O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
In what way is Assad 'winning' ?
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Why the heck would they go home when the mass-murdering dictator's still in charge? When their relatives and friends will still be in Assad's murder camps prisons? When they'll have no guarantee of their safety?
Even more questionable is how Assad can keep the peace. He's lost a large proportion of his army (which is why he hasn't won even with Iranian, Hezbelloah and Russian help), so securing 'rebel' areas will be difficult.
It's easy to guess the way he'd do it, and it won't be good for the populations.
There are very few rebel areas left. The war is almost over. I agree the peace is problematic.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
Actually in 2014 the GOP won the popular vote by 7%, if the Democrats won the popular vote by 10% Pelosi would sweep to power
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
Excluding California Trump won the popular vote in 2016
I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Why the heck would they go home when the mass-murdering dictator's still in charge? When their relatives and friends will still be in Assad's murder camps prisons? When they'll have no guarantee of their safety?
Even more questionable is how Assad can keep the peace. He's lost a large proportion of his army (which is why he hasn't won even with Iranian, Hezbelloah and Russian help), so securing 'rebel' areas will be difficult.
It's easy to guess the way he'd do it, and it won't be good for the populations.
There are very few rebel areas left. The war is almost over. I agree the peace is problematic.
Citations required for the first bit. As an example, the Kurds might rather strongly disagree with you. Assad's said various things in the past, including that he wants to regain control over *all* of Syria.
"I agree the peace is problematic." has to be one of the most pathetic sentences you've ever uttered. You can't just make blundering proposals for supporting a mass-murdering dictator without asking yourself what the peace would be, and *how* he'd manage to keep the peace.
Remove Saddam.. additional loss of life incalculable maybe a million
Remove Gadaffi. Libya in turmoil loss of life not known
Attempt to remove Assad Death toll horrendous
Had they stayed in power death toll would also have been horrendous. Assad is not going anywhere soon either and even if he does go elements of his regime will stay in power
Remove Saddam.. additional loss of life incalculable maybe a million
Remove Gadaffi. Libya in turmoil loss of life not known
Attempt to remove Assad Death toll horrendous
We never attempted to remove Assad, we left the Syrians to their own devices and their own civil war.
Had we attempted to remove Assad when he used chemical weapons and Obama was on the brink of acting until Parliament said no then the civil war could have ended years sooner and the rise of ISIS could have been prevented.
Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them
The government keeps raising the state pension age so that fewer and fewer people can get it. We're told that it will be raised again to 67 sometime after 2020. So that's 2021 at the latest then - forgive my cynicism, but every date so far initially announced has been brought forward in recent years. That would for women mean a rise in the state pension age of 7 years within an 11 year period.
The cost of the triple lock over the past 7 years has been peanuts compared to the huge savings to the Treasury arising from successively deferring eligibility to the state pension. For most of that period, the basic state pension has been rising in line with RPI as before, since wage increases have been stagnant and below CPI let alone RPI for most of that period, and only for a relatively brief period has RPI been below 2.5%.
Is there a market when the state pension age will rise to 70? (That would be an increasingly rare example of a government following the teachings of the Church of England!)
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
That said, the private pension I have is due to mature in 2056 when I will be 73, if I live that long, which is a fair indication of how things are going.
I think this is going to become an increasing problem, it's already happening in the fire service!
I think a two tier retirement with manual workers able to retire at 60 and sedentary jobs 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 etc.
Generally manual workers are more reliant on the state pension whereas sedentary workers can use their workplace pensions until the state pension becomes payable.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
That was down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing States. Good targeting is essential under First Past the Post.
Mr. Jessop, I read Mr. L's 'problematic' sentence as being deliberate understatement.
As for the peace, the question is who can win? We'd all agree ISIS must not.
That essentially leaves Assad. The rebels are on their back, and the Kurds (as far as I know) don't even want all Syria, just the Kurdish areas.
Assad's done terrible things, but unless we're willing to intervene on a massive scale he's going to win this war. Assisting the Kurds (which would then antagonise Turkey) may well be as far as the Western response goes.
It's my view we are approaching Syria all wrong. The issue of disengaging Putin from Assad needs far more carrots and far fewer sticks. It's time we got out of the Cold War mentality and tried working with rather than against Putin.
I'm sure Putin doesn't care one iota about Assad - he cares about Russia's military presence in Syria because it makes Russia look as though it matters in the world and for Russians, just like many British people, it's all about status and looking like we count, we're important, we matter even if we don't.
"Global Britain" is predicated on the notion we can be a great mercantile nation again as we were before trading with all and sundry across the oceans - it's a romantic fantasy but it touches at the core of the British identity and therefore appeals.
Russians want to feel important as they did in the Cold War years when they were (or appeared to be) the equal of Washington on the world stage. The events of 1989-91 were a national humiliation and Putin appeals to the Russian people as the leader who can take them back to where they were, where they felt happiest and strongest.
Give Putin his bases, make him feel important and peace in Syria becomes achievable as a partnership - a joint US-Russian initiative aimed at a political resolution involving all bar IS who can be eliminated by both powers working in concert. Have Russian AND American troops on the ground in Damascus to oversee the transition to a new Government - it may not be democracy but it won't be gassing its own people.
Let Assad go into exile - is the price of peace really worth the judgement of one man ? A deal in Syria and a rapprochement with Teheran and Moscow - it's a pipedream but it starts from coming out of the Cold War mindset and considering why Russia acts as it does.
You act as though we've never tried working with Putin, but it requires him to want to work with us too of course.
Remove Saddam.. additional loss of life incalculable maybe a million
Remove Gadaffi. Libya in turmoil loss of life not known
Attempt to remove Assad Death toll horrendous
Had they stayed in power death toll would also have been horrendous. Assad is not going anywhere soon either and even if he does go elements of his regime will stay in power
The point is that the solution is as bad if not worse than the problem
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
There's a very interesting comment on that story which suggests that in the case of Dr Dao the airline acted illegally because their staff are not considered ticketed passengers for the purposes of overbooking under Department of Trade rules Therefore they did not have the right to remove anyone involuntarily, let alone by force.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Agreed. The only thing I would add is that Assad had a reputation as a moderate before the war. If he could convince the Americans that he was a hostage of his senior generals over the use of chemical weapons, they would probably believe it and be willing to let him shoot those generals and lead at least a transitional government.
It would be bollocks, of course, but it would be a convenient fiction that Trump would believe because he wants/needs it to be true. There could be worse ways to stop the fighting than Trump's obsession with alternative facts.
Assad's regime has always been very brutal, even by local standards, but he's probably the best of a horrible bunch now.
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
In what way is Assad 'winning' ?
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
I've not been following very closely. I was under the impression Assad was winning.
Edit - rereading that might look like i am being sarcastic. I'm not. Genuinely haven't been following that closely and assumed from scanning headlines and skim reading that Assad is winning.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.
And in 2016 the Dems won another popular vote by over 2% but got 77 fewer delegates.
That's a regular pattern.
That was down to the Democrats piling up votes on the West Coast, while losing the swing States. Good targeting is essential under First Past the Post.
Exactly, Trump led the national popular vote throughout election night until California reported which was why he won the EC clearly. The swing to the Democrats from 2016 last night was in Kansas not the West coast
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
Not trying to be funny as I know this wouldn't be your choice but why should you have to be carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom in the first place? It sounds very inefficient.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
The government keeps raising the state pension age so that fewer and fewer people can get it. We're told that it will be raised again to 67 sometime after 2020. So that's 2021 at the latest then - forgive my cynicism, but every date so far initially announced has been brought forward in recent years. That would for women mean a rise in the state pension age of 7 years within an 11 year period.
The cost of the triple lock over the past 7 years has been peanuts compared to the huge savings to the Treasury arising from successively deferring eligibility to the state pension. For most of that period, the basic state pension has been rising in line with RPI as before, since wage increases have been stagnant and below CPI let alone RPI for most of that period, and only for a relatively brief period has RPI been below 2.5%.
Is there a market when the state pension age will rise to 70? (That would be an increasingly rare example of a government following the teachings of the Church of England!)
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
That said, the private pension I have is due to mature in 2056 when I will be 73, if I live that long, which is a fair indication of how things are going.
Does the C o E advocate pensions at seventy? If you are thinking of the three score years and ten bit, I think that says you are likely to die at 70 and if you don't you will wish you had -
Pensions were introduced in 1908 for over 70s, when life expectancy at birth was well under 60. We seriously all need to die younger.
There's a very big conversation required about retirement and pensions, and it's not going to be an easy one for the politicians
When the state pension age was made 65 the average man died at 67, now people expect to have a long and comfortable retirement in a way never envisioned when the state system was set up.
Private pensions are even worse, especially DB schemes. A friend retired in about 2000 aged 55 on a DB scheme, from a former public engineering company. He will most likely spend 30 years in retirement as he spend 30 years in employment, completely unsustainable but very good for the individual. Britain's Airways has been described as a pension scheme that happens to run an airline, they're not far off. Local authorities have the same problem, with pensions to former employees being a huge part of their staff budget.
Mr. Jessop, I read Mr. L's 'problematic' sentence as being deliberate understatement.
As for the peace, the question is who can win? We'd all agree ISIS must not.
That essentially leaves Assad. The rebels are on their back, and the Kurds (as far as I know) don't even want all Syria, just the Kurdish areas.
Assad's done terrible things, but unless we're willing to intervene on a massive scale he's going to win this war. Assisting the Kurds (which would then antagonise Turkey) may well be as far as the Western response goes.
"Assad's done terrible things, but ..."
No but.
This is not something like saying, but Syria will have to split. The reason for the civil war is that populations in certain areas did not like the government. That problem won't have gone away after so many years of war.
If they don't want to live under Assad's dictatorship, let the Kurds have an area; let the Alawites. Let the Turkmen; let the non-Alawite Sunnis. Again, if they desire. It'd be nice if this could be a federal system, but that's probably not possible.
Then let the refugees go and live in whichever areas they want. It'd piss of Turkey and Iran mainly, but so be it (though for Turkey it would have a positive: they'd not have to support so many refugees, which is hurting them socially and economically).
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
In what way is Assad 'winning' ?
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
I've not been following very closely. I was under the impression Assad was winning.
You don't have to follow any situation closely to realise that if the process of 'winning' never concludes in the state of having won, then it's not an accurate description of what's going on.
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
Probably because the other full fare first class passengers had a higher status than him in their milage program.
Yep, so they make a habit of picking on customers they don't consider important enough and literally kicking them out of their seats either by threatening or using force. It's a wonder they have any customers left at all.
The time to offload people where it has to be done is at check-in, not on the plane!
Mr. Jessop, would that be imposed by the West? Who would do that? Would the US, UK, France be willing to enter a hot war with Russia?
Splitting might be the best theoretical outcome, but I'm not sure I can see it occurring in reality (perhaps beyond Kurdish Syria breaking away).
It'd have to be done in conjunction with all the players - mainly Iran and Russia, and backed up with military (and hopefully massive economic) support. These players need to see that throwing more resources into the meat-grinder isn't helping them.
The reality is that the country's already split. I'm unsure how Assad could force it together again without further massive loss of life.
We should not look to help either evil, but to do what we can for the thing that really matters: the people.
I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Too many posts on this start from the "we had a chance in 2013" and usually end up blaming Obama and Ed Miliband.
As an old friend of mine would say "we are where we are".
There are two problems with trying not to be involved in Syria - one is IS or Daesh or whatever you want to call the death cultists in Raqqa. If they were only persecuting their own people that would be bad enough but their lunacy has spread to our streets so needs to be confronted and eradicated.
The second is the Syrian Diaspora - the notion people will voluntarily go home to a Syria led by a vengeful Assad and his clique is absurd. Once international eyes are elsewhere, they can be gassed, shot, shelled or murdered with impunity.
We are involved even if we don't want to be and that means trying to think of new and different solutions and starting with using the same old clapped out Cold War rhetoric with Putin we've used with all Moscow leaders since 1945 is ludicrous.
We need to start with some different thinking - Russia doesn't care about Assad, it cares about its military status and presence in the eastern Mediterranean. That presence is the absolute red line for Moscow, not Assad. Guarantee the presence and Assad can be eased out - until we start thinking about what's in it for Moscow rather than solely about a re-run of the Cold War we'll get nowhere. It's not about appeasing Moscow either - it's a recognition they have aspirations, values and a sense of identity and status as much as we do.
We don't do national humiliation well - look how we react when our sportsmen and sportswomen fail - why do we assume other countries don't have the same problem ?
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
Not trying to be funny as I know this wouldn't be your choice but why should you have to be carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom in the first place? It sounds very inefficient.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
One of the key problems in many schools, including mine, is shortage of classroom space. Therefore lessons take place in rooms that are free and resources have to be carried to them if necessary. I am extremely fortunate this year that I have all but one of my lessons in one classroom. It's a perk of being a head of faculty. Two years ago, I taught in four different rooms - the year before that (in a different school) it was six. I actually had to get a little trolley to carry materials around in, and it was so heavily used it wore out in less than a year. NQTs with multiple low-priority classes and older part-time staff get the worst deal. A colleague of mine aged 63 has lessons in four different rooms in several parts of the campus.
It was worse in Bristol where we went to the children. But it's still bad.
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
In what way is Assad 'winning' ?
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
I think you're mistaken. The war is almost over which is why I believe they have invented the chemical weapons attack. The idea that Assad would use these weapons makes no military or strategic sense whatsoever so i suggest it's unlikely to have happened. They need to send some Scandinavians in to investigate. All other nations are suspect particularly The British the American The Russians and The Turks who are at the moment the most vociferous.
Mr. Jessop, I fear that's optimistic beyond realism. Iran and Russia have poured in a lot of resources to support Assad.
And they're not winning. Russia has several aims: their regional influence and bases are important to them, but the bigger and more immediate game for them is the lifting of sanctions. And that's less likely now than ever.
Iran must also be asking themselves whether their end-game is worth the resources they'll have to put in.
Your solution of wanting Assad to win and then everything'll be fine is not optimistic: it's a daydream that has obvious evil consequences.
What matters is the Syrian people, and you have yet to convince me that an Assad win would do the majority of them any good at all. After all, he's killed more Syrians in this war than all the other groups combined.
Around 12% of all Syria's pre-war population has been injured or killed since 2011. And that probably doesn't include the five million who've fled.
Not tried that but can imagine how bloody it can be. Kai got the tip of his ear bitten off by a dog. It bled quite a lot.
Hope the wound heals soon.
It's where a dog is so excited about seeing someone that it wags it's tail vigorously and bags it on any hard object, walls, door frames etc. The end splits and then sprays blood with each wag. Looks worse than it is and the dog doesn't seem to be in pain
Gerrymandering to benefit a party, as opposed to an individual, is harder than you'd think. To maximise the number of seats, the party wants to get most vim for your vote. So the party doesn't want to create just the safest possible seats for its representatives but the maximum number of safe seats. For example, if your party gets 303 votes and your rivals get 300 votes and there are three seats, having a safe seat that you won 200-0 will probably ensure your defeat. If you can engineer three seats that you win 101-100, you sweep the board. That creates a risk of losing all the seats in a wave election against your party, of course (like the 1997 election, which followed a boundary review that had been thought potentially favourable to the Conservatives). So perhaps you might prefer two seats which you win 151-50, knowing that you'll always win those seats and settling for the 2-1 win. Your individual minority opponent will also be happy enough because he has a job for life too (winning 200-1).
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
Not trying to be funny as I know this wouldn't be your choice but why should you have to be carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom in the first place? It sounds very inefficient.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
One of the key problems in many schools, including mine, is shortage of classroom space. Therefore lessons take place in rooms that are free and resources have to be carried to them if necessary. I am extremely fortunate this year that I have all but one of my lessons in one classroom. It's a perk of being a head of faculty. Two years ago, I taught in four different rooms - the year before that (in a different school) it was six. NQTs with multiple low-priority classes and older part-time staff get the worst deal. A colleague of mine aged 63 has lessons in four different rooms in several parts of the campus.
It was worse in Bristol where we went to the children. But it's still bad.
I can understand why you'd need to move classrooms but not why you'd need 15 textbooks. Surely you can't be using more than 1 or 2 per lesson, so why carry them all? Don't your faculty provide any space where you can leave the books for the lessons you're not going to?
Even if you're wanting to carry all your lessons books for the next few periods if there's say three lessons in a row after lunch that's three books not 15.
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
In what way is Assad 'winning' ?
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
I think you're mistaken. The war is almost over which is why I believe they have invented the chemical weapons attack. The idea that Assad would use these weapons makes no military or strategic sense whatsoever so i suggest it's unlikely to have happened. They need to send some Scandinavians in to investigate. All other nations are suspect particularly The British the American The Russians and The Turks who are at the moment the most vociferous.
"The war is almost over."
Citation required.
I've mentioned several reasons why Assad's forces may have used chemical weapons,and it might make very good sense. He's massively short of manpower, and chemical weapons are a great way of denying an area to an enemy (and anyone else) without risking troops. It also does not damage infrastructure as much as a battle.
I think all it will take is for a Scottish politician who's held UK office to come out in favour of independence and a dam will break.
Unless it's J for Jonah Gordon Brown of course. Has Theresa May asked him to demand an instant referendum? If not, another example of poor strategy from her.
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.
I think less than 5 states use an non parusan independent commission. Everywhere else the district drawing is completely partisan, either through state legislature or politically appointies on party lines.
21, depending slightly on how you count them.
As everyone on this thread appears to be guessing or watching late night talk shows for their information, here's the definitive list:
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
Not trying to be funny as I know this wouldn't be your choice but why should you have to be carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom in the first place? It sounds very inefficient.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
One of the key problems in many schools, including mine, is shortage of classroom space. Therefore lessons take place in rooms that are free and resources have to be carried to them if necessary. I am extremely fortunate this year that I have all but one of my lessons in one classroom. It's a perk of being a head of faculty. Two years ago, I taught in four different rooms - the year before that (in a different school) it was six. NQTs with multiple low-priority classes and older part-time staff get the worst deal. A colleague of mine aged 63 has lessons in four different rooms in several parts of the campus.
It was worse in Bristol where we went to the children. But it's still bad.
I can understand why you'd need to move classrooms but not why you'd need 15 textbooks. Surely you can't be using more than 1 or 2 per lesson, so why carry them all? Don't your faculty provide any space where you can leave the books for the lessons you're not going to?
Even if you're wanting to carry all your lessons books for the next few periods if there's say three lessons in a row after lunch that's three books not 15.
Class of 30. 1 between 2 equals 15.
If it's one each, or multiple lessons, then I'm even more stuffed.
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
There's a very interesting comment on that story which suggests that in the case of Dr Dao the airline acted illegally because their staff are not considered ticketed passengers for the purposes of overbooking under Department of Trade rules Therefore they did not have the right to remove anyone involuntarily, let alone by force.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
There's a very long thread running on the professional pilots' forum about this incident, with various points of view expressed.
A legal case would rest on whether it's a legitimate instruction for the passenger to vacate the plane when already seated, for airline operational reasons rather than his behaviour. Legitimate instructions from flight or cabin crew must be obeyed for flight safety reasons, but this was before the doors closed and the plane left. The law would also need to consider whether the airline's calling of the police to eject a non-disruptive passenger was proportionate. I think it's fair to say that the complainant in this case would like a jury to make the decision as to whether he was treated legitimately and proportionally.
Irrespective of the legality, the optics of it look terrible, especially in the context of race and police which is a running story in the US at the moment. The story's going nowhere, the House transportation committee are said to wish to summon United and Chicago transport police to Congress to explain themselves. I'm expecting a shareholder revolt led by large customers shunning United to force Munoz out, but the problems at UA go much much deeper than the CEO.
The SDF look to me to be well on the way to establishing Rojava as a de facto state, whilst everyone else seems to be losing to various degrees. THing is the SDF are nowhere near, and I doubt have much interest right now in Damascus or Homs so it looks like an Assad-rebel-Al Qaeda long long scrap for all of Syria's major cities over the next few years.
Note the SDF is not just the kurds, they seem to have all sorts of foreign fighters in there (As do IS) but with a secular somewhat socialist leaning as opposed to the utterly bonkers interpretation of Islam that IS deal in.
Assad is winning isn't he? Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
I'm not suggesting the successor to Assad shouldn't be someone acceptable to Moscow.
What I am suggesting is Moscow has a huge say in post-Assad Syria predicated on the maintaining of its military presence at Latakia, Tartus and elsewhere. The problem is the drain on Moscow's military and economic resources of its involvement in Syria would end with peace so it's in Moscow's interests to return to if not a status quo ante bellum then a more stable and peaceful Syria.
Assad may be winning for now but as Afghanistan demonstrated, long term military involvement in a country isn't risk or cost free. Better to obviate that risk by reducing the threat of conflict than backing a leader who will never be acceptable or accepted.
Putin is missing a huge opportunity - the West's agenda starts and ends with the removal of Assad. Were Moscow to achieve that, they would a) be able to stand up and look tall in the world as a power able to get things done while b) remaining effective control of Syria and c) styming the West politically.
Putin is caught between a rock and hard place, from his point of view. His image of being the strong man is everything to him.
He intervened in Syria to support the Assad regime and take advantage of Obama's hesitation to make Russia look stronger than the US. But that regime now looks heinous and like Russia (at best) failed to control him, and at worst was complicit. Even if Assad eventually wins, Russia still loses on the international stage.
But, if Putin now withdraws backing from Assad, he will fear he'll look like he's bowed to Western pressure and look weak.
The most likely scenario is that the present situation continues, but Russia ensure Assad (sorry, the "rebels") do not use chemical weapons again, perhaps they will say they've successfully taken out "rebel" stocks, and Russia look for a political win through ending the war with Assad nominally still in charge, but with him 'retiring' shortly after.
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
Not trying to be funny as I know this wouldn't be your choice but why should you have to be carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom in the first place? It sounds very inefficient.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
One of the key problems in many schools, including mine, is shortage of classroom space. Therefore lessons take place in rooms that are free and resources have to be carried to them if necessary. I am extremely fortunate this year that I have all but one of my lessons in one classroom. It's a perk of being a head of faculty. Two years ago, I taught in four different rooms - the year before that (in a different school) it was six. NQTs with multiple low-priority classes and older part-time staff get the worst deal. A colleague of mine aged 63 has lessons in four different rooms in several parts of the campus.
It was worse in Bristol where we went to the children. But it's still bad.
I can understand why you'd need to move classrooms but not why you'd need 15 textbooks. Surely you can't be using more than 1 or 2 per lesson, so why carry them all? Don't your faculty provide any space where you can leave the books for the lessons you're not going to?
Even if you're wanting to carry all your lessons books for the next few periods if there's say three lessons in a row after lunch that's three books not 15.
Class of 30. 1 between 2 equals 15.
If it's one each, or multiple lessons, then I'm even more stuffed.
Oh you have to bring books for the children? In my school we brought our own.
Kai had a substantial tail, used to sound like a drum when he'd thump it against a door.
Anyway, glad it's not serious.
Mr. Jessop, I never said that. We must attend to reality, to quote Loghain. Who can win, and how can that happen?
ISIS is off the table. Which leaves rebels who seem to be in terminal decline, the Kurds (who are geographically limited) and Assad.
To change that would require massive military intervention by the West and a hot war with Russia, or to get Russia and Iran to agree (and perhaps Assad too) to something else. Neither option seems realistic.
I'm not trying to persuade you Assad in power is a good thing, only that the sole realistic alternative, across Syria as a whole, appears to be ISIS.
Kai had a substantial tail, used to sound like a drum when he'd thump it against a door.
Anyway, glad it's not serious.
Mr. Jessop, I never said that. We must attend to reality, to quote Loghain. Who can win, and how can that happen?
ISIS is off the table. Which leaves rebels who seem to be in terminal decline, the Kurds (who are geographically limited) and Assad.
To change that would require massive military intervention by the West and a hot war with Russia, or to get Russia and Iran to agree (and perhaps Assad too) to something else. Neither option seems realistic.
I'm not trying to persuade you Assad in power is a good thing, only that the sole realistic alternative, across Syria as a whole, appears to be ISIS.
No, you're excusing Assad's crimes and are willing to see thousands of others die in his vengeance.
ISIS are evil. Assad's evil (and his forces have killed more Syrians than ISIS). I'm saying we don't back either evil.
I've mentioned several reasons why Assad's forces may have used chemical weapons,and it might make very good sense. He's massively short of manpower, and chemical weapons are a great way of denying an area to an enemy (and anyone else) without risking troops. It also does not damage infrastructure as much as a battle.
Why do you want a citation? It won't convince you (and why should it?)!
The SDF look to me to be well on the way to establishing Rojava as a de facto state, whilst everyone else seems to be losing to various degrees. THing is the SDF are nowhere near, and I doubt have much interest right now in Damascus or Homs so it looks like an Assad-rebel-Al Qaeda long long scrap for all of Syria's major cities over the next few years.
Note the SDF is not just the kurds, they seem to have all sorts of foreign fighters in there (As do IS) but with a secular somewhat socialist leaning as opposed to the utterly bonkers interpretation of Islam that IS deal in.
Yep. So when some of those on here get their way, and Assad 'wins', what'll they do to protect the Kurds and other minorities in that area?
Mr. 86, it is a pretty good circuit, though personally I think Austin's the best of Tilke's circuits.
Yes, Austin's definitely the best. Turkey is good, as is Malaysia which is off after this year.
None of them are a patch on Silverstone or Spa though.
I think they've ruined Silverstone over the years. The complex at the start of the lap just makes it unnecessarily long. If only the plan to do up Brands Hatch had come to fruition, now that's a great track.
I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Agreed. The only thing I would add is that Assad had a reputation as a moderate before the war. If he could convince the Americans that he was a hostage of his senior generals over the use of chemical weapons, they would probably believe it and be willing to let him shoot those generals and lead at least a transitional government.
It would be bollocks, of course, but it would be a convenient fiction that Trump would believe because he wants/needs it to be true. There could be worse ways to stop the fighting than Trump's obsession with alternative facts.
Assad's regime has always been very brutal, even by local standards, but he's probably the best of a horrible bunch now.
Unless the UN (read: The West) is willing to garrison (heavily) these countries in conjunction with progressive Arab allies, and suffer many years of significant casualties, I can't see how this can be changed.
Iran, Tunisia, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq all looked 'progressive' in the 1970s with religious tolerance and Western attitudes and fashions, but it was concentrated in the capitals and amongst the elites.
What happened was a shift to religious dogma and ultra-nationalism - partly due to the West's support of corrupt monarchies/puppet governments, and partly due to their own failure to improve the economic lot of their own population - combined with Saudi funding of extreme Islamic ideology. Frustration over Palestine/Israel also provided a rallying cry.
It's only Jordan, Oman and the UAE I'd currently have any level of confidence in today.
Syrian Democratic Forces - Kurdish forces plus various others (I think some Brits have even joined them). They do have terrorists in their midst though they're more of the IRA (We (Or more precisely Turkey) should eventually be able to talk with them) than the Al Qa'eda/IS/Wahabi loons.
He's talking about Sillars. McLeish has been producing the same variations on an equivocating theme for years, he could give Hamlet lessons in procrastination.
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
Not trying to be funny as I know this wouldn't be your choice but why should you have to be carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom in the first place? It sounds very inefficient.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
One of the key problems in many schools, including mine, is shortage of classroom space. Therefore lessons take place in rooms that are free and resources have to be carried to them if necessary. I am extremely fortunate this year that I have all but one of my lessons in one classroom. It's a perk of being a head of faculty. Two years ago, I taught in four different rooms - the year before that (in a different school) it was six. NQTs with multiple low-priority classes and older part-time staff get the worst deal. A colleague of mine aged 63 has lessons in four different rooms in several parts of the campus.
It was worse in Bristol where we went to the children. But it's still bad.
I can understand why you'd need to move classrooms but not why you'd need 15 textbooks. Surely you can't be using more than 1 or 2 per lesson, so why carry them all? Don't your faculty provide any space where you can leave the books for the lessons you're not going to?
Even if you're wanting to carry all your lessons books for the next few periods if there's say three lessons in a row after lunch that's three books not 15.
Class of 30. 1 between 2 equals 15.
If it's one each, or multiple lessons, then I'm even more stuffed.
Oh you have to bring books for the children? In my school we brought our own.
Not good for the books to be constantly in backpacks though. Also, these days we work out of multiple different books (I think this has always been true in History). So although they do have textbooks at home, we generally take the books to them.
Mr. Jessop, that requires either agreement with Iran/Russia, or massive Western intervention. Sadly, neither seems realistic.
I'm not excusing Assad's crimes. But nor do I think we live in a world where the wicked are necessarily punished for vile acts. If the removal of Assad caused even more pain for ordinary Syrians than his remaining, that's indulging our own morality at the expense of death and torture for others.
Assad's a monster, but a situation can always be made worse (cf Saddam Hussein's removal from Iraq).
This isn't an easy situation. Syria's in an utter mess, full of complicated military and political considerations. I'd much prefer it if I believed your solutions were credible. Given recent history and the current state of affairs, I don't.
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
There's a very interesting comment on that story which suggests that in the case of Dr Dao the airline acted illegally because their staff are not considered ticketed passengers for the purposes of overbooking under Department of Trade rules Therefore they did not have the right to remove anyone involuntarily, let alone by force.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
There's a very long thread running on the professional pilots' forum about this incident, with various points of view expressed.
A legal case would rest on whether it's a legitimate instruction for the passenger to vacate the plane when already seated, for airline operational reasons rather than his behaviour. Legitimate instructions from flight or cabin crew must be obeyed for flight safety reasons, but this was before the doors closed and the plane left. The law would also need to consider whether the airline's calling of the police to eject a non-disruptive passenger was proportionate. I think it's fair to say that the complainant in this case would like a jury to make the decision as to whether he was treated legitimately and proportionally.
Irrespective of the legality, the optics of it look terrible, especially in the context of race and police which is a running story in the US at the moment. The story's going nowhere, the House transportation committee are said to wish to summon United and Chicago transport police to Congress to explain themselves. I'm expecting a shareholder revolt led by large customers shunning United to force Munoz out, but the problems at UA go much much deeper than the CEO.
Syrian Democratic Forces - Kurdish forces plus various others (I think some Brits have even joined them). They do have terrorists in their midst though they're more of the IRA (We (Or more precisely Turkey) should eventually be able to talk with them) than the Al Qa'eda/IS/Wahabi loons.
Mr. 86, it is a pretty good circuit, though personally I think Austin's the best of Tilke's circuits.
Yes, Austin's definitely the best. Turkey is good, as is Malaysia which is off after this year.
None of them are a patch on Silverstone or Spa though.
I think they've ruined Silverstone over the years. The complex at the start of the lap just makes it unnecessarily long. If only the plan to do up Brands Hatch had come to fruition, now that's a great track.
I agree about the new bit, preferred it when they had the flat-out-in-qualifying Bridge corner, they should have removed the Luffield complex when they built the last extension, the lap is too long now.
Brands Hatch would cost a lot of money to bring up to modern F1 standards, they tried doing the same with Donington Park a few years back with disastrous results. Memories of the one-off wet Donington race in 1993, a complete masterclass by one A. Senna who lapped the whole field. Unfortunately I watched that on TV, but many more people will say they were there than would have been able to fit in!
Mr. 86, it is a pretty good circuit, though personally I think Austin's the best of Tilke's circuits.
Yes, Austin's definitely the best. Turkey is good, as is Malaysia which is off after this year.
None of them are a patch on Silverstone or Spa though.
I think they've ruined Silverstone over the years. The complex at the start of the lap just makes it unnecessarily long. If only the plan to do up Brands Hatch had come to fruition, now that's a great track.
I agree about the new bit, preferred it when they had the flat-out-in-qualifying Bridge corner, they should have removed the Luffield complex when they built the last extension, the lap is too long now.
Brands Hatch would cost a lot of money to bring up to modern F1 standards, they tried doing the same with Donington Park a few years back with disastrous results. Memories of the one-off wet Donington race in 1993, a complete masterclass by one A. Senna. Unfortunately I watched that on TV, but many more people will say they were there than would have been able to fit in!
I didn't go, but my brother did. One of my dad's digger drivers got a good experience, as he'd reprofiled some of the gravel traps and some other footling tasks, and got free tickets from Wheatcroft for the weekend.
I suggested last week that Corbyn's "tax private schools to pay for free school meals" policy would end up being a net-unpopular bit of populism - it attacks Middle England's aspirations for their kids, while enraging a previously Labour-supporting group (teachers, who generally loathe universal free school meals).
I suspect that restating the pensions triple lock will be the same. In theory it appeals to the pensioner vote, but in practice that vote is long gone from Labour. People who were around in the '70s and '80s can remember the Winter of Discontent, Militant and all their works. Putting a throwback from that era in charge of Labour means you have to deal with all those preconceptions. Merely moving to parity with the Conservatives on pensions will not suddenly convince over-65s to embrace Corbyn.
What it does achieve, once again, is enraging a group more disposed to currently support Corbyn: younger voters, who think the baby boomers have had it too easy and resent them being further prioritised. This is not so much brave as suicidal.
F1: just as a general comment, it'll be interesting to see how the new regulations (faster cars, more drag, more downforce, DRS less effective) affects various circuits. We could do with some wet races.
Syrian Democratic Forces - Kurdish forces plus various others (I think some Brits have even joined them). They do have terrorists in their midst though they're more of the IRA (We (Or more precisely Turkey) should eventually be able to talk with them) than the Al Qa'eda/IS/Wahabi loons.
Yes well they're in a war with Erdogan's Turkey (Who are hardly saintly). My main point is that long term business ought to be possible, with IS the ideology is so extreme that they are better off being wiped off the map with extreme prejudice.
Mr. Jessop, that requires either agreement with Iran/Russia, or massive Western intervention. Sadly, neither seems realistic.
I'm not excusing Assad's crimes. But nor do I think we live in a world where the wicked are necessarily punished for vile acts. If the removal of Assad caused even more pain for ordinary Syrians than his remaining, that's indulging our own morality at the expense of death and torture for others.
Assad's a monster, but a situation can always be made worse (cf Saddam Hussein's removal from Iraq).
This isn't an easy situation. Syria's in an utter mess, full of complicated military and political considerations. I'd much prefer it if I believed your solutions were credible. Given recent history and the current state of affairs, I don't.
And I think your solution lacks credibility, and also supports evil.
Unfortunately there is simply no possible palatable solution to Syria. The closest would be to replace Assad with someone of Russia's choice - accept that Syria will remain their client state, on the agreement that they keep their domestic oppression hidden from international view. In return, meaningful cooperation on all fronts to drive out the remaining ISIS AND other rebel forces. Nothing changes domestically in Syria, same oppressive regime, and you accept that Syrian refugees will never want or be able to return home.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
Syrian Democratic Forces - Kurdish forces plus various others (I think some Brits have even joined them). They do have terrorists in their midst though they're more of the IRA (We (Or more precisely Turkey) should eventually be able to talk with them) than the Al Qa'eda/IS/Wahabi loons.
Yes well they're in a war with Erdogan's Turkey (Who are hardly saintly). My main point is that long term business ought to be possible, with IS the ideology is so extreme that they are better off being wiped off the map with extreme prejudice.
Indeed. The question is how can we guarantee that they continue to exist if Assad wins? (And other populations as well).
Got to love the BBC flexible policy of not speculating on terrorist, sorry terror, attacks.
A letter at the scene of the Dortmund bus attack says it was us the Islamists, there is a letter online saying it was us the anti-fascists, the club have in the past had a right wing hooligan problem, therefore we the BBC are speculating that it could actually be right wing extremists behind this attack.
Got to love the BBC flexible policy of not speculating on terrorist, sorry terror, attacks.
A letter at the scene of the Dortmund bus attack says it was us the Islamists, there is a letter online saying it was us the anti-fascists, the club have in the past had a right wing hooligan problem, therefore we the BBC are speculating that it could actually be right wing extremists behind this attack.
Unfortunately there is simply no possible palatable solution to Syria. The closest would be to replace Assad with someone of Russia's choice - accept that Syria will remain their client state, on the agreement that they keep their domestic oppression hidden from international view. In return, meaningful cooperation on all fronts to drive out the remaining ISIS AND other rebel forces. Nothing changes domestically in Syria, same oppressive regime, and you accept that Syrian refugees will never want or be able to return home.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
A good post. However Russia isn't interested in all of Syria: it is interested in only certain bits. They won't want to risk large numbers of men and amounts of machinery in securing all of the country. Yet Assad cannot do it alone.
Iran's interest is much more immediate and widespread. Iran's the country with the real power.
(If Russia was to pull out, and even stop backing Assad in the UN, then Assad would not immediately fall. If Iran pulled out he would).
I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Boris presumably because he is the loosest of loose cannons and will do something stupid at some stage.
Hammond after the budget.
Fox because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I agree the first two are poor value. Losing such a senior figure is something serious. If it happens, it will either need careful planning or bring down the government. Hammond appears doubly safe because it's hard to see anyone else who could command the same respect as Chancellor and no. 2 in the government at present.
If anyone wants value, Justine Greening might just be vulnerable. There are some very nasty problems building up around the new GCSE and A-levels - too rushed, too difficult, inadequate training for teachers, insufficient examiners, exam board IT systems under pressure (and according to an email I have just had, being hacked by outsiders). As a result this summer could be extraordinarily chaotic and difficult. Moreover, vicious budget cuts and severe reductions in curriculum options, increases in class sizes and in some areas, even charges are about to come in.
None of those are her fault, but it could potentially destroy OFQUAL and if that goes it's hard to imagine there will be no knock-on effect at the DfE. In an ideal world both would be abolished along with OFSTED and the money spent on something useful. That won't happen of course but the civil servants who have royally goofed up may try to hide behind the minister.
DYOR but I think she's in a nasty spot. And May's not Cameron - she doesn't back her ministers the way he did.
You should write a thread on that. It's an interesting an valuable point.
I suggested last week that Corbyn's "tax private schools to pay for free school meals" policy would end up being a net-unpopular bit of populism - it attacks Middle England's aspirations for their kids, while enraging a previously Labour-supporting group (teachers, who generally loathe universal free school meals).
What makes you think that? I'd be all for children having two proper meals a day, never mind one. Might make the hungry little sods pay attention when I am going through the finer points of Alexander II's judicial reforms.
My main concern with that policy was that it was typical unworkable class war bullshit, like most Labour policies. The idea was to pay for it by taxing private schools effectively out of existence. But if you tax them out of existence, then where's the income for the free school meals? Moreover, how do you pay for the extra half-million or so extra places the implosion of the private sector would instantly necessitate?
Really, it was the most incoherent policy since Joseph Chamberlain famously proposed a tariff to keep out all foreign goods and then said the money raised from imports would be used to fund old age pensions (which is what the Imperial Preference scheme of 1903 boiled down to, although there were other significant flaws in it).
Btw I'm not sure if it was an accurate statistic but the Syrian regime's bodycount was MILES ahead of ISIS. Like 170k to 10k or some such.
Is that true or ? The "impression" one could have before is that they were 'roughly equal' or some such.
Some figures make out more people have 'died' in his prison camps than ISIS have killed.
The truth is we cannot know: it's all such a mess. But I personally have no doubt that his regime have killed large numbers of his own population, often for political rather than military 'crimes'.
Also note the allegations of Russia hitting non-extremist rebels more than ISIS / AlN
I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Yes, lay the favourite(s). More likely is a general reshuffle at some point, with musical chairs leaving someone unexpected without a seat, than a scandal hit minister resigning.
Didn't you once write a thread about political 'events' actually happening much less often than is commonly perceived?
I did.
I think it's partly a false-memory thing, in that public and media alike remember the dramatic and forget the crises-of-the-moment that pass without lasting effect; the net result being to create a false ratio of incidents to resignations, for example. And the other part is in wishful thinking - looking forward rather than back - and wanting this (whatever 'this' happens to be), to be the next big story, an outcome in which quite a few of the actors will have a vested interest.
I'd also mention that while events happen much less often that perceived, when they do happen, they tend to crowd together, as big earthquakes trigger foreshocks and aftershocks. This may also be part of the perception issue: that we disproportionately remember the times when a lot does happen (like last summer, or the last 3 years for that matter), over those when they don't.
Btw I'm not sure if it was an accurate statistic but the Syrian regime's bodycount was MILES ahead of ISIS. Like 170k to 10k or some such.
Is that true or ? The "impression" one could have before is that they were 'roughly equal' or some such.
Some figures make out more people have 'died' in his prison camps than ISIS have killed.
The truth is we cannot know: it's all such a mess. But I personally have no doubt that his regime have killed large numbers of his own population, often for political rather than military 'crimes'.
Also note the allegations of Russia hitting non-extremist rebels more than ISIS / AlN
An obvious reason is that whilst IS' territory is almost exactly a third of the country (The same size as the government, give or take who has Palmyra at any time), it has 1/6 or so of the population and is for the most part desert. Which is the sort of geographical isolation that is in line with their aims of terrorism/caliphate starter pack creation rather than the far more difficult task of trying to capture and keep a Homs, Damascus or Aleppo.
Btw I'm not sure if it was an accurate statistic but the Syrian regime's bodycount was MILES ahead of ISIS. Like 170k to 10k or some such.
Is that true or ? The "impression" one could have before is that they were 'roughly equal' or some such.
Some figures make out more people have 'died' in his prison camps than ISIS have killed.
The truth is we cannot know: it's all such a mess. But I personally have no doubt that his regime have killed large numbers of his own population, often for political rather than military 'crimes'.
Also note the allegations of Russia hitting non-extremist rebels more than ISIS / AlN
An obvious reason is that whilst IS' territory is almost exactly a third of the country (The same size as the government, give or take who has Palmyra at any time), it has 1/6 or so of the population and is for the most part desert. Which is the sort of geographical isolation that is in line with their aims of terrorism/caliphate starter pack creation rather than the far more difficult task of trying to capture and keep a Homs, Damascus or Aleppo.
I suggested last week that Corbyn's "tax private schools to pay for free school meals" policy would end up being a net-unpopular bit of populism - it attacks Middle England's aspirations for their kids, while enraging a previously Labour-supporting group (teachers, who generally loathe universal free school meals).
What makes you think that? I'd be all for children having two proper meals a day, never mind one. Might make the hungry little sods pay attention when I am going through the finer points of Alexander II's judicial reforms.
My main concern with that policy was that it was typical unworkable class war bullshit, like most Labour policies. The idea was to pay for it by taxing private schools effectively out of existence. But if you tax them out of existence, then where's the income for the free school meals? Moreover, how do you pay for the extra half-million or so extra places the implosion of the private sector would instantly necessitate?
Really, it was the most incoherent policy since Joseph Chamberlain famously proposed a tariff to keep out all foreign goods and then said the money raised from imports would be used to fund old age pensions (which is what the Imperial Preference scheme of 1903 boiled down to, although there were other significant flaws in it).
"that policy [...] was typical unworkable class war bullshit"
That's really all that can be said about it and shows Jeremy hasn’t moved on from the 1970s.
Unfortunately there is simply no possible palatable solution to Syria. The closest would be to replace Assad with someone of Russia's choice - accept that Syria will remain their client state, on the agreement that they keep their domestic oppression hidden from international view. In return, meaningful cooperation on all fronts to drive out the remaining ISIS AND other rebel forces. Nothing changes domestically in Syria, same oppressive regime, and you accept that Syrian refugees will never want or be able to return home.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
A good post. However Russia isn't interested in all of Syria: it is interested in only certain bits. They won't want to risk large numbers of men and amounts of machinery in securing all of the country. Yet Assad cannot do it alone.
Iran's interest is much more immediate and widespread. Iran's the country with the real power.
(If Russia was to pull out, and even stop backing Assad in the UN, then Assad would not immediately fall. If Iran pulled out he would).
But you continue to ignore the main player in Syria and the one who bears the most responsibility for the Civil War and that is Saudi Arabia. The actions of Iran and Russia - and of countries like Turkey - have been reactive. They were not the cause of the civil war. Saudi Arabia has long had a policy of trying to undermine and topple Assad and it is they who have been feeding the fire with arms and support for a very long time.
Unfortunately there is simply no possible palatable solution to Syria. The closest would be to replace Assad with someone of Russia's choice - accept that Syria will remain their client state, on the agreement that they keep their domestic oppression hidden from international view. In return, meaningful cooperation on all fronts to drive out the remaining ISIS AND other rebel forces. Nothing changes domestically in Syria, same oppressive regime, and you accept that Syrian refugees will never want or be able to return home.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
A good post. However Russia isn't interested in all of Syria: it is interested in only certain bits. They won't want to risk large numbers of men and amounts of machinery in securing all of the country. Yet Assad cannot do it alone.
Iran's interest is much more immediate and widespread. Iran's the country with the real power.
(If Russia was to pull out, and even stop backing Assad in the UN, then Assad would not immediately fall. If Iran pulled out he would).
But you continue to ignore the main player in Syria and the one who bears the most responsibility for the Civil War and that is Saudi Arabia. The actions of Iran and Russia - and of countries like Turkey - have been reactive. They were not the cause of the civil war. Saudi Arabia has long had a policy of trying to undermine and topple Assad and it is they who have been feeding the fire with arms and support for a very long time.
You keep on saying that, but it's rubbish. The main cause of the civil war was Assad's treatment of his own population.
Mr. Tyndall, good point. Wasn't Qatar accused of similar actions?
It's a terrible point, as it's wrong. It's just another feeble attempt to excuse Assad of his crimes, to make him the victim rather than the perpetrator.
If anyone wants value, Justine Greening might just be vulnerable. There are some very nasty problems building up around the new GCSE and A-levels - too rushed, too difficult, inadequate training for teachers, insufficient examiners, exam board IT systems under pressure (and according to an email I have just had, being hacked by outsiders). As a result this summer could be extraordinarily chaotic and difficult. Moreover, vicious budget cuts and severe reductions in curriculum options, increases in class sizes and in some areas, even charges are about to come in.
None of those are her fault, but it could potentially destroy OFQUAL and if that goes it's hard to imagine there will be no knock-on effect at the DfE. In an ideal world both would be abolished along with OFSTED and the money spent on something useful. That won't happen of course but the civil servants who have royally goofed up may try to hide behind the minister.
DYOR but I think she's in a nasty spot. And May's not Cameron - she doesn't back her ministers the way he did.
You should write a thread on that. It's an interesting an valuable point.
Well, if I have time I might. But if you want a rather disturbing account of the pressure on the system, look at these two articles from the TES:
To put this in context, when I taught at one of the schools mentioned here just three years ago, funding was close to 6,000 per pupil.
People are not going to be happy at being asked for money for a free education.
With regard to OFQUAL, remember also that the person responsible for the forthcoming debacle was appointed head of OFSTED, on the basis of how well she'd done!
Comments
That's a regular pattern.
There was great jubilation on here when Palmyra was recaptured from ISIS a year ago. And rightly so. However ISIS just went and got it back, and held it for three months until a few weeks ago.
Why? Because Assad doesn't have enough troops. He's facing the same issue the Americans and we did in (say) Afghanistan: has has enough force to subdue an area, but not necessarily hold it. The moment the troops go, enemy forces can re-enter if they want.
Remove Saddam.. additional loss of life incalculable maybe a million
Remove Gadaffi. Libya in turmoil loss of life not known
Attempt to remove Assad Death toll horrendous
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2015/05/syria-country-divided-150529144229467.html
"I agree the peace is problematic." has to be one of the most pathetic sentences you've ever uttered. You can't just make blundering proposals for supporting a mass-murdering dictator without asking yourself what the peace would be, and *how* he'd manage to keep the peace.
(Hint: by killing people).
Had we attempted to remove Assad when he used chemical weapons and Obama was on the brink of acting until Parliament said no then the civil war could have ended years sooner and the rise of ISIS could have been prevented.
I think a two tier retirement with manual workers able to retire at 60 and sedentary jobs 67 - 68 - 69 - 70 etc.
Generally manual workers are more reliant on the state pension whereas sedentary workers can use their workplace pensions until the state pension becomes payable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/21/syria-torture-execution_n_4635434.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/least-13-000-hanged-syrian-prison-2011-amnesty-international-n717671
+ more.
As for the peace, the question is who can win? We'd all agree ISIS must not.
That essentially leaves Assad. The rebels are on their back, and the Kurds (as far as I know) don't even want all Syria, just the Kurdish areas.
Assad's done terrible things, but unless we're willing to intervene on a massive scale he's going to win this war. Assisting the Kurds (which would then antagonise Turkey) may well be as far as the Western response goes.
I am no lawyer. Does anyone more knowledgeable about these things know if that might be correct? If so that would be a highly awkward development for United. Or is it just a NWNF shark touting for business?
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/02/23/how-assad-is-winning/
Edit - rereading that might look like i am being sarcastic. I'm not. Genuinely haven't been following that closely and assumed from scanning headlines and skim reading that Assad is winning.
1 or 2 as required I could understand but why not have a bookshelf that you can leave your textbooks on rather than lugging them around?
When the state pension age was made 65 the average man died at 67, now people expect to have a long and comfortable retirement in a way never envisioned when the state system was set up.
Private pensions are even worse, especially DB schemes. A friend retired in about 2000 aged 55 on a DB scheme, from a former public engineering company. He will most likely spend 30 years in retirement as he spend 30 years in employment, completely unsustainable but very good for the individual. Britain's Airways has been described as a pension scheme that happens to run an airline, they're not far off. Local authorities have the same problem, with pensions to former employees being a huge part of their staff budget.
No but.
This is not something like saying, but Syria will have to split. The reason for the civil war is that populations in certain areas did not like the government. That problem won't have gone away after so many years of war.
If they don't want to live under Assad's dictatorship, let the Kurds have an area; let the Alawites. Let the Turkmen; let the non-Alawite Sunnis. Again, if they desire. It'd be nice if this could be a federal system, but that's probably not possible.
Then let the refugees go and live in whichever areas they want. It'd piss of Turkey and Iran mainly, but so be it (though for Turkey it would have a positive: they'd not have to support so many refugees, which is hurting them socially and economically).
Splitting might be the best theoretical outcome, but I'm not sure I can see it occurring in reality (perhaps beyond Kurdish Syria breaking away).
Mt poor 7yr old puppy has developed happy tail! The hall looks like a CSI crime scene whenever anyone knock at the door.
Anyone tried bandaging a dogs tail - nightmare
The time to offload people where it has to be done is at check-in, not on the plane!
Not tried that but can imagine how bloody it can be. Kai got the tip of his ear bitten off by a dog. It bled quite a lot.
Hope the wound heals soon.
https://twitter.com/chrisdeerin/status/852053060369166336
The reality is that the country's already split. I'm unsure how Assad could force it together again without further massive loss of life.
We should not look to help either evil, but to do what we can for the thing that really matters: the people.
As an old friend of mine would say "we are where we are".
There are two problems with trying not to be involved in Syria - one is IS or Daesh or whatever you want to call the death cultists in Raqqa. If they were only persecuting their own people that would be bad enough but their lunacy has spread to our streets so needs to be confronted and eradicated.
The second is the Syrian Diaspora - the notion people will voluntarily go home to a Syria led by a vengeful Assad and his clique is absurd. Once international eyes are elsewhere, they can be gassed, shot, shelled or murdered with impunity.
We are involved even if we don't want to be and that means trying to think of new and different solutions and starting with using the same old clapped out Cold War rhetoric with Putin we've used with all Moscow leaders since 1945 is ludicrous.
We need to start with some different thinking - Russia doesn't care about Assad, it cares about its military status and presence in the eastern Mediterranean. That presence is the absolute red line for Moscow, not Assad. Guarantee the presence and Assad can be eased out - until we start thinking about what's in it for Moscow rather than solely about a re-run of the Cold War we'll get nowhere. It's not about appeasing Moscow either - it's a recognition they have aspirations, values and a sense of identity and status as much as we do.
We don't do national humiliation well - look how we react when our sportsmen and sportswomen fail - why do we assume other countries don't have the same problem ?
None of them are a patch on Silverstone or Spa though.
It was worse in Bristol where we went to the children. But it's still bad.
Iran must also be asking themselves whether their end-game is worth the resources they'll have to put in.
Your solution of wanting Assad to win and then everything'll be fine is not optimistic: it's a daydream that has obvious evil consequences.
What matters is the Syrian people, and you have yet to convince me that an Assad win would do the majority of them any good at all. After all, he's killed more Syrians in this war than all the other groups combined.
Around 12% of all Syria's pre-war population has been injured or killed since 2011. And that probably doesn't include the five million who've fled.
Better mathematicians than me could help devise the optimum strategy for winning a majority without risking a crushing defeat.
So if you want to deduce whether the Republicans are gerrymandering at a party level, don't look at the Republican seats in states that they control, look at the Democrat seats in those states. If those Democrat seats are safer than the Republican seats (piling up Democrat votes uselessly), you might have a point. Otherwise, it is probably politicians individually looking after themselves.
Shame we're losing Malaysia and keeping Azerbaijan, but there we are.
Even if you're wanting to carry all your lessons books for the next few periods if there's say three lessons in a row after lunch that's three books not 15.
Citation required.
I've mentioned several reasons why Assad's forces may have used chemical weapons,and it might make very good sense. He's massively short of manpower, and chemical weapons are a great way of denying an area to an enemy (and anyone else) without risking troops. It also does not damage infrastructure as much as a battle.
Like, trying to pass off the Arkansas commission as non-partisan is a joke.
If it's one each, or multiple lessons, then I'm even more stuffed.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/593329-usa-today-ua-forcibly-remove-random-pax-flight-27.html
A legal case would rest on whether it's a legitimate instruction for the passenger to vacate the plane when already seated, for airline operational reasons rather than his behaviour. Legitimate instructions from flight or cabin crew must be obeyed for flight safety reasons, but this was before the doors closed and the plane left. The law would also need to consider whether the airline's calling of the police to eject a non-disruptive passenger was proportionate. I think it's fair to say that the complainant in this case would like a jury to make the decision as to whether he was treated legitimately and proportionally.
Irrespective of the legality, the optics of it look terrible, especially in the context of race and police which is a running story in the US at the moment. The story's going nowhere, the House transportation committee are said to wish to summon United and Chicago transport police to Congress to explain themselves. I'm expecting a shareholder revolt led by large customers shunning United to force Munoz out, but the problems at UA go much much deeper than the CEO.
THing is the SDF are nowhere near, and I doubt have much interest right now in Damascus or Homs so it looks like an Assad-rebel-Al Qaeda long long scrap for all of Syria's major cities over the next few years.
I do wonder if the SDF will have a crack at Raqqah any time soon, they are close https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg
and it is definitely not a friendly neighbour...
Note the SDF is not just the kurds, they seem to have all sorts of foreign fighters in there (As do IS) but with a secular somewhat socialist leaning as opposed to the utterly bonkers interpretation of Islam that IS deal in.
He intervened in Syria to support the Assad regime and take advantage of Obama's hesitation to make Russia look stronger than the US. But that regime now looks heinous and like Russia (at best) failed to control him, and at worst was complicit. Even if Assad eventually wins, Russia still loses on the international stage.
But, if Putin now withdraws backing from Assad, he will fear he'll look like he's bowed to Western pressure and look weak.
The most likely scenario is that the present situation continues, but Russia ensure Assad (sorry, the "rebels") do not use chemical weapons again, perhaps they will say they've successfully taken out "rebel" stocks, and Russia look for a political win through ending the war with Assad nominally still in charge, but with him 'retiring' shortly after.
Kai had a substantial tail, used to sound like a drum when he'd thump it against a door.
Anyway, glad it's not serious.
Mr. Jessop, I never said that. We must attend to reality, to quote Loghain. Who can win, and how can that happen?
ISIS is off the table. Which leaves rebels who seem to be in terminal decline, the Kurds (who are geographically limited) and Assad.
To change that would require massive military intervention by the West and a hot war with Russia, or to get Russia and Iran to agree (and perhaps Assad too) to something else. Neither option seems realistic.
I'm not trying to persuade you Assad in power is a good thing, only that the sole realistic alternative, across Syria as a whole, appears to be ISIS.
ISIS are evil. Assad's evil (and his forces have killed more Syrians than ISIS). I'm saying we don't back either evil.
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14894334.Former_First_Minister_Henry_McLeish__I___m_ready_to_back_Scottish_independence_following_Brexit_vote/
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-syria-civil-war-bashar-al-assad-raqqa-manbij-turkey-russia-us-coalition-a7614706.html%3Famp
Iran, Tunisia, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq all looked 'progressive' in the 1970s with religious tolerance and Western attitudes and fashions, but it was concentrated in the capitals and amongst the elites.
What happened was a shift to religious dogma and ultra-nationalism - partly due to the West's support of corrupt monarchies/puppet governments, and partly due to their own failure to improve the economic lot of their own population - combined with Saudi funding of extreme Islamic ideology. Frustration over Palestine/Israel also provided a rallying cry.
It's only Jordan, Oman and the UAE I'd currently have any level of confidence in today.
McLeish has been producing the same variations on an equivocating theme for years, he could give Hamlet lessons in procrastination.
I'm not excusing Assad's crimes. But nor do I think we live in a world where the wicked are necessarily punished for vile acts. If the removal of Assad caused even more pain for ordinary Syrians than his remaining, that's indulging our own morality at the expense of death and torture for others.
Assad's a monster, but a situation can always be made worse (cf Saddam Hussein's removal from Iraq).
This isn't an easy situation. Syria's in an utter mess, full of complicated military and political considerations. I'd much prefer it if I believed your solutions were credible. Given recent history and the current state of affairs, I don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present)
The sad thing is that they were so near peace. The failure of the Solution Process is a tragedy for so many people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_process
Brands Hatch would cost a lot of money to bring up to modern F1 standards, they tried doing the same with Donington Park a few years back with disastrous results. Memories of the one-off wet Donington race in 1993, a complete masterclass by one A. Senna who lapped the whole field. Unfortunately I watched that on TV, but many more people will say they were there than would have been able to fit in!
I suggested last week that Corbyn's "tax private schools to pay for free school meals" policy would end up being a net-unpopular bit of populism - it attacks Middle England's aspirations for their kids, while enraging a previously Labour-supporting group (teachers, who generally loathe universal free school meals).
I suspect that restating the pensions triple lock will be the same. In theory it appeals to the pensioner vote, but in practice that vote is long gone from Labour. People who were around in the '70s and '80s can remember the Winter of Discontent, Militant and all their works. Putting a throwback from that era in charge of Labour means you have to deal with all those preconceptions. Merely moving to parity with the Conservatives on pensions will not suddenly convince over-65s to embrace Corbyn.
What it does achieve, once again, is enraging a group more disposed to currently support Corbyn: younger voters, who think the baby boomers have had it too easy and resent them being further prioritised. This is not so much brave as suicidal.
The west can afford to capitulate more in terms of negotiations over Syria, because it is less high stakes for us. No western politician is going to lose elections because of reducing our involvement in Syria. Putin has staked so much on Syria that he does not have much room to budge. The best semi-realistic option is therefore to effectively cede the country to Russia, let them replace Assad with a puppet of their choice, keep any oppression low level (no chemical weapons etc) and the diaspora have to make new lives elsewhere. Hardly a good solution, but I don't see any possible better option.
A letter at the scene of the Dortmund bus attack says it was us the Islamists, there is a letter online saying it was us the anti-fascists, the club have in the past had a right wing hooligan problem, therefore we the BBC are speculating that it could actually be right wing extremists behind this attack.
That is some Alex Jones type shit there.
Is that true or ? The "impression" one could have before is that they were 'roughly equal' or some such.
Iran's interest is much more immediate and widespread. Iran's the country with the real power.
(If Russia was to pull out, and even stop backing Assad in the UN, then Assad would not immediately fall. If Iran pulled out he would).
My main concern with that policy was that it was typical unworkable class war bullshit, like most Labour policies. The idea was to pay for it by taxing private schools effectively out of existence. But if you tax them out of existence, then where's the income for the free school meals? Moreover, how do you pay for the extra half-million or so extra places the implosion of the private sector would instantly necessitate?
Really, it was the most incoherent policy since Joseph Chamberlain famously proposed a tariff to keep out all foreign goods and then said the money raised from imports would be used to fund old age pensions (which is what the Imperial Preference scheme of 1903 boiled down to, although there were other significant flaws in it).
The truth is we cannot know: it's all such a mess. But I personally have no doubt that his regime have killed large numbers of his own population, often for political rather than military 'crimes'.
Also note the allegations of Russia hitting non-extremist rebels more than ISIS / AlN
I think it's partly a false-memory thing, in that public and media alike remember the dramatic and forget the crises-of-the-moment that pass without lasting effect; the net result being to create a false ratio of incidents to resignations, for example. And the other part is in wishful thinking - looking forward rather than back - and wanting this (whatever 'this' happens to be), to be the next big story, an outcome in which quite a few of the actors will have a vested interest.
I'd also mention that while events happen much less often that perceived, when they do happen, they tend to crowd together, as big earthquakes trigger foreshocks and aftershocks. This may also be part of the perception issue: that we disproportionately remember the times when a lot does happen (like last summer, or the last 3 years for that matter), over those when they don't.
Which is the sort of geographical isolation that is in line with their aims of terrorism/caliphate starter pack creation rather than the far more difficult task of trying to capture and keep a Homs, Damascus or Aleppo.
That's really all that can be said about it and shows Jeremy hasn’t moved on from the 1970s.
That's just taking the piss.
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/our-school-ethos-now-based-cost-cutting-teachers-reveal-true-impact
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/ive-tried-insulate-staff-pain-education-funding-cuts-come-september
And this one, which I think will prove the killer:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/14/should-parents-pay-fees-state-school-education
To put this in context, when I taught at one of the schools mentioned here just three years ago, funding was close to 6,000 per pupil.
People are not going to be happy at being asked for money for a free education.
With regard to OFQUAL, remember also that the person responsible for the forthcoming debacle was appointed head of OFSTED, on the basis of how well she'd done!