Re indy2 does anyone know the legal grounds for delaying a Section 30 request. Does the agreement have to be mutually agreed and can the Scots appeal to the High Court in Scotland /England to force agreement
Re indy2 does anyone know the legal grounds for delaying a Section 30 request. Does the agreement have to be mutually agreed and can the Scots appeal to the High Court in Scotland /England to force agreement
I doubt the SNP have any case whatsoever to force the UK government to hand over that power.
So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion
I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans
You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Chalk and cheese.
I wasn't equating the cas but the initial reaction to them on here.
"GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
He killed someone, and has a manslaughter conviction. Do you agree that's right?
He did the right thing in my opinion, I don't think he should have had to stand trial from what I have seen of it. If you disagree, fair enough I cant be bothered to argue with you, its down to you
Then your opinion is pants and stupid.
We like to think of our soldiers as being the best in the world, lions, above reproach, etc etc, partly because of their standards - they're 'better' than the opposition. What Blackman did went well beyond those standards.
It also has an effect on the way foreigners who may encounter those troops. Like the infamous Daily Mirror front page, Blackman's actions make the British Army's task a little bit harder.
I'm glad he's out: it cannot have been easy for his family, and the circumstances were unusual. But the idea that the deliberate killing of an injured enemy should have been ignored is ... interesting.
It's what I think, based on what I have seen and read. He did the right thing, and I am glad he did it, so were the rest of his squad, he probably saved half a dozen lives. You know best I suppose, fir enough
Why did he 'do the right thing' ?
Would you say the same if the situation has been reversed, and a British soldier had been killed?
Unless you saw Susanne Evans last night you might struggle to put yourself into the mindset of a UKIPer. 'Rule of Law' means nothing. Certainly not compared to 'My Country Right or Wrong'-or in fact 'My Coutry Right' because to believe it can do wrong is unpatriotic.
She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
It looks as though Macron too will shirk the third debate, three days before the vote. He will prefer to get his message across at a meeting, because in a debate he'd have to put up with crossfire from his opponents, and some of that crossfire would be unfiltered. That's according to this source.
In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.
Does anyone still think his price of 1.54 is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they haven't decided to vote for any particular candidate?
So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
The EU have failed for decades to broker a deal. This is already a £22bn export market for us, and we provide roughly a quarter of EU exports to the region.
If I recall correctly (and I may not), there is already a co-operation agreement (which is like a precursor to an FTA) between the EU and the GCC, but not yet an FTA.
So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion
I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans
You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Chalk and cheese.
I wasn't equating the cas but the initial reaction to them on here.
"GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
He killed someone, and has a manslaughter conviction. Do you agree that's right?
He did the right thing in my opinion, I don't think he should have had to stand trial from what I have seen of it. If you disagree, fair enough I cant be bothered to argue with you, its down to you
Then your opinion is pants and stupid.
I'm glad he's out: it cannot have been easy for his family, and the circumstances were unusual. But the idea that the deliberate killing of an injured enemy should have been ignored is ... interesting.
It's what I think, based on what I have seen and read. He did the right thing, and I am glad he did it, so were the rest of his squad, he probably saved half a dozen lives. You know best I suppose, fir enough
Why did he 'do the right thing' ?
Would you say the same if the situation has been reversed, and a British soldier had been killed?
Unless you saw Susanne Evans last night you might struggle to put yourself into the mindset of a UKIPer. 'Rule of Law' means nothing. Certainly not compared to 'My Country Right or Wrong'-or in fact 'My Coutry Right' because to believe it can do wrong is unpatriotic.
She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
Haha!! Probably not the best Kipper to use as an example!
It looks as though Macron too will shirk the third debate, three days before the vote. He will prefer to get his message across at a meeting, because in a debate he'd have to put up with crossfire from his opponents, and some of that crossfire would be unfiltered. That's according to this source.
In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.
Does anyone still think his price is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they've decided to vote for an particular candidate?
So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course.
It looks as though Macron too will shirk the third debate, three days before the vote. He will prefer to get his message across at a meeting, because in a debate he'd have to put up with crossfire from his opponents, and some of that crossfire would be unfiltered. That's according to this source.
In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.
Does anyone still think his price is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they've decided to vote for an particular candidate?
In Macron's favour is the fact that he is the preferred second option for almost everyone, even among Le Pen voters.
That's the advantage of being a blank slate. No-one really knows what you stand for. Can you blame him for not wanting to change that?
You said "We like to think of our soldiers as being the best in the world, lions, above reproach".. and so I take it that you think that Sgt Blackman's action, and the fact that it was welcomed by his squad, including two who volunteered to shoot the captive themselves, means they are less than that
But I'd not call them 'feeble cowards'. They're your words. I can sympathise with the stress and the situation Blackman and his colleagues found themselves in, but the court has showed that he did wrong. You would ignore that. I see that as being a really bad thing.
Fair enough, sorry you didn't call them that, I was extrapolating to improve my argument, my bad.
As regards the case, I had Sgt Blackman down as a bit of a wrongun before I saw the Panorama. Now I am sure he did the right thing, because...
The captive had just been trying to kill Sgt Blackman and his team, and was shot down and almost killed by one of our helicopters two minutes previously. That alone makes it seem crazy that SB was charged w murder... two mins before our helicopter almost deliberately killed the bloke!
If Sgt Blackman had stuck to the letter of the law, he would have had to apply first aid in a dangerous war zone, then call for an emergency team (MERT) to drive through booby trapped fields to come and get them, risking everyone in that teams life as well as his squad, and alerting the taliban to exactly where they all were... they would have been bait, it could have been a massacre, and for what?! A half dead enemy who we shot down whilst trying to kill our marines five mins before. As I say if you disagree I wont argue, the marines themselves are split on it, but plenty in his team say he did the right thing and they couldn't care less
I believe it's called the Geneva Convention, which he said on tape he knew he was breaking. Or does that only apply to our own men?
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course.
Spain and the Dordogne will be empty when they are all shoved on the boats home, Gibralter thrown to the wolves
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion
I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans
You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Chalk and cheese.
I wasn't equating the cas but the initial reaction to them on here.
"GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
He killed someone, and has a manslaughter conviction. Do you agree that's right?
He did the right thing in my opinion, I don't think he should have had to stand trial from what I have seen of it. If you disagree, fair enough I cant be bothered to argue with you, its down to you
Then your opinion is pants and stupid.
I'm glad he's out: it cannot have been easy for his family, and the circumstances were unusual. But the idea that the deliberate killing of an injured enemy should have been ignored is ... interesting.
It's what I think, based on what I have seen and read. He did the right thing, and I am glad he did it, so were the rest of his squad, he probably saved half a dozen lives. You know best I suppose, fir enough
Why did he 'do the right thing' ?
Would you say the same if the situation has been reversed, and a British soldier had been killed?
Unless you saw Susanne Evans last night you might struggle to put yourself into the mindset of a UKIPer. 'Rule of Law' means nothing. Certainly not compared to 'My Country Right or Wrong'-or in fact 'My Coutry Right' because to believe it can do wrong is unpatriotic.
She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
Haha!! Probably not the best Kipper to use as an example!
I know there are worse which makes most of us shudder
You said "We like to think of our soldiers as being the best in the world, lions, above reproach".. and so I take it that you think that Sgt Blackman's action, and the fact that it was welcomed by his squad, including two who volunteered to shoot the captive themselves, means they are less than that
But I'd not call them 'feeble cowards'. They're your words. I can sympathise with the stress and the situation Blackman and his colleagues found themselves in, but the court has showed that he did wrong. You would ignore that. I see that as being a really bad thing.
Fair enough, sorry you didn't call them that, I was extrapolating to improve my argument, my bad.
As regards the case, I had Sgt Blackman down as a bit of a wrongun before I saw the Panorama. Now I am sure he did the right thing, because...
The captive had just been trying to kill Sgt Blackman and his team, and was shot down and almost killed by one of our helicopters two minutes previously. That alone makes it seem crazy that SB was charged w murder... two mins before our helicopter almost deliberately killed the bloke!
If Sgt Blackman had stuck to the letter of the law, he would have had to apply first aid in a dangerous war zone, then call for an emergency team (MERT) to drive through booby trapped fields to come and get them, risking everyone in that teams life as well as his squad, and alerting the taliban to exactly where they all were... they would have been bait, it could have been a massacre, and for what?! A half dead enemy who we shot down whilst trying to kill our marines five mins before. As I say if you disagree I wont argue, the marines themselves are split on it, but plenty in his team say he did the right thing and they couldn't care less
I believe it's called the Geneva Convention, which he said on tape he knew he was breaking. Or does that only apply to our own men?
How many times do I have to say "fair enough if you don't agree" before you let it go? I am 100% not going to change my mind, why do you bother?
I never said it only applied to our men, I don't know why you are saying that. If the roles were reversed I'd have expected the enemy to do what Sgt Blackman did
So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course.
Spain and the Dordogne will be empty when they are all shoved on the boats home, Gibralter thrown to the wolves
Re indy2 does anyone know the legal grounds for delaying a Section 30 request. Does the agreement have to be mutually agreed and can the Scots appeal to the High Court in Scotland /England to force agreement
I doubt the SNP have any case whatsoever to force the UK government to hand over that power.
I doubt they would care to. If they get an early one, fine, if not, also fine.
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria
1) An annual income of £150,000 2) Net contributor to The Exchequer 3) Those who own their own property outright
So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
She will end freedom of movement but replace it with a work visa programme that can be devolved to the assemblies and regions so that the commercial needs of all companies UK wide can be satisfied. She will not allow indy2 before GE 2020 no matter the efforts of the SNP.
Indeed Theresa May and Ruth Davidson will prove formidable opponents to Nicola, unlike David Cameron
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria
1) An annual income of £150,000 2) Net contributor to The Exchequer 3) Those who own their own property outright
I would make an absolute fortune buying up a one acre plot of land and breaking it down into about 40 million plots.
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria
1) An annual income of £150,000 2) Net contributor to The Exchequer 3) Those who own their own property outright
Is it the case that the voted for proposal for an independence referendum includes the idiocy of letting EU nationals have the vote?
Imagine it will be as normal election rules , if you are resident and have main address in Scotland and able to vote in elections then you get a vote.
On the "main address" bit, are you sure that's the rule for Holyrood elections? If say a British citizen has addresses in both Scotland and England, they can vote in local elections in both places, and I thought they could vote in Westminster elections at whichever one of those places they wanted to. I'm suggesting that in an indyref a British citizen who is on the electoral register in Scotland will be able to vote regardless of whether it's their main address or not. Will stand corrected if mistaken.
This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!
*Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!
So are we looking at a wildcat/rogue independence vote then? Can't see May backing down, and if Sturgeon does she may miss her chance.
Remember that every Scottish UK citizen is also an EU citizen. If May goes into the negotiations wanting a cut off date to end freedom of movement, including for those UK citizens she is holding hostage, her position will be eviscerated. Denying a Scottish referendum is not tenable.
No word whatsoever of the precious EU holding UK citizens hostage, of course.
Spain and the Dordogne will be empty when they are all shoved on the boats home, Gibralter thrown to the wolves
It would be interesting to know the numbers of older and unproductive folk being held hostage in Spain and the Dordoine compared to the young thrusting Europeans working in London Edinburgh and Lincolnshire
This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!
*Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!
Will see you there, hopefully many others too. I will get there about 7ish I reckon.. heads up for the haters
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Been out all day so I have only just seen the last thread header. Congratulations to PB first the most fatuous, purile and disingenuous thread header we have ever had.
So Sgt Blackman will be out by Easter, great news in my opinion
I guess some on here will be v disappointed though. Shades of Ched Evans
You'll need to be careful equating the two cases. Ched Evans was eventually acquitted on a retrial. Blackman's conviction was downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Chalk and cheese.
I wasn't equating the cases but the initial reaction to them on here.
"GULITY AS CHARGED" ...or not
It's quite hard to defend what Blackman did, although I daresay you'll try.
The Panorama programme I saw a fortnight or so ago convinced me. You can be convinced or not, down to you.
Reading the wikipedia page, regardless of the stress of the situation on the day, and the war in general, it appears that Sgt Blackman was well aware that what he was doing was illegal by his immediate admission on site that "I just broke the Geneva Convention". As such, the Marines had to prosecute - the potential consequences of not for the future treatment of British wounded PoWs are just too great.
That said, I do understand how good people can do bad things in an awful environment, and I spend a lot of time preaching the adverse effects of stress on decision-making capabilities. My guess is that stress was the grounds for the diminished responsibility ruling.
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria
1) An annual income of £150,000 2) Net contributor to The Exchequer 3) Those who own their own property outright
I would make an absolute fortune buying up a one acre plot of land and breaking it down into about 40 million plots.
We would revive the 40 shilling freeholder: "In 1430, legislation limited the franchise to only those who owned the freehold of land that brought in an annual rent of at least 40 shillings (forty-shilling freeholders)" wikipedia. That's about £900 in 2005 money according to this rather handy page http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency/ (I would have guessed a lot more).
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria
1) An annual income of £150,000 2) Net contributor to The Exchequer 3) Those who own their own property outright
I would make an absolute fortune buying up a one acre plot of land and breaking it down into about 40 million plots.
Surely paying their salaries at (£150,000 x 40m) would eat away at those profits?
Mr. Eagles, you'd limit EU citizens able to vote to taxpayers? So, an unemployed EU citizen wouldn't be allowed the vote?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
If it were up to me I'd restrict the vote to those who meet at least two of the following criteria
1) An annual income of £150,000 2) Net contributor to The Exchequer 3) Those who own their own property outright
This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!
*Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
38 years ago today, the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Labour Government, paving the way for Thatcher.
Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.
Frank Maguire
we do things properly in Ulster
By my reckoning Thursday is the anniversary of the murder of Airey Neave.
We're lucky Adrian Elms didn't grow up in Belfast.
One crucial vote was lost by Labour backbencher Sir Alfred Broughton who was unable to attend the vote due to ill health.[1] Broughton (professionally a doctor) was mortally ill and died a few days after the vote but was determined to come to Westminster if it meant saving the Government, although his own doctor was strongly opposed. Parliamentary procedure would have allowed his vote to be counted even if he remained within an ambulance at Speaker's Court. However, after a debate over what would happen if Broughton died en route, Callaghan finally decided that he would not risk Broughton's health by asking him to travel, a decision which was to bring down the Government.[2] Broughton died on 2 April 1979.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Listening to his lawyer today, and in any case, it is for me the broader questions about our deployment that deserve greater scrutiny.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
The EU have failed for decades to broker a deal. This is already a £22bn export market for us, and we provide roughly a quarter of EU exports to the region.
If I recall correctly (and I may not), there is already a co-operation agreement (which is like a precursor to an FTA) between the EU and the GCC, but not yet an FTA.
Pre the EU taking over all these functions, we used to be quite keen on inward investment promotion protocols - or whatever the term was - in the region.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
Japan was not a party to the Geneva Conventions, so they did not apply in that conflict. Hence the whole Bridge over the River Kwai thing with PoW slave labour.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
Saying either nothing at all, or "OMG he is reaching for a weapon" or some such (for the camera), would have saved a lot of trouble.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
You do realise that once A50 is triggered all monies due to UK nationals from EU entities, including private companies, must be paid into an escrow account to be released on the final signing of a trade deal.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Cambridge Analytica has been in the news recently because of its astute use of big data to guide surprisingly successful political races, from Brexit to Donald Trump.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
You do realise that once A50 is triggered all monies due to UK nationals from EU entities, including private companies, must be paid into an escrow account to be released on the final signing of a trade deal.
Tres amusant.
What I do know is that the slump in £ against the euro and dollar, caused by Brexit, has increased my already sizeable earnings by about 15%, overnight. A big fat hefty payrise. Thankyou, Leavers.
This time tomorrow* I'll be at Truckles of Pied Bull Yard catching up with fellow PBers to celebrate/commiserate on the triggering of Article 50. Hope to see many of you there!
*Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!
On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...
1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?
2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".
3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,
4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum, akin to Irish nationalists and Home Rulers in times gone by.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to say that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Nice quote. Wherefrom?
Louis Pasteur. Had to go French, given the conversation.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...
1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?
2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".
3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,
4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.
No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...
1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?
2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".
3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,
4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.
A DIY referendum would be meaningless. It would have no legal effect and would be ignored by Unionists.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.
Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.
No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
Hm, I am not sure we need to get the army involved!
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Again, Japan was not a party to the Conventions, so they did not apply in that conflict to either party. The US soldiers in the Pacific conflict were not, could not be, in breach of the conventions.
That said, there is plenty of evidence in the latter days on the Western front, there were multiple breaches meted out on captured SS and Gestapo. And Germany was a Party, so the Conventions did apply.
No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
Hm, I am not sure we need to get the army involved!
Hopefully not but if Sturgeon declared UDI May would have no choice but to dissolve Holyrood, by force if necessary. Alternatively in Spain the president of the government of Catalonia was banned from public office for 2 years for holding an unofficial referendum by a court in Barcelona and also fined, the same penalty could be imposed on Sturgeon if she tries to call an unofficial referendum
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.
Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.
Despite my generally conservative views on the size of government and matters economic, I am intrigued by and open to persuasion re the adoption of a national wage paid to everyone regardless of employment. I think it could be a real boost to the economy, letting people out of minimum jobs that underutilize their talents and ambition and facilitating greater entrepreneurial flair, or the creation of other forms of social value.
It would be interesting if a medium sized country were to experiment with this so we could have some actual results to assess the theory on.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.
Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.
Despite my generally conservative views on the size of government and matters economic, I am intrigued by and open to persuasion re the adoption of a national wage paid to everyone regardless of employment. I think it could be a real boost to the economy, letting people out of minimum jobs that underutilize their talents and ambition and facilitating greater entrepreneurial flair, or the creation of other forms of social value.
It would be interesting if a medium sized country were to experiment with this so we could have some actual results to assess the theory on.
SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum, akin to Irish nationalists and Home Rulers in times gone by.
The problem with all this, for the SNP, is that most Scots voters don't want a vote, not yet.
Sturgeon does not have a nation united behind her. A dangerous position from which to play constitutional poker.
WRT The Scottish independence Vote could I propose:
I referendum to mandate a 10 year wait (from last vote) till another Referendum. and then if Scottish parliament votes for a referendum in 2024 they get one, wither out the UK parliament needing to OK the timing ect...
I think it may get brought support, wont be total support but I think would be large, and then the people of Scotland would have 5 years of Brexit Brittan to decide if they like it. we could even try to add it in to the Brexit negotiations that if Scotland votes to leave UK and Join EU in 2024 the EU promises to agree.
On the idea of a Scottish DIY referendum and possible subsequent UDI if the result is YES...
1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?
2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".
3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,
4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.
No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
The Spanish also arrested the organisers. That would be funny! And politically dramatic, confrontational, constitutionally explosive etc etc. But mostly funny.
SNP MPs might start filibustering business in the Commons (especially Brexit-related) if May doesn't give them a referendum, akin to Irish nationalists and Home Rulers in times gone by.
The problem with all this, for the SNP, is that most Scots voters don't want a vote, not yet.
Sturgeon does not have a nation united behind her. A dangerous position from which to play constitutional poker.
A referendum about a referendum is the compromise position. Ask the Scots in 2019 if they want another independence referendum post 2021 and make the result binding on the Holyrood 2021 administration.
It makes May look reasonable, yet stops Sturgeon bouncing Scotland into another unwanted referendum.
They voted to be British, and must respect their fellow Britons during the Brexit process.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.
Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.
Given the size of our deficit, and debt, our welfare state is about as well-funded as it can possibly be, without tipping the nation into bankruptcy.
Look on the bright side, while all that foreign investment is flowing in to the UK, Scotland wont be getting much - so more for the rest of us,
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
The TV drama series Pacific underlined that. By the end - on Okinawa - civilian women were "surrending", rushing to the safety of the American lines - and then blowing themselves up to kill US soldiers.
A pretty horrific choice. You see an Okinawan woman clutching a baby seeking safety in your trench. What do you do?
Interestingly, on Okinawa, American soldiers risked their lives to save both civilians and Japanese POWs. In the latter case, they prevented the Japanese medical staff in a military hospital murdering their own (yes, Japanese injured soldiers!) - one of the reasons why a larger percentage of POWs was taken on Okinawa.
Europe. France. Brilliant place. Love the French. Great people. Why the F are we leaving the EU?
This bipolar swing has nothing, literally NOTHING to do with the fact my French publishers just made a six figure offer for the next two Tremaynes.
Felicitations, mon ami!
Merci
My jouissance is tempered by the fact that one of my best mates, a subeditor at the Telegraph has just been told he's probably losing his job (along with dozens more). He's a very fine writer himself, just took a few wrong turnings, and didn't get the lucky breaks - which I did, undeservedly.
Life is such a total lottery.
le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Fortunately we have a welfare state, which means people don't hit rock bottom, get second chances and are not exclusively at the mercy of luck.
Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.
Given the size of our deficit, and debt, our welfare state is about as well-funded as it can possibly be, without tipping the nation into bankruptcy.
It's a question of prioritisation and being smart. People need a safety net to take risks. At present the wealthy get to take the risks.
A smart welfare state that unlocks entrepreneurial spirits has a lot to offer.
No, May should stick to her guns and do as the Spanish do and completely ignore any unofficial referendum, the courts will be behind her and as she is in command of the armed forces and not Sturgeon there is little realistically the latter can do about it!
Hm, I am not sure we need to get the army involved!
Hopefully not but if Sturgeon declared UDI May would have no choice but to dissolve Holyrood, by force if necessary. Alternatively in Spain the president of the government of Catalonia was banned from public office for 2 years for holding an unofficial referendum by a court in Barcelona and also fined, the same penalty could be imposed on Sturgeon if she tries to call an unofficial referendum
Will May do a Palpatine and order the council dissolved permanently and appoint regional governors to assume direct control?
Mr. Divvie, you're welcome to go and check the threads from 2012 or so to 2014. I probably wrote about 10,000 comments, but my average comment size is quite small
Comments
The people voted to endorse the arrangement in 2014 with a 'once in a generation' decision.
She was asked about a 'financial settlement' with the EU and without knowing a single fact dismissed the idea as 'ridiculous' They are the sons and daughters of Trumpism. It's not attractive but it's what is now known as Populism.
Personally I prefer the Irish MP who went to Westminster to abstain in person.
In other words, he's crap on TV and he's frit.
Does anyone still think his price of 1.54 is value, given that such a large proportion of poll respondents are saying they haven't decided to vote for any particular candidate?
He certainly isn't a sell.
That's the advantage of being a blank slate. No-one really knows what you stand for. Can you blame him for not wanting to change that?
Mr. D, if the margin of a theoretical Yes victory was smaller than the number of non-Britons voting to break up the UK, that would not go down well.
For the record, I'm also against the Green amendment on 16-17 year olds voting. But I don't think it's quite as indefensible (although it is daft) as the EU situation.
I never said it only applied to our men, I don't know why you are saying that. If the roles were reversed I'd have expected the enemy to do what Sgt Blackman did
I'd expect so much better from the SNP, who turned out to be the midwife of Thatcherism.
1) An annual income of £150,000
2) Net contributor to The Exchequer
3) Those who own their own property outright
Indeed Theresa May and Ruth Davidson will prove formidable opponents to Nicola, unlike David Cameron
*Unless my auction at Bonhams has not finished - but I bloody hope it has by then!!!
we do things properly in Ulster
We're lucky Adrian Elms didn't grow up in Belfast.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Been out all day so I have only just seen the last thread header. Congratulations to PB first the most fatuous, purile and disingenuous thread header we have ever had.
Truly a new low.
That said, I do understand how good people can do bad things in an awful environment, and I spend a lot of time preaching the adverse effects of stress on decision-making capabilities. My guess is that stress was the grounds for the diminished responsibility ruling.
(I would have guessed a lot more).
I'd make that ownership of at least 75 acres. ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7-JNYiZzKc
Cambridge Analytica has been in the news recently because of its astute use of big data to guide surprisingly successful political races, from Brexit to Donald Trump.
Must be especially difficult with children.
1) Who will force Labour and other non-SNP councils to participate? What happens to legitimacy if Unionists call for abstention from voting in a referendum that would be unlawful? Who pays? What do the courts do if a case is brought for misuse of public funds? If the SNP and their Green associates go ahead with it, how would impartiality be guaranteed? Electoral Reform Commission? International observers? What if the Home Office bans them from entry?
2) A DIY referendum held by the SNP would remind me of nothing so much as Sinn Fein's "consultation procedures in the four provinces of Ireland". There are some coolheaded people in the SNP, to be sure, but there are also crazies and those who have appalling judgement. For example, former ambassador Craig Murray, whom I respect for many things, said before the indyref that the Orange Order march that was scheduled in Edinburgh on practically the eve of the vote should be banned under the Public Order Act 1936. Anyone who doesn't appreciate what that would have meant should hang about Ibrox on a Saturday afternoon during the football season. Or acquaint themselves with the meaning of the term "orange walk".
3) Even if the SNP were right and independence is in Scotland's best interest, that would not mean that it is desirable at any price. Sturgeon could show real leadership and admit this. She could say that Scotland is already a grown-up country; that as the First Minister it is her duty to represent unionists as well as supporters of independence; that she has no doubt that the British government will allow a referendum if there are strong indications that a majority of Scottish people are in favour of one; that British law will be respected until a lawful referendum is held; and that even if the British government is being obstreperous, she will not be the one who endangers civil peace, and she recognises that something that's good is worth waiting a year or two for. She could also perhaps find some non-destabilising and lawful areas in which to withdraw cooperation with the central government,
4) If Sturgeon does stick to the line that "you hold a referendum or else we will", it is May who should show leadership: she should should back down and give the go-ahead for a referendum.
That's not to deny that some prepared and good people don't get the lucky breaks they deserve.
Just imagine what would happen if it were well funded.
That said, there is plenty of evidence in the latter days on the Western front, there were multiple breaches meted out on captured SS and Gestapo. And Germany was a Party, so the Conventions did apply.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/libdem-leader-tim-farron-on-article-50-and-the-end-of-his-eu-dream-a3501111.html
It would be interesting if a medium sized country were to experiment with this so we could have some actual results to assess the theory on.
I referendum to mandate a 10 year wait (from last vote) till another Referendum. and then if Scottish parliament votes for a referendum in 2024 they get one, wither out the UK parliament needing to OK the timing ect...
I think it may get brought support, wont be total support but I think would be large, and then the people of Scotland would have 5 years of Brexit Brittan to decide if they like it. we could even try to add it in to the Brexit negotiations that if Scotland votes to leave UK and Join EU in 2024 the EU promises to agree.
And politically dramatic, confrontational, constitutionally explosive etc etc.
But mostly funny.
It makes May look reasonable, yet stops Sturgeon bouncing Scotland into another unwanted referendum.
They voted to be British, and must respect their fellow Britons during the Brexit process.
A smart welfare state that unlocks entrepreneurial spirits has a lot to offer.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/846758048450433024