaner land there is now a meme that the BBC is pro-Brexit, in hock to UKIP, and maybe quasi-Fascist.
Given the sensitivity of the story Kuenssberg has an obligation to reveal whether her source was Gove or someone affiliated with the Leave campaign. The only person present who has gone on the record is Clegg (who was apparently seated next to the Queen) and he has a different recollection.
Why does she have an obligation to reveal her source?
Because the implication of her story is that the Sun's front page has been corroborated. If the source is the same then it hasn't. As a minimum she should compare notes with the Sun journalist.
We're in the world of claim and counter claim.
It's disappointing that someone could attend a private lunch with HMQ and then blab.
Also not 100% sure I can see The Queen discussing such a sensitive issue.
How about the BBC is funded by a poll tax under threat of criminal sanctions? In the 1920s when the BBC was the sole source of radio the idea of a licence might have been justifiable. Nearly 100 years later in a multi-media age forcing people to pay for some consumer service they do not use seems less justifiable.
Still a dodgy argument, the right have no problem with that principle of compulsion if the service meets their approval.
We are all compelled to pay for things we do not use, but others benefit from and sometimes we have to pay for things we object to.
Arguably the BBC is more important than some of the things we pay for in tax. The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do.
I agree with Mr Herdson. The BBC could lose a large percentage of its current base and still considerably undercut the competition. It could also withdraw from Sky platforms and so make Sky packages much less attractive as people would be forced into a choice. On top of all that, it would also be able to raise considerable sums from investors. With the brand that it has the BBC could quite feasibly be the biggest media player in the world.
Until recently the BBC had to pay Sky for Sky showing the BBC channels. Properly bonkers.
Given the sensitivity of the story Kuenssberg has an obligation to reveal whether her source was Gove or someone affiliated with the Leave campaign. The only person present who has gone on the record is Clegg (who was apparently seated next to the Queen) and he has a different recollection.
Why does she have an obligation to reveal her source?
Because the implication of her story is that the Sun's front page has been corroborated. If the source is the same then it hasn't. As a minimum she should compare notes with the Sun journalist.
I still am a bit confused sorry... What does it matter if they have a different source? Then there would be two sources saying queen said x. to Clegg
A. It is too successful, damages commercial programming. B. It is not successful enough, it's not what it was in the good old days before Netflix C. It shows programme X they I do not like
That's it.
Check this out: in extreme Remoaner land there is now a meme that the BBC is pro-Brexit, in hock to UKIP, and maybe quasi-Fascist.
Given the sensitivity of the story Kuenssberg has an obligation to reveal whether her source was Gove or someone affiliated with the Leave campaign. The only person present who has gone on the record is Clegg (who was apparently seated next to the Queen) and he has a different recollection.
Why does she have an obligation to reveal her source?
Because the implication of her story is that the Sun's front page has been corroborated. If the source is the same then it hasn't. As a minimum she should compare notes with the Sun journalist.
I'm still not sure why there should be any obligation to reveal a source... IMO revealing sources who want to stay anonymous is a very important prtnciple not to break for journalism.
Even if there are two different sources... What difference does it make?
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
" The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do."
In which case they would no doubt be happy to pay a voluntary subscription. So where is the problem? Why must the threat of the criminal law be used to force people to pay for the BBC? If I chose not to pay for Amazon Prime, or Sky am I going to be dragged off to the magistrates court? How about ITV? They don't claim by right I should pay them.
The licence fee is an anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and it is time for it to be phased out.
Even if there are two different sources... What difference does it make?
One source giving a story to two journalists who then report it independently is still a single-sourced uncorroborated story.
Kuenssberg doesn't have to reveal her source by she should have checked with the Sun journalist whether it was the same one. She specifically says that she tried to find a second source and wasn't able to so it's highly likely to have been the same person (apparently Gove).
I agree with Mr Herdson. The BBC could lose a large percentage of its current base and still considerably undercut the competition. It could also withdraw from Sky platforms and so make Sky packages much less attractive as people would be forced into a choice. On top of all that, it would also be able to raise considerable sums from investors. With the brand that it has the BBC could quite feasibly be the biggest media player in the world.
Until recently the BBC had to pay Sky for Sky showing the BBC channels. Properly bonkers.
A much misunderstood issue. IIRC Sky owned the satellite and capacity was leased out on commercial terms to whoever wanted it.
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
Make no mistake - Brexit negotiations are an existential threat to the UK.
It's a daydream.
The most recent proper poll that I can find, in Northern Ireland, as to the question of Irish unity, comes from September (i.e. a decent time after the Brexit vote)
" The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do."
In which case they would no doubt be happy to pay a voluntary subscription. So where is the problem? Why must the threat of the criminal law be used to force people to pay for the BBC? If I chose not to pay for Amazon Prime, or Sky am I going to be dragged off to the magistrates court? How about ITV? They don't claim by right I should pay them.
The licence fee is an anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and it is time for it to be phased out.
Trouble with that is you can extend the principle to other things. I am sure people will chip in to fund the Trident replacement and HS2.
Miss Plato, said it before, but I considered sending Sir Edric (politically incorrect comedy) to various people/organisations just so their wailing and gnashing of teeth might get me some free publicity. Of course, I'm too decent a chap to actually do that. Though it was rather tempting...
I don't think the burning (or attempted burning) of the homeless man will change much in Germany. The PR system is practically designed to prevent a single party gaining power, so even if AfD leapt forward in the polls, the other parties would unite to stop them getting in.
[snip].
That's true to an extent but two of the last three elections have resulted in CDU/CSU-SPD coalitions because nothing else workable was possible, which is not a healthy state of affairs. The same will likely be the case after the 2017 election.
But as ever, opposition always rises. And as usual, the minor party in a coalition tends to suffer the most - the SPD was back at just 20% in the polls today. While it will be easy enough to keep AfD out, the old guard of CDU, SPD and FDP are at a historic (post-1949) low. They cannot continue to club together defensively against the newer parties without risking leaking still more of their support to those parties on the opposition benches.
I dunno about "no change" in Germany. These negative refugee stories are now coming thick and fast. Here's another one - 20 Syrians brawling on a nightbus in Augsburg, with toddlers involved (if Google translate is accurate).
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
I agree with Mr Herdson. The BBC could lose a large percentage of its current base and still considerably undercut the competition. It could also withdraw from Sky platforms and so make Sky packages much less attractive as people would be forced into a choice. On top of all that, it would also be able to raise considerable sums from investors. With the brand that it has the BBC could quite feasibly be the biggest media player in the world.
Until recently the BBC had to pay Sky for Sky showing the BBC channels. Properly bonkers.
A much misunderstood issue. IIRC Sky owned the satellite and capacity was leased out on commercial terms to whoever wanted it.
It was an archaic agreement to help subsidise the investment of sattelite providers in infastructure. It's nothing to do with Sky leasing out capacity to the BBC, Sky were getting all the benefits of having BBC/ITV/Channel 4 on their service and getting paid for the privilege.
The public broadcasters were providing g Sky with a service and having to fork over cash. It stopped when the BBC said they would start charging Sky for the content.
If you cannot understand the difference between multiple channels of entertainment and essential public services I am afraid there is no point in continuing a conversation with you.
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
Make no mistake - Brexit negotiations are an existential threat to the UK.
It's a daydream.
The most recent proper poll that I can find, in Northern Ireland, as to the question of Irish unity, comes from September (i.e. a decent time after the Brexit vote)
You're talking about people who think a democratic referendum result can just be ignored, though.
The last thing that should happen is to ignore the referendum. The people who argued for Brexit need to step up to the plate and show that they have a plan. Instead they are still peddling lies which reveal their lack of seriousness about the subject. For example this 'report' from Change Britain, which falsesly implies that the EU does not have a trade deal with South Korea or Canada and claims this as a potential independent UK benefit of leaving.
Even if there are two different sources... What difference does it make?
One source giving a story to two journalists who then report it independently is still a single-sourced uncorroborated story.
Kuenssberg doesn't have to reveal her source by she should have checked with the Sun journalist whether it was the same one. She specifically says that she tried to find a second source and wasn't able to so it's highly likely to have been the same person (apparently Gove).
I might be reading too much into this but when Tony Gallagher was defending the story... He said 'sources' so possibly he was able to find a corroboration even if LK failed.
That's true to an extent but two of the last three elections have resulted in CDU/CSU-SPD coalitions because nothing else workable was possible, which is not a healthy state of affairs. The same will likely be the case after the 2017 election.
But as ever, opposition always rises. And as usual, the minor party in a coalition tends to suffer the most - the SPD was back at just 20% in the polls today. While it will be easy enough to keep AfD out, the old guard of CDU, SPD and FDP are at a historic (post-1949) low. They cannot continue to club together defensively against the newer parties without risking leaking still more of their support to those parties on the opposition benches.
I dunno about "no change" in Germany. These negative refugee stories are now coming thick and fast. Here's another one - 20 Syrians brawling on a nightbus in Augsburg, with toddlers involved (if Google translate is accurate).
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
A system designed to stop one party government is creating one party government of the establishment party.
It is likely to end very badly when the next recession occurs.
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
Tesco weren't at fault but their employee was (and should have been disciplined for refusing to do her work).
Both were at fault and he should have told her and Tesco where to stick their wine. Frothers on here deride Germany for being wishy washy as well. If they cannot do the job they are employed for they should be sacked.
" The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do."
In which case they would no doubt be happy to pay a voluntary subscription. So where is the problem? Why must the threat of the criminal law be used to force people to pay for the BBC? If I chose not to pay for Amazon Prime, or Sky am I going to be dragged off to the magistrates court? How about ITV? They don't claim by right I should pay them.
The licence fee is an anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and it is time for it to be phased out.
Trouble with that is you can extend the principle to other things. I am sure people will chip in to fund the Trident replacement and HS2.
Oh dear that old Chestnut again.
The BBC is not an essential service in any sense of the word. However transport and defence of the realm certainly is. You really do just show a complete lack of awareness of the entire subject by attempting to compare the two as the same.
I dunno about "no change" in Germany. These negative refugee stories are now coming thick and fast. Here's another one - 20 Syrians brawling on a nightbus in Augsburg, with toddlers involved (if Google translate is accurate).
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
A system designed to stop one party government is creating one party government of the establishment party.
It is likely to end very badly when the next recession occurs.
It wasn't designed to stop one-party government. After Germany's experience in the 1920s with political instability of pure PR, that wouldn't have been a priority when the post-1945 structures were being built. In fact, the CDU did once form a single-party in the 1950s.
The problem, as you rightly say, is that the natural party of opposition at the moment has become embedded in the government and without an alternative pole that the system can work around, Germany - at a federal level (we should remember that a lot of powers are held by the lander) - is stuck in a form of electoral gridlock.
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
" The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do."
In which case they would no doubt be happy to pay a voluntary subscription. So where is the problem? Why must the threat of the criminal law be used to force people to pay for the BBC? If I chose not to pay for Amazon Prime, or Sky am I going to be dragged off to the magistrates court? How about ITV? They don't claim by right I should pay them.
The licence fee is an anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and it is time for it to be phased out.
Isn't the point of the BBC that they are not subject to commercial pressures?
And so they can take crazy risks or produce programmes for niche audiences.
Is it the license fee specifically you don't like or would you still dislike it if they were funded by general taxation?
I dunno about "no change" in Germany. These negative refugee stories are now coming thick and fast. Here's another one - 20 Syrians brawling on a nightbus in Augsburg, with toddlers involved (if Google translate is accurate).
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
A system designed to stop one party government is creating one party government of the establishment party.
It is likely to end very badly when the next recession occurs.
It wasn't designed to stop one-party government. After Germany's experience in the 1920s with political instability of pure PR, that wouldn't have been a priority when the post-1945 structures were being built. In fact, the CDU did once form a single-party in the 1950s.
The problem, as you rightly say, is that the natural party of opposition at the moment has become embedded in the government and without an alternative pole that the system can work around, Germany - at a federal level (we should remember that a lot of powers are held by the lander) - is stuck in a form of electoral gridlock.
What I should have said is that the German electoral system is designed to minimise the chances of non-mainstream parties.
But for that to happen there needs to be a mainstream opposition to a mainstream government.
When all the mainstream parties are in government simultaneously then anti-government votes will have nowhere else to go but to non-mainstream parties.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I dunno about "no change" in Germany. These negative refugee stories are now coming thick and fast. Here's another one - 20 Syrians brawling on a nightbus in Augsburg, with toddlers involved (if Google translate is accurate).
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
A system designed to stop one party government is creating one party government of the establishment party.
It is likely to end very badly when the next recession occurs.
It wasn't designed to stop one-party government. After Germany's experience in the 1920s with political instability of pure PR, that wouldn't have been a priority when the post-1945 structures were being built. In fact, the CDU did once form a single-party in the 1950s.
The problem, as you rightly say, is that the natural party of opposition at the moment has become embedded in the government and without an alternative pole that the system can work around, Germany - at a federal level (we should remember that a lot of powers are held by the lander) - is stuck in a form of electoral gridlock.
To be fair the post-2013 government is only due to a freak election result in which the CDU/CSU almost got an absolute majority while the FDP got wiped out.
Is there a difference between refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple because of religious beliefs or refusing to sell a bottle of wine equally because of religious Beliefs? The main difference I can see is that one ends up to court the other doesn't and someone else had to do the extra work that another was paid to do.
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
Even if there are two different sources... What difference does it make?
One source giving a story to two journalists who then report it independently is still a single-sourced uncorroborated story.
Kuenssberg doesn't have to reveal her source by she should have checked with the Sun journalist whether it was the same one. She specifically says that she tried to find a second source and wasn't able to so it's highly likely to have been the same person (apparently Gove).
I might be reading too much into this but when Tony Gallagher was defending the story... He said 'sources' so possibly he was able to find a corroboration even if LK failed.
I'd assumed that Mr Gove was the second source for the story, as he was known to have been at the party but wouldn't want to be the only source for such a controversial story.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Stop talking down the manufactured outrage industry.
" The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do."
In which case they would no doubt be happy to pay a voluntary subscription. So where is the problem? Why must the threat of the criminal law be used to force people to pay for the BBC? If I chose not to pay for Amazon Prime, or Sky am I going to be dragged off to the magistrates court? How about ITV? They don't claim by right I should pay them.
The licence fee is an anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and it is time for it to be phased out.
Isn't the point of the BBC that they are not subject to commercial pressures?
And so they can take crazy risks or produce programmes for niche audiences.
Is it the license fee specifically you don't like or would you still dislike it if they were funded by general taxation?
No, that's a misconception. The BBC is absolutely subject to commercial pressures, just not directly. The process works through the political channels but you can be sure that if their rating share dropped to, say, 10% then there'd be huge pressure from MPs for either (1) the Beeb to start producing stuff that their constituents want or (2) licence fee reform.
And other producers create plenty of programming for niche markets, either as independent producers or as producer-broadcasters.
The 'justification' for the licence fee is a reverse-logic thing that's come about in order to sustain something already in place and which was originally justified on very different grounds.
FWIW, I do think there's something of value in the BBC's unusual structure. That's why I wouldn't want a normal privatisation for it and would instead prefer it to be made into an independent mutual, owned by the subscribers.
Even if there are two different sources... What difference does it make?
One source giving a story to two journalists who then report it independently is still a single-sourced uncorroborated story.
Kuenssberg doesn't have to reveal her source by she should have checked with the Sun journalist whether it was the same one. She specifically says that she tried to find a second source and wasn't able to so it's highly likely to have been the same person (apparently Gove).
I might be reading too much into this but when Tony Gallagher was defending the story... He said 'sources' so possibly he was able to find a corroboration even if LK failed.
I'd assumed that Mr Gove was the second source for the story, as he was known to have been at the party but wouldn't want to be the only source for such a controversial story.
The main problem with the story is that the substance is "Queen asks searching questions" but the headline is "Queen back Brexit". The controversial part of the story isn't substantiated even by the original source.
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
A system designed to stop one party government is creating one party government of the establishment party.
It is likely to end very badly when the next recession occurs.
It wasn't designed to stop one-party government. After Germany's experience in the 1920s with political instability of pure PR, that wouldn't have been a priority when the post-1945 structures were being built. In fact, the CDU did once form a single-party in the 1950s.
The problem, as you rightly say, is that the natural party of opposition at the moment has become embedded in the government and without an alternative pole that the system can work around, Germany - at a federal level (we should remember that a lot of powers are held by the lander) - is stuck in a form of electoral gridlock.
To be fair the post-2013 government is only due to a freak election result in which the CDU/CSU almost got an absolute majority while the FDP got wiped out.
2005 resulted in a CDU/CSU-SPD government as well. And do you seriously see any other likely outcome next year?
Three elections in four is not a 'freak result'; it's the consequence of structural changes in which more parties are present in parliament and that those parties are less preferable as coalition partners to the older parties than other members of that established club.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Stop talking down the manufactured outrage industry.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Stop talking down the manufactured outrage industry.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Stop talking down the manufactured outrage industry.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
2005 resulted in a CDU/CSU-SPD government as well. And do you seriously see any other likely outcome next year?
Three elections in four is not a 'freak result'; it's the consequence of structural changes in which more parties are present in parliament and that those parties are less preferable as coalition partners to the older parties than other members of that established club.
2005 was a genuine knife-edge election where a grand coalition was the appropriate outcome. It's not three out of four anyway. The most recent governments have been:
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Forget the Islamic aspect, what strikes about scenarios such as this is that the employee is able to say they won't do x or y, & it seems to me that people think this is ok. If the employer stated 'only people willing to do x or y will be considered' when advertising the job, would that be ok? My impression is some people would be squealing
Miss Plato, said it before, but I considered sending Sir Edric (politically incorrect comedy) to various people/organisations just so their wailing and gnashing of teeth might get me some free publicity. Of course, I'm too decent a chap to actually do that. Though it was rather tempting...
[snip].
That's true to an extent but two of the last three elections have resulted in CDU/CSU-SPD coalitions because nothing else workable was possible, which is not a healthy state of affairs. The same will likely be the case after the 2017 election.
But as ever, opposition always rises. And as usual, the minor party in a coalition tends to suffer the most - the SPD was back at just 20% in the polls today. While it will be easy enough to keep AfD out, the old guard of CDU, SPD and FDP are at a historic (post-1949) low. They cannot continue to club together defensively against the newer parties without risking leaking still more of their support to those parties on the opposition benches.
I dunno about "no change" in Germany. These negative refugee stories are now coming thick and fast. Here's another one - 20 Syrians brawling on a nightbus in Augsburg, with toddlers involved (if Google translate is accurate).
And yet Merkel's CDU is polling in the mid-30s (with a score of 38 in today's poll). It is of course possible that there could be a big shift in opinion between now and next next Autumn but the migrant impact looks more like a step-change in opinion in the second half of 2015, with AfD taking votes from both government parties; polling last year was fairly constant.
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
I don't think there will be numbers for a "traffic lights" coalition.
I agree with Mr Herdson. The BBC could lose a large percentage of its current base and still considerably undercut the competition. It could also withdraw from Sky platforms and so make Sky packages much less attractive as people would be forced into a choice. On top of all that, it would also be able to raise considerable sums from investors. With the brand that it has the BBC could quite feasibly be the biggest media player in the world.
And while it is in public hands that will never happen.
Make no mistake - Brexit negotiations are an existential threat to the UK.
It's a daydream.
The most recent proper poll that I can find, in Northern Ireland, as to the question of Irish unity, comes from September (i.e. a decent time after the Brexit vote)
You're talking about people who think a democratic referendum result can just be ignored, though.
The last thing that should happen is to ignore the referendum. The people who argued for Brexit need to step up to the plate and show that they have a plan. Instead they are still peddling lies which reveal their lack of seriousness about the subject. For example this 'report' from Change Britain, which falsesly implies that the EU does not have a trade deal with South Korea or Canada and claims this as a potential independent UK benefit of leaving.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
I am sure many Muslim-owned corner store sell alcohol. Of course, they would need to have a license like anyone else.
Make no mistake - Brexit negotiations are an existential threat to the UK.
It's a daydream.
The most recent proper poll that I can find, in Northern Ireland, as to the question of Irish unity, comes from September (i.e. a decent time after the Brexit vote)
You're talking about people who think a democratic referendum result can just be ignored, though.
The last thing that should happen is to ignore the referendum. The people who argued for Brexit need to step up to the plate and show that they have a plan. Instead they are still peddling lies which reveal their lack of seriousness about the subject. For example this 'report' from Change Britain, which falsesly implies that the EU does not have a trade deal with South Korea or Canada and claims this as a potential independent UK benefit of leaving.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Indeed. Would a Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms?
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
2005 resulted in a CDU/CSU-SPD government as well. And do you seriously see any other likely outcome next year?
Three elections in four is not a 'freak result'; it's the consequence of structural changes in which more parties are present in parliament and that those parties are less preferable as coalition partners to the older parties than other members of that established club.
2005 was a genuine knife-edge election where a grand coalition was the appropriate outcome. It's not three out of four anyway. The most recent governments have been:
2005 resulted in a CDU/CSU-SPD government as well. And do you seriously see any other likely outcome next year?
Three elections in four is not a 'freak result'; it's the consequence of structural changes in which more parties are present in parliament and that those parties are less preferable as coalition partners to the older parties than other members of that established club.
2005 was a genuine knife-edge election where a grand coalition was the appropriate outcome. It's not three out of four anyway. The most recent governments have been:
It *will* be three out of four if the next one also ends up with both CDU and SPD in coalition - and can you see any other realistic outcome?
Yes, as I said - CDU/CSU-Green-FDP. Merkel has been very assiduous over the years to make it possible for the Greens to go into coalition. 2017 will be good timing as it will coincide with the rise to maturity of lots of renewable technologies so the Greens will be able to play a key role in things like phasing out petrol/diesel cars.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Stop talking down the manufactured outrage industry.
@david_herdson And yes I do see another likely outcome: CDU/CSU-FDP-Green.
Fair enough but I think the chances of that are far below what's there now. Negotiating a deal with three or four parties is inherently unstable and would only happen if the SPD refused to contemplate another Grand Coalition. Merkel certainly won't want to risk being held hostage by two smaller parties.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Indeed. Would a Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms?
I can understand why someone whose religion forbade alcohol would feel uncomfortable selling it, same w Catholics and condoms, vegans and meat, but I reckon if I felt that strongly about such a thing I wouldn't want to reap the benefit of the sale of such products either, so couldn't be in the employ of a firm that sold them.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Indeed. Would a Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms?
I can understand why someone whose religion forbade alcohol would feel uncomfortable selling it, same w Catholics and condoms, vegans and meat, but I reckon if I felt that strongly about such a thing I wouldn't want to reap the benefit of the sale of such products either, so couldn't be in the employ of a firm that sold them.
Maybe everyone's hierarchy of beliefs doesn't mirror your own?
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Indeed. Would a Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms?
I can understand why someone whose religion forbade alcohol would feel uncomfortable selling it, same w Catholics and condoms, vegans and meat, but I reckon if I felt that strongly about such a thing I wouldn't want to reap the benefit of the sale of such products either, so couldn't be in the employ of a firm that sold them.
Maybe everyone's hierarchy of beliefs doesn't mirror your own?
Get out of town! Moral flexibility for £££ never a positive in my book
@david_herdson And yes I do see another likely outcome: CDU/CSU-FDP-Green.
Fair enough but I think the chances of that are far below what's there now. Negotiating a deal with three or four parties is inherently unstable and would only happen if the SPD refused to contemplate another Grand Coalition. Merkel certainly won't want to risk being held hostage by two smaller parties.
I'm not so sure about that. She will be conscious of the need for some renewal and new faces.
Given that most of the AfD support seems to be CDU/CSU supporters looking for a protest outlet, it will be interesting to see how they stand up to a "Vote AfD, get a coalition of the left" campaign. I expect a swingback to Merkel barring any unforeseen events.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Stop talking down the manufactured outrage industry.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Ar
The worst thing about this whole issue is that
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Indeed. Would a Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms?
I can understand why someone whose religion forbade alcohol would feel uncomfortable selling it, same w Catholics and condoms, vegans and meat, but I reckon if I felt that strongly about such a thing I wouldn't want to reap the benefit of the sale of such products either, so couldn't be in the employ of a firm that sold them.
Maybe everyone's hierarchy of beliefs doesn't mirror your own?
Get out of town
Indeed. I see it as a continuum: Majestic Wine at one end, John Deere Tractors at the other.
I suppose every Muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol and every employer makes a call as to what works or doesn't.
Edit: sorry we seem to be having a stating the bleedin' obvious moment on PB.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
I doubt he was queue jumping - sometimes people with small baskets loads are directed there when all the other checkouts are full.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
Yes and probably some areas are tricky for wheelchair users to navigate and work in and hence Tesco might try to accommodate wheelchair users also.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
The worst thing about this whole issue is that most Muslims would have no problem selling the alcohol.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
Indeed. Would a Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms?
I can understand why someone whose religion forbade alcohol would feel uncomfortable selling it, same w Catholics and condoms, vegans and meat, but I reckon if I felt that strongly about such a thing I wouldn't want to reap the benefit of the sale of such products either, so couldn't be in the employ of a firm that sold them.
Maybe everyone's hierarchy of beliefs doesn't mirror your own?
Get out of town
Indeed. I see it as a continuum: Majestic Wine at one end, John Deere Tractors at the other.
I suppose every Muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol and every employer makes a call as to what works or doesn't.
If it were an MP taking a big moral stance against something, and then found to be in the pay of a firm that supports/sells the product in question I think we'd say it was a bit hypocritical.
@david_herdson And yes I do see another likely outcome: CDU/CSU-FDP-Green.
Fair enough but I think the chances of that are far below what's there now. Negotiating a deal with three or four parties is inherently unstable and would only happen if the SPD refused to contemplate another Grand Coalition. Merkel certainly won't want to risk being held hostage by two smaller parties.
I'm not so sure about that. She will be conscious of the need for some renewal and new faces.
Given that most of the AfD support seems to be CDU/CSU supporters looking for a protest outlet, it will be interesting to see how they stand up to a "Vote AfD, get a coalition of the left" campaign. I expect a swingback to Merkel barring any unforeseen events.
She might try that campaign but I'm not sure how much credence it'd have given that SPD+Linke+Green wouldn't have a majority on current numbers. Even throwing the FPD in would only take them a little over the line and a four-party coalition wouldn't be at all fun.
Comments
But as ever, opposition always rises. And as usual, the minor party in a coalition tends to suffer the most - the SPD was back at just 20% in the polls today. While it will be easy enough to keep AfD out, the old guard of CDU, SPD and FDP are at a historic (post-1949) low. They cannot continue to club together defensively against the newer parties without risking leaking still more of their support to those parties on the opposition benches.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/state-to-seek-automatic-eu-entry-for-ni-in-event-of-unification-1.2918722
Make no mistake - Brexit negotiations are an existential threat to the UK.
Looking back, 2016 will be the year 24/7 dystopian surveillance by our gadgets really took off. Our phones and tablets and dashcams know where we go and hear what we say, and you can bet your bottom $ that T May will be working on legislation providing for the police to have the right to make the mfrr provide a back door to get in. In the interest of national security, obv.
Vicky Beckam to get an OBE for services to fashion and charity work.
It's disappointing that someone could attend a private lunch with HMQ and then blab.
Also not 100% sure I can see The Queen discussing such a sensitive issue.
We are all compelled to pay for things we do not use, but others benefit from and sometimes we have to pay for things we object to.
Arguably the BBC is more important than some of the things we pay for in tax. The vast majority of those who claim they never use bbc services actually do.
Even if there are two different sources... What difference does it make?
I make absolutely no claim as to who is actually right or wrong in either situation but only about ensuring a level playing field for all if a religion is to be thrown about as a reason for not providing a service.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4070144/Muslim-Tesco-cashier-refuses-sell-bottle-wine-shopper-against-religion.html
Also the Tesco cashier is a moron ( note I haven't read the story so am just taking the headline at face value)
In which case they would no doubt be happy to pay a voluntary subscription. So where is the problem? Why must the threat of the criminal law be used to force people to pay for the BBC? If I chose not to pay for Amazon Prime, or Sky am I going to be dragged off to the magistrates court? How about ITV? They don't claim by right I should pay them.
The licence fee is an anachronism that has no place in the 21st century and it is time for it to be phased out.
Kuenssberg doesn't have to reveal her source by she should have checked with the Sun journalist whether it was the same one. She specifically says that she tried to find a second source and wasn't able to so it's highly likely to have been the same person (apparently Gove).
Certainly, things are changing in Germany but I'd be extremely surprised if we don't get another CDU-SPD government for the simple reason that I can't see any other option. The FPD will be too small, SPD-Linke-Green won't have a majority (and would be unwieldy), Die Linke won't ally with the CDU and while the Greens might (they do in Baden-Wurtemburg), it would be difficult on both policy and numbers. Of course, no-one's going to deal with AfD. So how else other than CDU-SPD can anyone realistically reach 50%?
But as you imply, there's a worrying whiff of deckchair rearrangement about it.
Edit - if there are further stories that damage the mainstream, all I can see is a further consolidation of the establishment in government: a CDU-SPD-FDP SuperGrand coalition. But that would be a last throw of the dice.
The public broadcasters were providing g Sky with a service and having to fork over cash. It stopped when the BBC said they would start charging Sky for the content.
If you cannot understand the difference between multiple channels of entertainment and essential public services I am afraid there is no point in continuing a conversation with you.
https://www.changebritain.org/leave-eus-single-market-customs-union-boost-uk-450-million-week
It is likely to end very badly when the next recession occurs.
The BBC is not an essential service in any sense of the word. However transport and defence of the realm certainly is. You really do just show a complete lack of awareness of the entire subject by attempting to compare the two as the same.
The problem, as you rightly say, is that the natural party of opposition at the moment has become embedded in the government and without an alternative pole that the system can work around, Germany - at a federal level (we should remember that a lot of powers are held by the lander) - is stuck in a form of electoral gridlock.
And so they can take crazy risks or produce programmes for niche audiences.
Is it the license fee specifically you don't like or would you still dislike it if they were funded by general taxation?
But for that to happen there needs to be a mainstream opposition to a mainstream government.
When all the mainstream parties are in government simultaneously then anti-government votes will have nowhere else to go but to non-mainstream parties.
"The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4070144/Muslim-Tesco-cashier-refuses-sell-bottle-wine-shopper-against-religion.html#ixzz4U8xFQSw4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"
In other words, at a guess he was trying to jump the queues by paying for stuff at the tobacco n lottery ticket kiosk on the way out. By the look of it the woman was serving there expressly to avoid her having to sell drink. So the story is much less exciting than people who haven't read it might think it would be.
Perhaps if some employees do not wish to carry out all the duties their position requires they should get a lower pay rate as well.
Those kiosks usually sell sandwiches as well - and so anyone serving there would need to be willing to sell pork products.
The bottom line is if you're unwilling to have dealings with alcohol then Tesco isn't the best place to work.
And other producers create plenty of programming for niche markets, either as independent producers or as producer-broadcasters.
The 'justification' for the licence fee is a reverse-logic thing that's come about in order to sustain something already in place and which was originally justified on very different grounds.
FWIW, I do think there's something of value in the BBC's unusual structure. That's why I wouldn't want a normal privatisation for it and would instead prefer it to be made into an independent mutual, owned by the subscribers.
Three elections in four is not a 'freak result'; it's the consequence of structural changes in which more parties are present in parliament and that those parties are less preferable as coalition partners to the older parties than other members of that established club.
So did The Economist 'rue the day'.
Are you equating Muslims with disabled persons?
You lose.
Again.
But by allowing exceptions it shifts the default position towards that Muslims shouldn't sell alcohol thus causing more separation within society.
CDU/CSU/SPD
CDU/CSU/FDP
CDU/CSU/SPD
SPD/Green
SPD/Green
CDU/CSU/FDP
CDU/CSU/FDP
Given that most of the AfD support seems to be CDU/CSU supporters looking for a protest outlet, it will be interesting to see how they stand up to a "Vote AfD, get a coalition of the left" campaign. I expect a swingback to Merkel barring any unforeseen events.
Have a Happy Hogmanay divvie.
I suppose every Muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol and every employer makes a call as to what works or doesn't.
Edit: sorry we seem to be having a stating the bleedin' obvious moment on PB.
Donald Trump tells Israel 'to stay strong'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38451258
Edit. Agree with @iSam, photo developing, as late as 2008.