All politicians should have electrodes fitted to their genitalia and receive electric shocks of increasing voltage every time they go on about their children.
So should you when you go on about Cameron doing it for the millionth time (while ignoring every Labour politician who has ever done it)!
I see SO has been exiled to Hong Kong for that particular crime.
DavidL and Grandiose are in self exile at conhome for putting the mockers on England in the first for praising England's batting and then we lost two wickets straight away
... "If independence is rejected, however, there is is a real danger that politicians at Westminster and officials in Whitehall may think they can put away the files and not worry about Scotland anymore.
"Proposals for increased devolution might then be shelved. That is quite a likely outcome but it would be a huge mistake.
"It would probably mean the next time there was a big surge in support for independence in Scotland maybe, in 10 or 20 years time, it would carry the day."
... "If independence is rejected, however, there is is a real danger that politicians at Westminster and officials in Whitehall may think they can put away the files and not worry about Scotland anymore.
"Proposals for increased devolution might then be shelved. That is quite a likely outcome but it would be a huge mistake.
"It would probably mean the next time there was a big surge in support for independence in Scotland maybe, in 10 or 20 years time, it would carry the day."
You will never catch me out by using the methods of Goebbels, tim. Or at all...
Irony in mentioning the name Goebbels, Rod?
Irony? He was one of my best students!
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal. As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal. As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...
Wait a minute... Churchill by Himself ??
Now who said "History will be kind to me... for I intend to write it..."?
While I would like to be in self-exile, I have in fact been at work experience in London all week at a large law firm. (We won though, didn't we?!)
Anyway, NickP etc, the problem lies for most people in accurately characterising the error in the first place - most significantly, the difference between ensuring the sample is representative of the population and turning their responses into a nowcast. [Edit: and a nowcast won't give you a forecast, that's another thing that can be confused.]
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal. As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.") Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another."
There is also (similarly sourced) the calumny that when Churchill visited Lusitania at Liverpool (no such visit recorded) that he described her as "20,000 tons of live bait " - later using her as a trap to drag the Americans into WWI - when at the time it was in Britain's national interest that the Americns stay out of the war so their factories could carry on supplying Britain - not stockpiling munitions for themselves - as happened when they eventually entered the war...
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal. As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...
Montana? LOL!
And what was his source?
Yes, you know Montana, it borders Canada to the north, Wyoming to the south.
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal. As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...
Montana? LOL!
And what was his source?
Indeed - some claim Churchill said it in the HoC on 2 Nov 1946 - but since that was a Saturday that may be unlikely....
I'm amazed that someone who is willing to stand up to the consensus of the most eminent historians and lawyers on certain issues of major debate is willing to hang his hat so firmly on the word of a professor from Montana on something so irrelevant.
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.") Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another." .
Not exactly a rebuttal then. Anyhow, the point is I offered it in good faith from sources other than alleged "revisionist" websites.
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.") Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another." .
Not exactly a rebuttal then. Anyhow, the point is I offered it in good faith from sources other than alleged "revisionist" websites.
Unfortunately the google book does not list the primary source for his quote - and since some of the other sources cite a Saturday sitting in the HoC as the source, you'll understand why I remain sceptical.
The only historically accurate Churchill quote mentioning a pig is the following:
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal. As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Ah well, you'd better write a scholarly rebuttal to that Professor of History in Montana then...
Montana? LOL!
And what was his source?
Yes, you know Montana, it borders Canada to the north, Wyoming to the south.
You're safer in Montana - it was known at the time that the Remington bullets were onboard - and the idea that they "exploded" and sank the ship in 18 minutes is farcical - much more likely was a catastrophic failure of her high pressure steam system - further, the idea that Churchill (then up to hi neck in Galipoli) was micromanaging the western approaches to put the worlds second fastest liner in harms way is, frankly, deluded.
You're safer in Montana - it was known at the time that the Remington bullets were onboard - and the idea that they "exploded" and sank the ship in 18 minutes is farcical - much more likely was a catastrophic failure of her high pressure steam system - further, the idea that Churchill (then up to hi neck in Galipoli) was micromanaging the western approaches to put the worlds second fastest liner in harms way is, frankly, deluded.
My my. Quite an expert on the Lusitania, aren't you?
Riddle me this. Who was it who withdrew the cruiser escort that was supposed to be waiting for the Lusy off Queenstown? Who was it who lied that the Germans fired two or three torpedoes, when they knew within hours (from code intercepts) that they had only fired one? Who was it who tried to frame Captain Turner for responsibility for the sinking? What was in the 3800 "boxes of cheese" aboard Lusy that were destined for the Naval Research Station at Shoeburyness?
You're safer in Montana - it was known at the time that the Remington bullets were onboard - and the idea that they "exploded" and sank the ship in 18 minutes is farcical - much more likely was a catastrophic failure of her high pressure steam system - further, the idea that Churchill (then up to hi neck in Galipoli) was micromanaging the western approaches to put the worlds second fastest liner in harms way is, frankly, deluded.
My my. Quite an expert on the Lusitania, aren't you?
More than you, evidently. The website of a book that cites discredited or innaccurate sources is hardly provides much confidence. If you are interested, I suggest you read Diana Preston's "Wilful Murder" - for a detailed analysis of many of the conspiracy theories.
The Tories didn't smear, they were disgusted that Labour intentionally ignored complaints about poor hospital care, in order to avoid negative publicity. Labour were and are all about spin. The Tories told the truth.
Beyond the direct evidence contradicting the conspiracy thesis is the extremely dubious logic of any such plot, resting as it would on the assumption that the liner and the U-boat could be steered into each other and that the sinking of a British liner would result inevitably in a U.S. declaration of war on Germany. Winston Churchill would have been extremely naive about both the temperament of Woodrow Wilson and the state of U.S. military preparedness to have any such notion. Not only did the United States not come close to war with Germany in the aftermath of the disaster, but it would be difficult even to demonstrate that LUSITANIA set in motion an inexorable slide toward war; U.S. relations with the Allies and the Central Powers did not follow a linear course after May 1915, and in fact in late 1916 Washington's relations with the Allies were worse than they had been at any time since the start of the war."
The Tories didn't smear, they were disgusted that Labour intentionally ignored complaints about poor hospital care, in order to avoid negative publicity. Labour were and are all about spin. The Tories told the truth.
Despite the many media appearances Burnham under took last week, it was quite striking how little he focussed on the patients who had been let down by the NHS.
Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
I've just come up with one of my own:
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
There's no VI in the Sunday Times, all they've published so far is some polling on Crosby, and it pretty bad for Dave and the Tories
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%
The public seem to have sussed Dave don't they. Sweaty and evasive TV performances haven't helped
Nah, this is just knee-jerk anti-politician sentiment. You'd get it if you asked about any industry influencing government and so on. People generally don't trust lobbyists, political advisers and politicians themselves, but this stuff doesn't stick that much to individual sides and cases. If you put a poll in the field asking about Adam Werrity you'd find no-one remembers who he is. Crosby's negatives will blow over and voters will return to the 'plague on all your houses' position long before the next election.
'Hunt says he has seen for himself how the NHS can fail the elderly. ‘I was at an A&E unit doing a shift with the staff, helping with odd jobs, when they admitted a woman with dementia in her 90s. She had come from a care home, yet they didn’t know a thing about her.'
If only Burnham had got off his lazy backside he might have had a clue what was going on.
Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures
It is the second weekend in a row that they've not published the VI figures.
It is so frustrating.
Only marginally less frustrating than when they spread their VI figures and supplementaries across ten different articles as they did a few months ago.
They should really be aware of how important their poll is to OGH and pbers.
Depending on which Sunday Times article you read Labour's lead has
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures
It is the second weekend in a row that they've not published the VI figures.
It is so frustrating.
Only marginally less frustrating than when they spread their VI figures and supplementaries across ten different articles as they did a few months ago.
They should really be aware of how important their poll is to OGH and pbers.
"His death came in the same week that another Real IRA bomber, Seamus McKenna, was buried in his native Co Louth near the border. McKenna had been named in a civil action taken by families of the Omagh victims who accused him of transporting the Real IRA bomb to the Co Tyrone market town in August 1998. He died from injuries after falling from the roof of a school in Dundalk last week but was kept alive on a life support machine until his organs could be donated."
Like Carlotta I suspect YG is somewhere between 5 and 11 - the 5 looked dodgy as it was accompanied by several sudden shifts in secondaries for no obvious reason, and the 11 looked out of line for the same reason. Polls that shift VI while leaving secondaries fairly stable are credible, as are polls which have secondary movements that make sense - say a shift on health either way following all the health debates. But when most of the secondaries suddenly shift together it's probably a dud sample.
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...
'Hunt says he has seen for himself how the NHS can fail the elderly. ‘I was at an A&E unit doing a shift with the staff, helping with odd jobs, when they admitted a woman with dementia in her 90s. She had come from a care home, yet they didn’t know a thing about her.'
If only Burnham had got off his lazy backside he might have had a clue what was going on.
Forget Burnham for a minute. Look at what Hunt is saying. Do you detect his wistful longing for a national database of personal health records, with shared access for (non-NHS) care homes? Can you say "failed IT project" that was scrapped (or was it?) by Lansley?
Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
I've just come up with one of my own:
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?
@edmundintokyo That's how I read it as well - or rather as a general request for comments from foreigners. That struck me as a particularly limp-wristed (and therefore typically FCO) way of doing things. In the good old days we'd have just got on with doing what we decided was best by ourselves.
I suppose given our own habit of telling other countries how to run their internal affairs we shouldn't be too surprised when someone returns the 'favour'.
@edmundintokyo That's how I read it as well - or rather as a general request for comments from foreigners. That struck me as a particularly limp-wristed (and therefore typically FCO) way of doing things. In the good old days we'd have just got on with doing what we decided was best by ourselves.
I don't think it's particularly the FCO. The whole review is a displacement activity to make the the sceptics think something's happening without actually committing to anything.
Don't know what all the fuss is about, the US has already indicated that they would like us to stay in the EU, and now the Japanese have now followed suit. Its the UK media summer season.
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...
Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
I've just come up with one of my own:
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?
Your term, not mine. Why would the Lusitania benefit by being escorted by a slower destroyer that would also rob her of her mercantile status?
Look up the underwater speed of a WW1 U-boat and tell me again that HMS Juno (she was a cruiser, not a destroyer) was "slow".
Sub-clause this or that of the Hague convention don't have much practical application "in the field." Juno could have escorted Lusy without technically 'escorting' her...
Don't know what all the fuss is about, the US has already indicated that they would like us to stay in the EU, and now the Japanese have now followed suit. Its the UK media summer season.
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...
I'm sure the US would love us telling them they were wrong to break away in 1776?
Your term, not mine. Why would the Lusitania benefit by being escorted by a slower destroyer that would also rob her of her mercantile status?
Look up the underwater speed of of a WW1 U-boat and tell me again that HMS Juno (she was a cruiser, not a destroyer) was "slow".
Sub-clause this or that of the Hague convention don't have much practical application "in the field." Juno could have escorted Lusy without technically 'escorting' her...
Remember: Britannia waives the rules! ;-)
Juno's top speed was 18.5 kt. Lusitania 22 kt, even with only three of four boiler rooms in use at the time of her loss.
Sunil, got to love the Americans. They fought for Independence, and yet they now avidly follow our Royal family to the extent that they are mobbed when they visit the USA. In the Loop - Malcolm Tucker visits the White House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLIP0ZtoiO4
Don't know what all the fuss is about, the US has already indicated that they would like us to stay in the EU, and now the Japanese have now followed suit. Its the UK media summer season.
Really. The Japanese. That's nice. Cheers for that, guys.
If I'm reading it right the Foreign Office asked foreign governments what they thought. Most governments seem to have treated it as a bit of internal politics and declined to comment, but you can't blame the Japanese for answering...
I'm sure the US would love us telling them they were wrong to break away in 1776?
Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
I've just come up with one of my own:
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?
I got 55% on the "Are you Muslim?" questionnaire. But, as is common with a lot of such questionnaires, there is a fairly badly-hidden hidden-agenda - as is obvious from the badly-worded questions, leading questions, and questions with an assumed premise. I was unhappy with at least half of the questions and was not satisfied that any of the answer options was an accurate one for my views.
It reminds me of an "Are you liberal?" questionnaire I did once, where the first question asked me if there should be a flat-rate of income tax. I said "no". Even without waiting until the end of the questionnaire, and before going to question 2, it lectured me on the illiberality of stealing money from people's incomes, and effectively accused me of being illiberal on the basis of an answer I did not give to a question which I was not asked.
But anyway, today is what would have been Bill Pertwee's 87th birthday. I remember this fact because today is my father's 87th birthday.
I'm impressed by Ed being a cricket fan at the age of seven. I didn't take any interest in the game until I was eleven.
I have vague memories of the 1961 Ashes, I was only 5. Another 2 years on... I used to calculate averages the old fashioned way. I now realise my parents secretly encouraged me.
I have some great photos of my ancestors when they worked on the Highland railways many years ago. I just finally caught up with Three Men Go to Scotland series this week, it was excellent. Especially the Isle of Jura visit, its a shame that they missed a trip to Islay.
Let me look up this infantile phrase "conspiracy theorist" in my Devil's Dictionary...
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
I've just come up with one of my own:
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
So you "checked" him, did you, and proved him wrong? Sorry, but that little nugget must be lost somewhere amongst the verbiage... Btw, what have you got against Montana? Ever been there? If not, why are you prejudiced against this man?
Poor question from YouGov on cigarettes, asking whether people support "banning brightly coloured branding and packaging for cigarettes". Apart from the fact no packaging currently does have bright colours...
Ouch! The public seem to have sussed Ed Miliband and decided Cameron is still the PM for them. Tricky for Labour after picking Brown last time, you need a heart of stone etc......
So Labour lead Cons on NHS by 29-19 (hardly an endorsement of either) and 31-21 on improving standards but 0nly 27-23 on sound finances/good value.
From the high number of plague-on-both houses, I would tentatively suggest that is a modest plus for the blues (depending on what previous polling has found).
Comments
It will delight PBers of all persuasions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349927/Miliband-reveals-fears-sons-aged-access-porn-smartphones.html
Neil Henderson @hendopolis 2m
MAIL ON SUNDAY: Mother of union boss love child fixes MPs for Labour #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers
pic.twitter.com/kAax6KsJKv
"Fixes MPs for Labour" seems to mean "appointed political director of Unite" in Mail on Sunday speak. Has the silly season arrived early?
I see SO has been exiled to Hong Kong for that particular crime.
It also appears in at least one scholarly work.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zJDo96sHGa8C&pg=PA22&dq=churchill+wrong++pig&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qPnqUY_1DMTo7Aad_YDgAg&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=pig&f=false
You will never catch me out by using the methods of Goebbels, tim.
Or at all...
If there is a No vote, I'm hoping for some form of constitutional settlement for all the countries in the UK.
Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.
As cited in Churchill by Himself (2008), ed. Langworth, PublicAffairs, p. 535 ISBN 1586486381
Wait a minute... Churchill by Himself ??
Now who said "History will be kind to me... for I intend to write it..."?
Anyway, NickP etc, the problem lies for most people in accurately characterising the error in the first place - most significantly, the difference between ensuring the sample is representative of the population and turning their responses into a nowcast. [Edit: and a nowcast won't give you a forecast, that's another thing that can be confused.]
And what was his source?
"We searched our research database but have not found either "we slaughtered the wrong pig" or "we
fought the wrong enemy." However, "slaughtered the wrong pig" is a possible Churchill expression, since he
often used animal analogies. Yet, since he was very favorably disposed to pigs, he might not have compared his ene- mies to them. (He said, "Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you; give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal.")
Churchill never had any doubt, from the rise of Hitler to 1945, that the Nazis not the Bolsheviks were the main enemy. He did begin to think, once the war seemed won, that they had conquered one mortal foe, only to be faced by another."
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/images/finesthour/Vol.01 No.130.pdf
There is also (similarly sourced) the calumny that when Churchill visited Lusitania at Liverpool (no such visit recorded) that he described her as "20,000 tons of live bait " - later using her as a trap to drag the Americans into WWI - when at the time it was in Britain's national interest that the Americns stay out of the war so their factories could carry on supplying Britain - not stockpiling munitions for themselves - as happened when they eventually entered the war...
here's his address
http://www.montana.edu/wwwhi/2010/FacultyWebPages/History/Large.html
His students seem to like him
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=390597
I'm amazed that someone who is willing to stand up to the consensus of the most eminent historians and lawyers on certain issues of major debate is willing to hang his hat so firmly on the word of a professor from Montana on something so irrelevant.
I knew him very well at Oxford, when he was President of OUDS and I was Technical Director.
It was obvious even then that he was an extraordinary talent.
No, valid historical question. And Churchill did make it clear what his objective was, whether or not the Lusy was actually his handiwork...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html
You do realise we're treading on apocryphal MacMillan "Events, dear boy! Events!" territory here?
Riddle me this. Who was it who withdrew the cruiser escort that was supposed to be waiting for the Lusy off Queenstown? Who was it who lied that the Germans fired two or three torpedoes, when they knew within hours (from code intercepts) that they had only fired one? Who was it who tried to frame Captain Turner for responsibility for the sinking? What was in the 3800 "boxes of cheese" aboard Lusy that were destined for the Naval Research Station at Shoeburyness?
This scholarly webpage may add to your knowledge.
http://www.lusitania.net/deadlycargo.htm
,BROADER ASPECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY THESIS
Beyond the direct evidence contradicting the conspiracy thesis is the extremely dubious logic of any such plot, resting as it would on the assumption that the liner and the U-boat could be steered into each other and that the sinking of a British liner would result inevitably in a U.S. declaration of war on Germany. Winston Churchill would have been extremely naive about both the temperament of Woodrow Wilson and the state of U.S. military preparedness to have any such notion. Not only did the United States not come close to war with Germany in the aftermath of the disaster, but it would be difficult even to demonstrate that LUSITANIA set in motion an inexorable slide toward war; U.S. relations with the Allies and the Central Powers did not follow a linear course after May 1915, and in fact in late 1916 Washington's relations with the Allies were worse than they had been at any time since the start of the war."
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/lusika04.htm
Guardian - NHS chief says sorry to Andy Burnham for Tory 'smear' campaign
Oh yes, here we are:
Conspiracy theorist: term of abuse; meaning "someone who is better informed than I am."
60% of respondents feel the government has been leant on by tobacco companies
Should Lynton Crosby be allowed to work for the Tories while also being employed by Commercial clients.
Yes 18%
No 64%
Don't know 18%
and
Do you support plain packaging for cigarettes
Yes 58%
No 26%
DK 16%
'Daily Mail - How Shadow Health Secretary's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove 'negative references' to his role in NHS scandal'
Shows how toxic Burnham has become,yet another reminder of the Brown cover-ups & incompetents.
"Someone who will rely on the writings of a professor from Montana without checking them when they suit their world view but will forever question mainstream consensus opinion when it doesnt coincide with their prejudices."
a) Increased
b) Decreased
But no sodding figures
‘I was at an A&E unit doing a shift with the staff, helping with odd jobs, when they admitted a woman with dementia in her 90s. She had come from a care home, yet they didn’t know a thing about her.'
If only Burnham had got off his lazy backside he might have had a clue what was going on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01d1zx0
It is so frustrating.
Only marginally less frustrating than when they spread their VI figures and supplementaries across ten different articles as they did a few months ago.
They should really be aware of how important their poll is to OGH and pbers.
Ed's Jackie Milburn moment.
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/japan-urges-britain-to-stay-in-eu-8723465.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7749778.stm
"His death came in the same week that another Real IRA bomber, Seamus McKenna, was buried in his native Co Louth near the border. McKenna had been named in a civil action taken by families of the Omagh victims who accused him of transporting the Real IRA bomb to the Co Tyrone market town in August 1998. He died from injuries after falling from the roof of a school in Dundalk last week but was kept alive on a life support machine until his organs could be donated."
Better tell this long-serving liberal German foreign minister that he's wrong, also. And prejudiced. And a conspiracy theorist.
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International Affairs/2012/88_6/88_6Interview.pdf
And of course, these guys are prejudiced, non-mainstream, revisionists and conspiracy theorists.
http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/1/74.short
Roll on the glorious 12th. I fancy some grouse shooting. I'm getting bored with blasting the turkeys of PB...
I suppose given our own habit of telling other countries how to run their internal affairs we shouldn't be too surprised when someone returns the 'favour'.
Sub-clause this or that of the Hague convention don't have much practical application "in the field." Juno could have escorted Lusy without technically 'escorting' her...
Remember: Britannia waives the rules! ;-)
In the Loop - Malcolm Tucker visits the White House
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLIP0ZtoiO4
Ciao. Something vaguely interesting is stirring in the room next door. I must go and pay her some attention...
Oh, for the Like button
I got 55% on the "Are you Muslim?" questionnaire. But, as is common with a lot of such questionnaires, there is a fairly badly-hidden hidden-agenda - as is obvious from the badly-worded questions, leading questions, and questions with an assumed premise. I was unhappy with at least half of the questions and was not satisfied that any of the answer options was an accurate one for my views.
It reminds me of an "Are you liberal?" questionnaire I did once, where the first question asked me if there should be a flat-rate of income tax. I said "no". Even without waiting until the end of the questionnaire, and before going to question 2, it lectured me on the illiberality of stealing money from people's incomes, and effectively accused me of being illiberal on the basis of an answer I did not give to a question which I was not asked.
But anyway, today is what would have been Bill Pertwee's 87th birthday. I remember this fact because today is my father's 87th birthday.
"Stürmer: He is supposed to have said.
Genscher: Supposed? In all probability he did."
Neither what you'd call primary sources, nor ringing endorsements.....
http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-dave-s-ill-conceived-bid-to-join-pc-club-1-3008563
Leaders:well/badly{
DC: -18 (+6)
EdM: -35(0)
NC: -51(+2)
Coalition:-33(+4)
From the high number of plague-on-both houses, I would tentatively suggest that is a modest plus for the blues (depending on what previous polling has found).