According to Twitter, a car has been driven into pedestrians in London. Driver arrested.
Comes a day after a similar thing happened in Heidelberg.
Happens all the time. Nothing to see here.
It is all becoming reminiscent of the terrorism (and the non-reactions to it) in the film 'Brazil'.
People lose control of cars, motorbikes and cycles everyday, in all parts of the country. I nearly got cleared up by an old bloke on a mobility scooter only yesterday. It wasn't terrorism.
I would love to see the Labour message grid for the next year...
Monday: Jeremy is not resigning
Tuesday: Jeremy is not to blame
Wednesday: Jeremy did well at PMQs
Thursday: Jeremy will make a speech to loyal supporters (no press)
Friday: Jeremy will go on
Saturday: Draw lots to see which Sunday show Shami will support Jeremy on
Sunday: Everyone in Labour except Jeremy is to blame. For everything.
Even among those who like Corbyn there are many now who see he is not up to the job, but we are all still waiting for when realization will hit his mass support. Even if we accept his fantasists that it is all down to the media and the blairites and the weather and the unique circumstances and the disloyal MPs and all the rest, even if he is right about that, surely even his fantasists will publicly come to the realization that if those are the challenges, he cannot meet them.
Nobody owes Corbyn and co a fair hearing. The Tories don't have to go easy on him. The media doesn't have to go easy on him. His internal opponents do not have to go easy on him. It is on him to overcome them. If he cannot do that, then even if his ideas are awesome, even if he is an awesome guy, then he is to blame, even if the task before him is huge.
That five months after the last leadership contest talk of another one is still anyone can talk about - justifiably given the party's position - then it is still his fault. A leader actually has to lead, and 'they won't let him' is not exactly a counterargument to him being a poor leader.
Labour are not dead, and though wounded are not even dying, but they are depressing to think about right now, and I'm not even a supporter.
A more succinct and quality analysis on Corbyn - and the realities of leading a political party - I don't think I've ever read. Well done.
I seem to recall that Wilson (one of Lab's few election winners) saying complaining about the media is a like a fisherman complaining about the sea.
@nunu I thought he was elected precisely because he was not a traditional politician.
And are you saying there are no problems with mid East immigration in Sweden?
You can be non traditional leader and not make things up at same time. Which he does all the time.
And no I'm not saying there is not a problem with middle east immigration at all. Just that watching fox news and forming your opinions on that is not best way to govern.
Mr. Stopper, true. But, as I said some time ago when there was a spate of under- and misreported terror attacks in France/Germany, when trust in the police, media and politicians is eroded, people then won't take seriously their claims even when they are telling the truth.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance tantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
You can get an annuity to pay for care but longer term NI will have to go up amongst the middle age to pay for increasing care costs
An annuity? At these bloody rates?
For around £70000 easily
For £70,000 you'd get ~£3,500, less if you want it to keep pace with inflation.
£3,500 doesn't get you much care at all. You could spend ten times that.
There's no point talking about a charge on death, or children losing right to a house, to pay for social care unless this becomes a cross-party campaign via, imho, a Royal Commission.
The Daily Mail always jump up and down the minute it is floated and Tories or Labour (depending who is in government at the time) back down.
I don't disagree. My problem with HYFUD's point is we have to grasp the fact that care can be very costly indeed. We really need to deal with the problem from more than one side. Reducing the need for care, making care more efficient, and considering (a) what state/private funding mix there is going to be and (b) how best to achieve that.
@nunu I thought he was elected precisely because he was not a traditional politician.
And are you saying there are no problems with mid East immigration in Sweden?
You can be non traditional leader and not make things up at same time. Which he does all the time.
And no I'm not saying there is not a problem with middle east immigration at all. Just that watching fox news and forming your opinions on that is not best way to govern.
However if he really believes that stuff then he should have been clear " oh my god Sweden has such a high crime rate because of mid east immigrants " but he didn't say that so no surprise if people have their own interpretation of it.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
He made a simple mistake. He forgot that only English nationalism is EVUL - all other nationalisms (in the sense of George Orwell's essay) are wonderful.
He was confused by the fact that non-English nationalists (Scots) are rejecting the Right Party (aka. Labour). Since they are Right, this means that the Scots are Wrong. And Nationalism that leads you into being Wrong is Wrong. Obviously.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Did you read what he said or just Malcolm's critique?
But the point he was making was the opposite of that. He was agreeing with the Scots that we should be outward looking like Scotland like london and ignore petty provincialism. In my opinion he misread Scottish nationalism which in wanting to remain a part of Europe is not aping petty English (and Welsh) nationalism.
I find your hatred of all things English bizarre.
If you had worked for as many years in Europe with Europeans with all their quirks you too might feel as I do. That we are seprating ourselves from the most culturally exciting varied and beautiful continent in the world for no reason other than some very small minded people don't like foreigners makes me want to vomit.
If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'.
I'm sure he wouldn't say that now.
Your brand of English hating Labour is one of the driving forces behind Brexit. It's one of the reasons why Labour is dying.
SNP Scots would rather be ruled by Brussels than London.
Just had the below posted on facebook by a Corbynite friend: "My 2 cents: Labour failed to capitalise on their huge surge in grass roots support over the last few years, and in fact actively and aggressively fought against their own rising popularity. Corbyn has been permanently damaged with traditional "working class" Labour supporters by the many long-running media campaigns to discredit him personally and pronounce him "unelectable", all while he continued to win every election in which he stood. But the final blow was Brexit: Corbyn and Labour completely failed to understand that their revitalised support base, who'd stood by the leader in spite of all the press smears, were overwhelmingly pro-Remain. Labour are finished as the UK's main opposition party. This will now fall to whichever party actively opposes Brexit the hardest. Where is the new champion for those who care about others?"
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
He made a simple mistake. He forgot that only English nationalism is EVUL - all other nationalisms (in the sense of George Orwell's essay) are wonderful.
He was confused by the fact that non-English nationalists (Scots) are rejecting the Right Party (aka. Labour). Since they are Right, this means that the Scots are Wrong. And Nationalism that leads you into being Wrong is Wrong. Obviously.
You on drugs, that is just gibberish
I am attempting to explain the thought processes of the Right On Left. The reason Khan came out with the Scottish Nationalism = Racism stuff was, basically, he got his pack of cards for playing Diversity Trumps muddled up.
When you try and live in a universe where the moral value of behaviour is a function of the identity of the person doing the behaving... well, to normal people the result is lunacy.
That the SNP use dog whistle political messages about England being the enemy is probably true. None of the other parties want to be seen to be openly accusing the SNP of racism however.
Were they to do so, they and the SNP would both suffer at the ballot box.
Your indefatigability in spouting off incoherently on a subject about which you know the square root of fck all is almost admirable.
He is not the full bawbee or at least tries to infer that , though he may just be a silly billy.
According to Twitter, a car has been driven into pedestrians in London. Driver arrested.
Comes a day after a similar thing happened in Heidelberg.
Happens all the time. Nothing to see here.
It is all becoming reminiscent of the terrorism (and the non-reactions to it) in the film 'Brazil'.
People lose control of cars, motorbikes and cycles everyday, in all parts of the country. I nearly got cleared up by an old bloke on a mobility scooter only yesterday. It wasn't terrorism.
There is a problem with young idiots with no driving skills and super cars in the richer parts of London.
Drag racing between the lights... Arab princelings vs their Russian rivals for example.
Just had the below posted on facebook by a Corbynite friend: "My 2 cents: Labour failed to capitalise on their huge surge in grass roots support over the last few years, and in fact actively and aggressively fought against their own rising popularity. Corbyn has been permanently damaged with traditional "working class" Labour supporters by the many long-running media campaigns to discredit him personally and pronounce him "unelectable", all while he continued to win every election in which he stood. But the final blow was Brexit: Corbyn and Labour completely failed to understand that their revitalised support base, who'd stood by the leader in spite of all the press smears, were overwhelmingly pro-Remain. Labour are finished as the UK's main opposition party. This will now fall to whichever party actively opposes Brexit the hardest. Where is the new champion for those who care about others?"
As Rawnsley says in Observer today, "that loud sound you can hear is the crash of scales falling from eyes"
I find your hatred of all things English bizarre. "
If you had worked for as many years in Europe with Europeans with all their quirks you too might feel as I do. That we are seprating ourselves from the most culturally exciting varied and beautiful continent in the world for no reason other than some very small minded people don't like foreigners makes me want to vomit.
If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'.
I'm sure he wouldn't say that now.
Interesting that you quote such a bigoted statement about foreigners. Or is hatred of the French only OK when other foreigners do it?
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance tantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
You can get an annuity to pay for care but longer term NI will have to go up amongst the middle age to pay for increasing care costs
An annuity? At these bloody rates?
For around £70000 easily
For £70,000 you'd get ~£3,500, less if you want it to keep pace with inflation.
£3,500 doesn't get you much care at all. You could spend ten times that.
There's no point talking about a charge on death, or children losing right to a house, to pay for social care unless this becomes a cross-party campaign via, imho, a Royal Commission.
The Daily Mail always jump up and down the minute it is floated and Tories or Labour (depending who is in government at the time) back down.
I don't disagree. My problem with HYFUD's point is we have to grasp the fact that care can be very costly indeed. We really need to deal with the problem from more than one side. Reducing the need for care, making care more efficient, and considering (a) what state/private funding mix there is going to be and (b) how best to achieve that.
Yep, agree. Care is eye-wateringly expensive. £1000+ a week in some cases.
But the point he was making was the opposite of that. He was agreeing with the Scots that we should be outward looking like Scotland like london and ignore petty provincialism. In my opinion he misread Scottish nationalism which in wanting to remain a part of Europe is not aping petty English (and Welsh) nationalism.
I'm glad that you recognise that there might be some nationalisms less bad than others. In point of fact Plaid are also pro remaining in the EU, though obviously they didn't manage to carry the majority of Welsh voters with them.
I suspect (and rumours support it) that Khan was given the racist=nationalist line by SLab who have been trying to run it with notable lack of success since the (last) indy referendum.
Fact that he was stupid enough to use it says it all. He obviously had never heard of Anas before or ever had dealings with the Northern regional duffers.
I still cannot get over, even by his standards, how stupid corbyns remarks about turning back the Tory tide were. Poor drafting of a speech, but did nobody comment that tides cannot be turned back?
Is there anybody in Labour not stupid. The cretinous mayor of London called 50% of Scots racists yesterday , wrecked the Labour Conference ( for what it was with half empty hall ) and had to backtrack big time. Makes Corbyn look like a genius.
Absolutely outrageous comments from those who cry rascist at every opportunity. Hope labour are obliterated in Scotland in May's elections
He made a simple mistake. He forgot that only English nationalism is EVUL - all other nationalisms (in the sense of George Orwell's essay) are wonderful.
He was confused by the fact that non-English nationalists (Scots) are rejecting the Right Party (aka. Labour). Since they are Right, this means that the Scots are Wrong. And Nationalism that leads you into being Wrong is Wrong. Obviously.
You on drugs, that is just gibberish
I am attempting to explain the thought processes of the Right On Left. The reason Khan came out with the Scottish Nationalism = Racism stuff was, basically, he got his pack of cards for playing Diversity Trumps muddled up.
When you try and live in a universe where the moral value of behaviour is a function of the identity of the person doing the behaving... well, to normal people the result is lunacy.
That explains it much better, he is just a lunatic or a total loser.
But the point he was making was the opposite of that. He was agreeing with the Scots that we should be outward looking like Scotland like london and ignore petty provincialism. In my opinion he misread Scottish nationalism which in wanting to remain a part of Europe is not aping petty English (and Welsh) nationalism.
I'm glad that you recognise that there might be some nationalisms less bad than others. In point of fact Plaid are also pro remaining in the EU, though obviously they didn't manage to carry the majority of Welsh voters with them.
I suspect (and rumours support it) that Khan was given the racist=nationalist line by SLab who have been trying to run it with notable lack of success since the (last) indy referendum.
Fact that he was stupid enough to use it says it all. He obviously had never heard of Anas before or ever had dealings with the Northern regional duffers.
Actually I think that for Corbyn, Khan etc, Scotland is a boring mystery which doesn't even have any electoral value for them, so they'll listen to no marks like Anas, say their bit and bugger off on the first available train home.
According to Twitter, a car has been driven into pedestrians in London. Driver arrested.
Comes a day after a similar thing happened in Heidelberg.
Happens all the time. Nothing to see here.
Driver lost control apparently. Dangerous driving investigation open.
To be fair, when I was 21 I skidded into a kerb on a roundabout and mounted the pavement. Thankfully only my pride was hurt.
The problem is knowing when the media are reporting something out of the ordinary.
I accept there will be the occasional cover-up at least in the interim. But five injured on the Bromley Road does not exactly seem like a high profile target.
He was probably in a hurry to leave Bromley. I can understand that.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
Personally, I'm *not* prepared to believe any tosh fed to me - hence me thinking this report, for whatever reason, was not filmed live on a boat in the Bosphorous on the occasion. If you on the other hand do enjoy a diet of any old tosh, don't let me interrupt your meal.
"I find your hatred of all things English bizarre."
If you had worked for as many years in Europe with Europeans with all their quirks you too might feel as I do. That we are seprating ourselves from the most culturally exciting varied and beautiful continent in the world for no reason other than some very small minded people don't like foreigners makes me want to vomit.
If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'.
I'm sure he wouldn't say that now.
Did you criticize Becker for his bigotry ?
And if you didn't criticize Becker's bigotry then is that because you agreed with it or because you tolerate bigotry when you're trying to social climb ?
Next up, the Alt Right will explain that the moon landings were obviously faked owing to the fluttering flag.
There was actually a quite a convincing programme explaining why it was faked. My wife and I wound up our son for quite some time pretending we believed it. He is doing a Computer Science degree at Cambridge and thinks we have lost it big time.
It just could be that I am just being wound up here.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance tantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
You can get an annuity to pay for care but longer term NI will have to go up amongst the middle age to pay for increasing care costs
An annuity? At these bloody rates?
For around £70000 easily
For £70,000 you'd get ~£3,500, less if you want it to keep pace with inflation.
£3,500 doesn't get you much care at all. You could spend ten times that.
There's no point talking about a charge on death, or children losing right to a house, to pay for social care unless this becomes a cross-party campaign via, imho, a Royal Commission.
The Daily Mail always jump up and down the minute it is floated and Tories or Labour (depending who is in government at the time) back down.
Quite so, Mr. Borough. We are never going to get anywhere on the NHS and social care until there is a cross party consensus and, probably, the only way to achieve that is by a Royal Commission and one that takes a good couple of years to really go into all the issues.
This seems so obvious that I wonder why it has not already been set-up. I am, therefore, forced to wonder in whose interests it is that it does not happen.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
Personally, I'm *not* prepared to believe any tosh fed to me - hence me thinking this report, for whatever reason, was not filmed live on a boat in the Bosphorous on the occasion. If you on the other hand do enjoy a diet of any old tosh, don't let me interrupt your meal.
Next up, the Alt Right will explain that the moon landings were obviously faked owing to the fluttering flag.
I wouldn't dream of it, but that's because I don't claim any insight. I also wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because of some spurious notion of 'they just wouldn't'. I'll leave that to the weak-minded and naive who insist upon seeing the world as they wish it to be, not as it is.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
Personally, I'm *not* prepared to believe any tosh fed to me - hence me thinking this report, for whatever reason, was not filmed live on a boat in the Bosphorous on the occasion. If you on the other hand do enjoy a diet of any old tosh, don't let me interrupt your meal.
Did you see the unedited version?
I saw the longer edit that Stark Dawning posted if that's what you're referring to.
"The Welsh have pretty well lost their identity and to all intents and purposes are now English and those in the small towns behave as they do in England". That's a keeper from roger.
Yep, agree. Care is eye-wateringly expensive. £1000+ a week in some cases.
From chatting to the children of my late next door neighbour and having a couple of pals who have needed to go into convalescent homes after surgery, £1,000 a week seems to be the minimum in this part of the country and that is for people who have all their marbles. For people with dementia the sky is the limit, it would seem.
Much of this cost is down to government policies and lifestyle choices over the past forty years or so. If you discourage people from smoking and drinking then more people are going to live longer and need long term care. Unintended consequences?
Next up, the Alt Right will explain that the moon landings were obviously faked owing to the fluttering flag.
I wouldn't dream of it, but that's because I don't claim any insight. I also wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because of some spurious notion of 'they just wouldn't'. I'll leave that to the weak-minded and naive who insist upon seeing the world as they wish it to be, not as it is.
It is not 'they just wouldn't' but why would they? Far more damning evidence of a fake would come out. You just can't keep something that complex secret. It is conspiracy theory stuff. Re the boat - it went out live. Would they really have put that much effort into something that was so simple to do for real anyway when there is such a high probability of it going so wrong eg screen going blank. It couldn't be pre recorded as the destroyer would be in the wrong place at that time (so much easier to prove as fake).
You also refer to us believing stuff for ideological reasons. I don't. I generally think the press is pretty awful at getting the truth correct, but I don't believe in madcap conspiracy theories either.
It is the believers in this stuff that are believing it for ideological reasons.
Have you asked yourself why the people who posted the footage claiming it was fake, clipped the initial footage from it? Any ideas? I can only think of one!
Yep, agree. Care is eye-wateringly expensive. £1000+ a week in some cases.
From chatting to the children of my late next door neighbour and having a couple of pals who have needed to go into convalescent homes after surgery, £1,000 a week seems to be the minimum in this part of the country and that is for people who have all their marbles. For people with dementia the sky is the limit, it would seem.
Much of this cost is down to government policies and lifestyle choices over the past forty years or so. If you discourage people from smoking and drinking then more people are going to live longer and need long term care. Unintended consequences?
Keeping people existing on for years once all quality of life has gone is one of the most inhumane features of modern life.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
1. Microphones are a great deal more advanced than you realise. Mainly because news organisations have to send reporters out in all sorts of weathers and want clear broadcasts. He might also have been using a noise-cancelling microphone.
2. I reckoned that would be the most obvious 'fakery'; sadly, it just looks like typical compression artifcating to me. I cannot speak for H.264 too much, but old-fashioned H.262/MPEG2 was terrible at certain types of images, including flames and water. That's particularly true if it is being compressed highly to fit on a low-bandwidth channel. It may also have been re-encoded for upload.
3. Rubbish. Look near the end when the boat wallows when the ship's wake hits it.
4. There is not much movement; I reckon the boat's moving slowly at the start of the broadcast, and slower or stopped at the end (perhaps to get an image of the US ship moving away). we also have little idea of the size and type of boat the reporter is in.
5. I don't see anything out of the ordinary in that.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is motivated to try and deny common sense in a vain attempt to find conspiracies everywhere. It reminds me of the way you sickeningly swallowed every single Russian line after the MH17 shootdown.
So yes, it might have been faked. But I see no evidence for it, nor any reason for them to have faked it. You're just watching a relatively low-quality broadcast.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
Personally, I'm *not* prepared to believe any tosh fed to me - hence me thinking this report, for whatever reason, was not filmed live on a boat in the Bosphorous on the occasion. If you on the other hand do enjoy a diet of any old tosh, don't let me interrupt your meal.
Did you see the unedited version?
I saw the longer edit that Stark Dawning posted if that's what you're referring to.
Please can somebody post a link to this 'reporter on a boat' I'm getting curios even though I have no idea what it is about.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
Personally, I'm *not* prepared to believe any tosh fed to me - hence me thinking this report, for whatever reason, was not filmed live on a boat in the Bosphorous on the occasion. If you on the other hand do enjoy a diet of any old tosh, don't let me interrupt your meal.
Did you see the unedited version?
I saw the longer edit that Stark Dawning posted if that's what you're referring to.
Please can somebody post a link to this 'reporter on a boat' I'm getting curios even though I have no idea what it is about.
That boat footage Plato posted was quite obviously faked. And the reason they would fake something true is as a dry run - to see if they could. Not much in dusting down the green screen for the first time when you are trying to pull one over is there.
How can you tell it was 'quite obviously faked' ? What are the tell-tales?
Let's have your technical evaluation.
1. The reporter's voice is quite clearly not being recorded on the prow of a boat. Wind noise is minimal, motor noise is non-existent, and there is no noise interference with his voice at all. He's hamming up the 'shouting' like a trooper, but it just sounds ridiculous.
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
Good grief there are two of you now who will believe any old tosh feed to you.
Personally, I'm *not* prepared to believe any tosh fed to me - hence me thinking this report, for whatever reason, was not filmed live on a boat in the Bosphorous on the occasion. If you on the other hand do enjoy a diet of any old tosh, don't let me interrupt your meal.
Did you see the unedited version?
I saw the longer edit that Stark Dawning posted if that's what you're referring to.
Please can somebody post a link to this 'reporter on a boat' I'm getting curios even though I have no idea what it is about.
Personally, I'd leave the NHS as it is for a decade and focus political energy on creating a decent national Social Care Service.
Means tested, covering homecare/carehome costs - with a charge made on assets after they/their partner dies.
I'd integrate it with a national service / voluntary service type arrangement.
I think the last point is key. We frankly need to get away from the idea that Mum has the "right" to leave her house to her grateful children when the State has been expending huge sums maintaining Mum for the last decade of her life so the children can get on with theirs. There are already provisions in place for this if an elderly person goes into care (although avoidance tantial care at home. We cannot continue this way, it is simply not viable.
A solicitor can be found negligent if he does not advise a client how to avoid care fees. That's an area where specific legislation should be introduced to prevent such a claim, as current law clearly works against the public interest.
If someone has a £300,000 house, it's perfectly reasonable for that asset to be used to fund end of life care.
You can get an annuity to pay for care but longer term NI will have to go up amongst the middle age to pay for increasing care costs
An annuity? At these bloody rates?
For around £70000 easily
For £70,000 you'd get ~£3,500, less if you want it to keep pace with inflation.
£3,500 doesn't get you much care at all. You could spend ten times that.
Depends how long you live for, especially as most people if they need care only need it for a couple of years at most given life expectancy of 83
Comments
And no I'm not saying there is not a problem with middle east immigration at all. Just that watching fox news and forming your opinions on that is not best way to govern.
Why do the French have small breakfasts?
Because one egg is un oeuf[sp].
This time he will find out his views are pretty much irrelevant though...
When you try and live in a universe where the moral value of behaviour is a function of the identity of the person doing the behaving... well, to normal people the result is lunacy.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/26/transgender-teenage-wrestler-mack-beggs-wins-texas-girls-title
Drag racing between the lights... Arab princelings vs their Russian rivals for example.
If you had worked for as many years in Europe with Europeans with all their quirks you too might feel as I do. That we are seprating ourselves from the most culturally exciting varied and beautiful continent in the world for no reason other than some very small minded people don't like foreigners makes me want to vomit.
If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'.
I'm sure he wouldn't say that now.
Interesting that you quote such a bigoted statement about foreigners. Or is hatred of the French only OK when other foreigners do it?
2. The waves near the bottom of the screen are way too close up to have been filmed from the distant, elevated position that the reporter is being filmed from. This effect is also evident when a seagull takes off - it would have to be the size of a elephant to appear that large from that distance.
3. The motion of the water is having no impact on the boat that the reporter is being filmed on, nor is the boat having an impact on the motion of the water.
4. The reporter makes no movement to compensate for the rise and fall of the water, beyond his initial legs akimbo stance.
5. The reporter and his prow are brightly lit - the background isn't.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is ideologically motivated enough to try and deny the evidence of their own eyes. Reminds me of all the headlines after Sandy Hook - 'President's tears' - when he didn't actually cry, or even well up.
http://labourlist.org/2017/02/momentum-copeland-was-a-devastating-result-but-we-must-renew-labour-and-step-up-the-fight-against-austerity-and-the-far-right/
And if you didn't criticize Becker's bigotry then is that because you agreed with it or because you tolerate bigotry when you're trying to social climb ?
It just could be that I am just being wound up here.
This seems so obvious that I wonder why it has not already been set-up. I am, therefore, forced to wonder in whose interests it is that it does not happen.
Much of this cost is down to government policies and lifestyle choices over the past forty years or so. If you discourage people from smoking and drinking then more people are going to live longer and need long term care. Unintended consequences?
You also refer to us believing stuff for ideological reasons. I don't. I generally think the press is pretty awful at getting the truth correct, but I don't believe in madcap conspiracy theories either.
It is the believers in this stuff that are believing it for ideological reasons.
Have you asked yourself why the people who posted the footage claiming it was fake, clipped the initial footage from it? Any ideas? I can only think of one!
2. I reckoned that would be the most obvious 'fakery'; sadly, it just looks like typical compression artifcating to me. I cannot speak for H.264 too much, but old-fashioned H.262/MPEG2 was terrible at certain types of images, including flames and water. That's particularly true if it is being compressed highly to fit on a low-bandwidth channel. It may also have been re-encoded for upload.
3. Rubbish. Look near the end when the boat wallows when the ship's wake hits it.
4. There is not much movement; I reckon the boat's moving slowly at the start of the broadcast, and slower or stopped at the end (perhaps to get an image of the US ship moving away). we also have little idea of the size and type of boat the reporter is in.
5. I don't see anything out of the ordinary in that.
I find it odd, and sad, that anyone is motivated to try and deny common sense in a vain attempt to find conspiracies everywhere. It reminds me of the way you sickeningly swallowed every single Russian line after the MH17 shootdown.
So yes, it might have been faked. But I see no evidence for it, nor any reason for them to have faked it. You're just watching a relatively low-quality broadcast.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/03/07/exp-nr-vo-watson-russia-ukraine-ships.cnn