I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
Sabah Khan's internet search history included "venomous snakes for sale", "how to poison someone" and "16 steps to kill someone and not get caught". She had also been in touch with a "black magic priest" in Pakistan who she had paid £5,000 to kill her sister "by remote control".
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
Reminiscent of the old classic, 'Enraged cow injures farmer with axe.'
My favourite is
'Man shoots elephant wearing his pyjamas'
Even if it was quite a small elephant, he must have been a very large gentleman!
Back in the 90s. when I was at school, we had a trip to the Daily Telegraph, and our guide showed us his favourite headlines from the archives, the one that stuck in the mind was
'At least twenty men sodomised by evil Banana'
Turns out the Banana was Canaan Banana, former President of Zimbabwe.
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
No - the her refers to the subject of the sentence, which the victim isn't. It's doubly silly (literally) as they had already said she had murdered her sister.
I had never noticed before the difference in the ten commandments between the King James version - which of course is used here - and the Catholic version which I learned as a kid at convent school.
Ignoring the differences of language to describe basically the same thing there are two major changes.
The First commandment which in the Catholic version is a single commandment (First I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not have false gods before me and though shalt not worship idols), in the King James version is split into two.
Since this would give 11 commandments, the 9th and 10th commandments have been combined into one. In the Catholic version 9 is Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife (as separate from the 6th commandment about adultery) whilst the 10th is thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass/ox/general duty free goods. These are cobined in the KJ version into one all encompassing ban on coveting anything.
I'm rather puzzled by that. How would the presence or absence of a deal between the UK and the EU make any difference to trading with China, once we are no longer members of the EU? Surely it's China we should be talking to, in order to ensure no disruption to our trade and their medical supplies?
Well for a start, will China recognise a UK QP for signing off the release of the finished product? The EMA that currently regulates that kind of thing is currently based in London - very advantageously for the UK pharma business as it happens - will be relocating. We don't know where yet. We might hope that the UK's issues will stay on the top of their agenda but we can hardly expect them to. No doubt it will all get sorted out but the plain fact is nobody knows what is going to happen.
I had never noticed before the difference in the ten commandments between the King James version - which of course is used here - and the Catholic version which I learned as a kid at convent school.
Ignoring the differences of language to describe basically the same thing there are two major changes.
The First commandment which in the Catholic version is a single commandment (First I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not have false gods before me and though shalt not worship idols), in the King James version is split into two.
Since this would give 11 commandments, the 9th and 10th commandments have been combined into one. In the Catholic version 9 is Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife (as separate from the 6th commandment about adultery) whilst the 10th is thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass/ox/general duty free goods. These are cobined in the KJ version into one all encompassing ban on coveting anything.
I'm rather puzzled by that. How would the presence or absence of a deal between the UK and the EU make any difference to trading with China, once we are no longer members of the EU? Surely it's China we should be talking to, in order to ensure no disruption to our trade and their medical supplies?
Or German news[papers are no more reliable and informed than their British counterparts.
I'm rather puzzled by that. How would the presence or absence of a deal between the UK and the EU make any difference to trading with China, once we are no longer members of the EU? Surely it's China we should be talking to, in order to ensure no disruption to our trade and their medical supplies?
Yep, it doesn't seem right, does it? And yet...and yet...here is (apparently) someone very senior, let's call him an expert, at AstraZeneca saying it is so.
Yep, it doesn't seem right, does it? And yet...and yet...here is (apparently) someone very senior, let's call him an expert, at AstraZeneca saying it is so.
Problems...problems...
And once again Brexiteers know better than the experts...
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
No - the her refers to the subject of the sentence, which the victim isn't. It's doubly silly (literally) as they had already said she had murdered her sister.
No - the "her" could just as well refer to the object of the main clause. If, for example, the sentence had read, "A woman who murdered her brother while having an affair with his wife has been jailed for a minimum of 22 years," there would have been no problem, even though it is grammatically identical.
Interestingly, this ambiguity wouldn't arise in German, which uses different pronouns to refer to the subject or object of the main clause.
Reminiscent of the old classic, 'Enraged cow injures farmer with axe.'
My favourite is
'Man shoots elephant wearing his pyjamas'
Even if it was quite a small elephant, he must have been a very large gentleman!
Back in the 90s. when I was at school, we had a trip to the Daily Telegraph, and our guide showed us his favourite headlines from the archives, the one that stuck in the mind was
'At least twenty men sodomised by evil Banana'
Turns out the Banana was Canaan Banana, former President of Zimbabwe.
the unbiased observer might well, like Mr Mugabe, have been struck by the British cabinet's lack of visible heterosexuals.
A cabinet with Robin Cook in it (and later and even more amazingly, John Prescott) was hardly without visible heterosexuals. Indeed, we were all wondering what the hell women saw in them!
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
No - the her refers to the subject of the sentence, which the victim isn't. It's doubly silly (literally) as they had already said she had murdered her sister.
No - the "her" could just as well refer to the object of the main clause. If, for example, the sentence had read, "A woman who murdered her brother while having an affair with his wife has been jailed for a minimum of 22 years," there would have been no problem, even though it is grammatically identical.
Interestingly, this ambiguity wouldn't arise in German, which uses different pronouns to refer to the subject or object of the main clause.
It could have done, but according to strict rules of grammar it doesn't.
Wouldn't have arisen in English if they had thought to check their grammar!
I was hearing yesterday that Trump is making progress with his tax code changes in the House which will allow a tax holiday of sorts which will in turn allow the tech giants to bring $1trn+ back to the US. If he delivers that and if the conditionality requires that money to be invested in the US writing Trump off in 2020 may well prove an expensive mistake.
The last person to implement a "tax holiday" for firms who brought back money from abroad was Clinton. Firms who brought back money were less likely to invest in the US, than those who did not. And pretty much all the repatriated money was used for share buybacks rather than investment.
Why?
1. CEOs of firms are rational and have short time horizons. If you give them $100, they'll buy back $100 of stock so as to benefit from the uplift in share price.
2. The government is sending the message that it's OK to invest abroad, because at some point there will be a tax holiday and you can bring it home.
(There's a bigger issue too. Real interest rates are close to zero for investment grade companies in the US already. If you want to build a factory in Dayton, Ohio, then it's not lack of capital that's constraining you - it's the fact that your return will be much higher if you build it somewhere else.)
Which is why the tax changes need to be permanent rather than temporary. From my limited understanding of capital investment in the US, other things being equal they’ll build the factory in whichever county or state gives them the biggest bribe corporate tax break.
That said, if $2trn comes back onshore, it’ll get spent somewhere, and it will look good on Trump.
There was an article today saying they are moving away from global taxation. That's *much* bigger news
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
Makes no sense. We are unlikely to know the terms for post-Brexit (ie post-transition deal) until some time into the transition deal. After that, I can only see there being another transition deal to implement the new deal. The government inaccurately calls the transition deal (actually a moratorium) an implementation deal and then in the same breath says nothing will change for two years.
So which is it?
Which brings us back to the views of Remainers. I think it unlikely that in April 2021 we will be in any position to step into a new relationship with the EU (or anyone else) because that would be a cliff-edge. So there will be a *********ion period. And during this *******ion period, we will have a GE and the new govt might decide that it will maintain that status until further notice. Yes we will be out of the EU, but we will look, feel, and indeed quack like we are still in.
Apologies for not replying sooner, I was working.
The point I am making is that it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Legally unless we ask for and get a formal extension agreed by all 27 EU members, in March 2019 we are out of the EU. You can spend all day saying it would make no sense but that is the position under Article 50 and 'sense' has nothing to do with it one way or another. We will no longer be a part of the EU legally, will no longer have representation on any of its bodies and will no longer be included in any new treaties or agreements.
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
The baseline here is the 4% who said yes to "Have you ever been decapitated?" So in fact it's good news - even 50% of the demented think murder is a no no.
I'm rather puzzled by that. How would the presence or absence of a deal between the UK and the EU make any difference to trading with China, once we are no longer members of the EU? Surely it's China we should be talking to, in order to ensure no disruption to our trade and their medical supplies?
The linked article explains the import of pharmaceuticals into China is controlled through a cooperation agreement with the EU, presumably covering certification. If the UK doesn't remain part of that agreement there is no mechanism to import those drugs. The implication, I think, is that China is unlikely to be in a hurry to replicate those arrangements in a different agreement. They can get what they need from the EU, which is a known entity that they trust because they have worked with them for years.
Edit. This is an issue for a lot of third country agreements. The EU system is important to those third countries.
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
No - the her refers to the subject of the sentence, which the victim isn't. It's doubly silly (literally) as they had already said she had murdered her sister.
No - the "her" could just as well refer to the object of the main clause. If, for example, the sentence had read, "A woman who murdered her brother while having an affair with his wife has been jailed for a minimum of 22 years," there would have been no problem, even though it is grammatically identical.
Interestingly, this ambiguity wouldn't arise in German, which uses different pronouns to refer to the subject or object of the main clause.
It could have done, but according to strict rules of grammar it doesn't.
Wouldn't have arisen in English if they had thought to check their grammar!
I'm not aware of any rule of grammar that states that the pronouns used in subordinate clauses must only apply to the subject of the main clause. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
Makes no sense. We are unlikely to know the terms for post-Brexit (ie post-transition deal) until some time into the transition deal. After that, I can only see there being another transition deal to implement the new deal. The government inaccurately calls the transition deal (actually a moratorium) an implementation deal and then in the same breath says nothing will change for two years.
So which is it?
Which brings us back to the views of Remainers. I think it unlikely that in April 2021 we will be in any position to step into a new relationship with the EU (or anyone else) because that would be a cliff-edge. So there will be a *********ion period. And during this *******ion period, we will have a GE and the new govt might decide that it will maintain that status until further notice. Yes we will be out of the EU, but we will look, feel, and indeed quack like we are still in.
Apologies for not replying sooner, I was working.
The point I am making is that it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Legally unless we ask for and get a formal extension agreed by all 27 EU members, in March 2019 we are out of the EU. You can spend all day saying it would make no sense but that is the position under Article 50 and 'sense' has nothing to do with it one way or another. We will no longer be a part of the EU legally, will no longer have representation on any of its bodies and will no longer be included in any new treaties or agreements.
Unless...the government of the day signs up to just about everything we thought we had left. The fact that technically we will have left is as you say unalterable. The practicality of what that would mean if, say, Labour decided to appoint the ECJ as arbiter over the redness of our domestically-produced Worcester Pearmains, means that we would de facto remain members, small "m".
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
The baseline here is the 4% who said yes to "Have you ever been decapitated?" So in fact it's good news - even 50% of the demented think murder is a no no.
There is a language issue with that base question. 'Decapitated' is a difficult word. I doubt it would pass the Sun reader test.
Reminiscent of the old classic, 'Enraged cow injures farmer with axe.'
My favourite is
'Man shoots elephant wearing his pyjamas'
Even if it was quite a small elephant, he must have been a very large gentleman!
Back in the 90s. when I was at school, we had a trip to the Daily Telegraph, and our guide showed us his favourite headlines from the archives, the one that stuck in the mind was
'At least twenty men sodomised by evil Banana'
Turns out the Banana was Canaan Banana, former President of Zimbabwe.
Yep, it doesn't seem right, does it? And yet...and yet...here is (apparently) someone very senior, let's call him an expert, at AstraZeneca saying it is so.
Problems...problems...
And once again Brexiteers know better than the experts...
Here we go again - you are relying on what shouty Islam said that Gove said, not what Gove actually said, so you are either very, very lazy or very, very dishonest. And what Gove said was about experts with acronyms who think they know best but have been proven wrong in the past. In the week after the ONS had a little think and found that its numbers were out by half a trillion quid (not million, not billion, but trillion) his point looks a bit reasonable to me.
This appears to be a daisy chain of anti-Zionist victims.
Jacqueline Walker has "form" in attributing all the bad stuff which happens to her and like-minded folk to the Jews.
It's depressing rather than unspoofable. It's because people like this have a purchase on the Labour Party that we had, at its recent conference, the spectacle of people claiming that they ought to debate whether the Holocaust happened. When sections of the Labour Party think that denying facts is OK and behave like the David Irving Appreciation Society or the BNP, it is no laughing matter.
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
The baseline here is the 4% who said yes to "Have you ever been decapitated?" So in fact it's good news - even 50% of the demented think murder is a no no.
There is a language issue with that base question. 'Decapitated' is a difficult word. I doubt it would pass the Sun reader test.
yes. In fact I believe the question was only asked because of a typo.
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
The baseline here is the 4% who said yes to "Have you ever been decapitated?" So in fact it's good news - even 50% of the demented think murder is a no no.
Perhaps though there are probably a small number of Patrick Bateman ultra libertarian types around who literally want to be free to do anything they like with no laws at all.
This appears to be a daisy chain of anti-Zionist victims.
Jacqueline Walker has "form" in attributing all the bad stuff which happens to her and like-minded folk to the Jews.
It's depressing rather than unspoofable. It's because people like this have a purchase on the Labour Party that we had, at its recent conference, the spectacle of people claiming that they ought to debate whether the Holocaust happened. When sections of the Labour Party think that denying facts is OK and behave like the David Irving Appreciation Society or the BNP, it is no laughing matter.
...and
"Boundary review or not, the deselection of moderates is on its way."
Yep, it doesn't seem right, does it? And yet...and yet...here is (apparently) someone very senior, let's call him an expert, at AstraZeneca saying it is so.
Problems...problems...
And once again Brexiteers know better than the experts...
Here we go again - you are relying on what shouty Islam said that Gove said, not what Gove actually said, so you are either very, very lazy or very, very dishonest. And what Gove said was about experts with acronyms who think they know best but have been proven wrong in the past. In the week after the ONS had a little think and found that its numbers were out by half a trillion quid (not million, not billion, but trillion) his point looks a bit reasonable to me.
You would have quite a task on your hands if you were to explain the pronouncements of every politician in terms of what they meant to say, what they actually said, and what the dog whistle of what they said has come to mean to people.
He is a politician and should have known, indeed he no doubt expected his comments to be interpreted as they have since been.
I'm not sure whether this is a comment on the adultery statistics at the top or merely a reflection of the abysmal standard of BBC journalists these days:
I assume they mean that she was having an affair with her brother-in-law rather than her husband, although it sounds intriguing that you can have an affair with your own husband.
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
No - the her refers to the subject of the sentence, which the victim isn't. It's doubly silly (literally) as they had already said she had murdered her sister.
No - the "her" could just as well refer to the object of the main clause. If, for example, the sentence had read, "A woman who murdered her brother while having an affair with his wife has been jailed for a minimum of 22 years," there would have been no problem, even though it is grammatically identical.
Interestingly, this ambiguity wouldn't arise in German, which uses different pronouns to refer to the subject or object of the main clause.
It could have done, but according to strict rules of grammar it doesn't.
Wouldn't have arisen in English if they had thought to check their grammar!
I'm not aware of any rule of grammar that states that the pronouns used in subordinate clauses must only apply to the subject of the main clause. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
By using 'her' and using it again without changing the subject of the sentence, they made it refer to the subject as it stood.
So 'her' sister and 'her' husband refer to the sister and husband of the subject, in this case, the murderess.
You are right that is not what they meant. That's not the point though. It's what they said. People often say what they don't mean.
Anyway, I have more paperwork to do (aargh). Have a good evening.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
So most of the ten commandments are still considered important principles to live by thousands of years since they were first written. Though the fact about 2% do not think not committing murder is not an important principle to live by is a little concerning.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
Here we go again - you are relying on what shouty Islam said that Gove said, not what Gove actually said
Calm down dear.
I never mentioned Gove.
In this case, the head of a pharmaceutical manufacturer, who might be considered an expert in that field, made a statement that is disputed by Brexiteers.
Just like the meaning of Article 50 is confidently expounded by the Brexiteers in contradiction to the guy that wrote it.
They know better than experts.
Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute...
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
And a deal which requires a huge Brexit bill to be agreed years before it is even negotiated.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
If you lose your job because we are no longer trading as much as we did before, or your welfare because there isn't the taxbase any more, will you care two hoots about having a points system?
It seems quite clear to me that the second "her" refers to the sister who was murdered. If they had used brother-in-law, they could have been referring to the husband of a different sister.
Yes, of course it does mean that, the only drawback is that isn't what it actually says.
How so? The sentence is grammatically ambiguous in that the "her" could refer to either woman, but it is clear from the context which woman is being referred to.
No - the her refers to the subject of the sentence, which the victim isn't. It's doubly silly (literally) as they had already said she had murdered her sister.
No - the "her" could just as well refer to the object of the main clause. If, for example, the sentence had read, "A woman who murdered her brother while having an affair with his wife has been jailed for a minimum of 22 years," there would have been no problem, even though it is grammatically identical.
Interestingly, this ambiguity wouldn't arise in German, which uses different pronouns to refer to the subject or object of the main clause.
It could have done, but according to strict rules of grammar it doesn't.
Wouldn't have arisen in English if they had thought to check their grammar!
I'm not aware of any rule of grammar that states that the pronouns used in subordinate clauses must only apply to the subject of the main clause. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
By using 'her' and using it again without changing the subject of the sentence, they made it refer to the subject as it stood.
So 'her' sister and 'her' husband refer to the sister and husband of the subject, in this case, the murderess.
You are right that is not what they meant. That's not the point though. It's what they said. People often say what they don't mean.
Anyway, I have more paperwork to do (aargh). Have a good evening.
No, I'm pretty sure there's no such rule (though I am open to evidence to the contrary). I can't see any reason at all why the "her" could not refer to either woman. The sentence is grammatically correct, but ambiguous. Enjoy your paperwork.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
If you lose your job because we are no longer trading as much as we did before, or your welfare because there isn't the taxbase any more, will you care two hoots about having a points system?
It seems in the Welsh valleys, according to the item posted earlier, the answer is 'yes': they want control of immigration even if it reduces their local economy (which some of them say can't actually get any worse).
The linked article explains the import of pharmaceuticals into China is controlled through a cooperation agreement with the EU, presumably covering certification. If the UK doesn't remain part of that agreement there is no mechanism to import those drugs. The implication, I think, is that China is unlikely to be in a hurry to replicate those arrangements in a different agreement. They can get what they need from the EU, which is a known entity that they trust because they have worked with them for years.
Edit. This is an issue for a lot of third country agreements. The EU system is important to those third countries.
Yes, I understand that. However, it remains the case that, irrespective of the content of any deal with the EU, the people we need to talk to about continuity of trade are the Chinese, since it's their decision as to whether or not to recognise the regulatory framework which we will move to after Brexit.
In the particular case of pharmaceuticals, I'd be surprised if the Chinese wanted to suddenly cut themselves off from a major source of treatments.
Terrible but not surprising. With things like predetermining investigations on the basis it is more important to believe any allegation than investigate properly being defended by many police, some fundamentally seem to not be principally concerned with fairness or justice.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
But as you have patently shown, you know nothing about a Canada style deal.
Full disclosure. I co-wrote a report about why a Canada style deal is bad for the biggest tax contributing industry in the country.
The only alternatives to a Canada style deal are full hard Brexit and no deal at all, which really could be catastrophic or the single market and full uncontrolled free movement or staying in the EU, which could well lead to civil unrest in working class areas of the north and midlands which voted Leave to control immigration as well as rocket UKIP up the polls
So while a Canada deal is not perfect for now it is the best alternative there is.
Yes, I understand that. However, it remains the case that, irrespective of the content of any deal with the EU, the people we need to talk to about continuity of trade are the Chinese, since it's their decision as to whether or not to recognise the regulatory framework which we will move to after Brexit.
In the particular case of pharmaceuticals, I'd be surprised if the Chinese wanted to suddenly cut themselves off from a major source of treatments.
We can always send Boris Johnson over to do a quiet deal. I'm sure he will be able to broach the subject of imports of British drugs without causing any diplomatic incidents...
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
But as you have patently shown, you know nothing about a Canada style deal.
Full disclosure. I co-wrote a report about why a Canada style deal is bad for the biggest tax contributing industry in the country.
The only alternatives to a Canada style deal are full hard Brexit and no deal at all, which really could be catastrophic or the single market and full uncontrolled free movement or staying in the EU, which could well lead to civil unrest in working class areas of the north and midlands which voted Leave to control immigration as well as rocket UKIP up the polls
So while a Canada deal is not perfect for now it is the best alternative there is.
The only alternatives to a Canada style deal are dull hard Brexit and no deal at all, which really could be catastrophic or the single market and full uncontrolled free movement or staying in the EU, which could well lead to civil unrest in working class areas of the north and midlands which voted Leave to control immigration as well as rocket UKIP up the polls.
So while a Canada deal is not perfect for now it is the best alternative there is.
I think that's broadly right, but we should be able to do a little better than that, simply because so many EU companies rely on the City for fund raising, currency hedging and derivative contracts.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
And a deal which requires a huge Brexit bill to be agreed years before it is even negotiated.
We would have to pay the EU a large sum for years to come even staying in the EU or single market though I agree it will not be an easy sell but easier than the alternatives.
@HYUFD - A Canada deal would not be 'for now'. It would be a negotiating objective for a deal that would remain to be done after we leave and enter into transition.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
If you lose your job because we are no longer trading as much as we did before, or your welfare because there isn't the taxbase any more, will you care two hoots about having a points system?
Yet more diehard Remainer fanaticism on any form of compromise, a Canada style FTA is not going to lead to a Great Depression.
From the outside it seems like the Catalonian separatists feel a bit trapped - Madrid isn't budging, but they don't seem keen to take any more provocative steps.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
And a deal which requires a huge Brexit bill to be agreed years before it is even negotiated.
Yes, and that will be the showstopper. The UK public will never agree to the UK paying a huge bill in return for a 'promise' of a future FTA. The moment it becomes clear that the EU are not offering a trade deal in return for money, the whole thing will fall apart.
@HYUFD - A Canada deal would not be 'for now'. It would be a negotiating objective for a deal that would remain to be done after we leave and enter into transition.
It would be a deal for a decade or more post transition and above all a deal which respects the Leave vote to end free movement.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
But as you have patently shown, you know nothing about a Canada style deal.
Full disclosure. I co-wrote a report about why a Canada style deal is bad for the biggest tax contributing industry in the country.
The only alternatives to a Canada style deal are full hard Brexit and no deal at all, which really could be catastrophic or the single market and full uncontrolled free movement or staying in the EU, which could well lead to civil unrest in working class areas of the north and midlands which voted Leave to control immigration as well as rocket UKIP up the polls
So while a Canada deal is not perfect for now it is the best alternative there is.
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
And a deal which requires a huge Brexit bill to be agreed years before it is even negotiated.
Yes, and that will be the showstopper. The UK public will never agree to the UK paying a huge bill in return for a 'promise' of a future FTA. The moment it becomes clear that the EU are not offering a trade deal in return for money, the whole thing will fall apart.
Money was always going to be problematic, since some would object to any amount even to meet our existing obligations (rather than quibble over the amount we obliged too, which despite what some believe is not 'whatever the negotiators say it is').
Can only be a matter of time before Remainers turn on the EU for contemplating a deal that works for both sides rather than a punishment beating...
The amount of straw you've used in that man is a real fire hazard.
It's coming though - weeks if not days.
Also - will suit Davis for the deal to be agreed at the last minute - less chance of Westminster voting it down.
I'd be much happier if Gove was Brexit Secretary.
If David Davis is getting tripped up by Labour MPs then how's he going to cope with the Eurocrats?
Gove is the most able member of the cabinet by some margin - he'd do a better job than Rudd, May and particularly Hammond at their jobs. And obviously he'd do better than DD at Brexiting.
The only alternatives to a Canada style deal are dull hard Brexit and no deal at all, which really could be catastrophic or the single market and full uncontrolled free movement or staying in the EU, which could well lead to civil unrest in working class areas of the north and midlands which voted Leave to control immigration as well as rocket UKIP up the polls.
So while a Canada deal is not perfect for now it is the best alternative there is.
I think that's broadly right, but we should be able to do a little better than that, simply because so many EU companies rely on the City for fund raising, currency hedging and derivative contracts.
Here we go again - you are relying on what shouty Islam said that Gove said, not what Gove actually said
Calm down dear.
I never mentioned Gove.
In this case, the head of a pharmaceutical manufacturer, who might be considered an expert in that field, made a statement that is disputed by Brexiteers.
Just like the meaning of Article 50 is confidently expounded by the Brexiteers in contradiction to the guy that wrote it.
They know better than experts.
Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute...
So what does "again" refer to, if not to Gove vs shouty Faisal?
You really are all at sea about, well, everything. As to the meaning of Article 50, it is a clear principle of the law on the construction of documents that the intention of "the guy who wrote it" is of limited value, and in many cases is inadmissible as evidence. You are, in other words, dead wrong.
Pascal Soriot is a vet by training and a CEO by career so, no, he is unlikely to be an expert on the law governing his company's exports to China and when he needs to know about it, I guess he consults an expert. So again, you are wrong.
And here is something Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." And Feynman was an expert. Doesn't it do your head in?
Bloody hell this case hasn't even cleared the pretty low bar of being an arguable case.
So it turns out the DUP deal doesn't breach doesn't the Good Friday Agreement.
A crowdfunded bid at the high court in London to challenge the government’s controversial parliamentary deal with the Democratic Unionist party has failed.
Two judges rejected an application made on Thursday by Ciaran McClean, an unsuccessful Westminster candidate for the Green party in Northern Ireland in the general election, to bring a judicial review of the legality of the £1bn deal.
The claim alleged the deal breached the landmark 1998 Good Friday agreement and the Bribery Act.
Here we go again - you are relying on what shouty Islam said that Gove said, not what Gove actually said
Calm down dear.
I never mentioned Gove.
In this case, the head of a pharmaceutical manufacturer, who might be considered an expert in that field, made a statement that is disputed by Brexiteers.
Just like the meaning of Article 50 is confidently expounded by the Brexiteers in contradiction to the guy that wrote it.
They know better than experts.
Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute...
So what does "again" refer to, if not to Gove vs shouty Faisal?
You really are all at sea about, well, everything. As to the meaning of Article 50, it is a clear principle of the law on the construction of documents that the intention of "the guy who wrote it" is of limited value, and in many cases is inadmissible as evidence. You are, in other words, dead wrong.
Pascal Soriot is a vet by training and a CEO by career so, no, he is unlikely to be an expert on the law governing his company's exports to China and when he needs to know about it, I guess he consults an expert. So again, you are wrong.
And here is something Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." And Feynman was an expert. Doesn't it do your head in?
You don't think that Pascal Soriot or his board might just actually have consulted trade experts by this point?
Even Barnier has now said he is working towards a Canada style FTA with the UK, yet more hysterics from hard-core Remainers.
Barnier doesn't pretend to be offering the UK a pleasant prospect. (In fact it might ease the present negotiations if he did pretend that). He explains a Canada type deal will take years to negotiate, it will be after the transition period has completed (we're presumably on the No trade Deal in the meantime). It would be highly complex and nothing like what we have now.
In his view it would be less pleasant than the single market or EU yes but it would still be a deal and a deal which crucially enables free movement to be ended and replaced by a points system unlike the 2 former options.
If you lose your job because we are no longer trading as much as we did before, or your welfare because there isn't the taxbase any more, will you care two hoots about having a points system?
Yet more diehard Remainer fanaticism on any form of compromise, a Canada style FTA is not going to lead to a Great Depression.
Who's being fanatical? I am just pointing out that the ability of bureaucrats to apply points to foreigners doesn't motivate anyone much. If that's all you get - maybe - eventually - with the Canada deal, you might as well make a REAL compromise such as EEA,
Bloody hell this case hasn't even cleared the pretty low bar of being an arguable case.
So it turns out the DUP deal doesn't breach doesn't the Good Friday Agreement.
A crowdfunded bid at the high court in London to challenge the government’s controversial parliamentary deal with the Democratic Unionist party has failed.
Two judges rejected an application made on Thursday by Ciaran McClean, an unsuccessful Westminster candidate for the Green party in Northern Ireland in the general election, to bring a judicial review of the legality of the £1bn deal.
The claim alleged the deal breached the landmark 1998 Good Friday agreement and the Bribery Act.
Here we go again - you are relying on what shouty Islam said that Gove said, not what Gove actually said
Calm down dear.
I never mentioned Gove.
In this case, the head of a pharmaceutical manufacturer, who might be considered an expert in that field, made a statement that is disputed by Brexiteers.
Just like the meaning of Article 50 is confidently expounded by the Brexiteers in contradiction to the guy that wrote it.
They know better than experts.
Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute...
So what does "again" refer to, if not to Gove vs shouty Faisal?
You really are all at sea about, well, everything. As to the meaning of Article 50, it is a clear principle of the law on the construction of documents that the intention of "the guy who wrote it" is of limited value, and in many cases is inadmissible as evidence. You are, in other words, dead wrong.
Pascal Soriot is a vet by training and a CEO by career so, no, he is unlikely to be an expert on the law governing his company's exports to China and when he needs to know about it, I guess he consults an expert. So again, you are wrong.
And here is something Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." And Feynman was an expert. Doesn't it do your head in?
I have lost track of the number of developers, marketing managers or data scientists who refused to join us following the Brexit vote. Questions emerging around the British economy and the role of the UK in Europe cooled their interest, despite an interesting salary.
Soft or Hard Brexit? How much will it cost to sponsor a visa? What will be the cost of inflation and devaluation of the British Pound? Uncertainty is the worst enemy of the entrepreneur and the signal coming from the United Kingdom through the Brexit vote is absolutely disastrous.
Oh, and as an addition to the prior post, if anybody has a job going for which my many and varied talents would be suitable, do feel free to let me know.
Good luck with job hunt. I've heard that teaching English to Chinese students online can be a profitable, flexible working option if you want to keep time aside for your writing...
I have lost track of the number of developers, marketing managers or data scientists who refused to join us following the Brexit vote. Questions emerging around the British economy and the role of the UK in Europe cooled their interest, despite an interesting salary.
Soft or Hard Brexit? How much will it cost to sponsor a visa? What will be the cost of inflation and devaluation of the British Pound? Uncertainty is the worst enemy of the entrepreneur and the signal coming from the United Kingdom through the Brexit vote is absolutely disastrous.
Comments
'Man shoots elephant wearing his pyjamas'
'At least twenty men sodomised by evil Banana'
Turns out the Banana was Canaan Banana, former President of Zimbabwe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan_Banana#Sodomy_charges_and_imprisonment
I had never noticed before the difference in the ten commandments between the King James version - which of course is used here - and the Catholic version which I learned as a kid at convent school.
Ignoring the differences of language to describe basically the same thing there are two major changes.
The First commandment which in the Catholic version is a single commandment (First I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not have false gods before me and though shalt not worship idols), in the King James version is split into two.
Since this would give 11 commandments, the 9th and 10th commandments have been combined into one. In the Catholic version 9 is Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife (as separate from the 6th commandment about adultery) whilst the 10th is thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ass/ox/general duty free goods. These are cobined in the KJ version into one all encompassing ban on coveting anything.
Fearless koala chases South Australian woman on quad bike
Turns out it was the woman on the quad bike, not the koala.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-16/koala-chases-south-australian-woman-on-quad-bike/6701210
Problems...problems...
Interestingly, this ambiguity wouldn't arise in German, which uses different pronouns to refer to the subject or object of the main clause.
Some more here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/zimbabwe-s-banana-left-legacy-of-disgrace-1.392631
Mind you, I can't agree with this statement:
the unbiased observer might well, like Mr Mugabe, have been struck by the British cabinet's lack of visible heterosexuals.
A cabinet with Robin Cook in it (and later and even more amazingly, John Prescott) was hardly without visible heterosexuals. Indeed, we were all wondering what the hell women saw in them!
Wouldn't have arisen in English if they had thought to check their grammar!
The point I am making is that it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Legally unless we ask for and get a formal extension agreed by all 27 EU members, in March 2019 we are out of the EU. You can spend all day saying it would make no sense but that is the position under Article 50 and 'sense' has nothing to do with it one way or another. We will no longer be a part of the EU legally, will no longer have representation on any of its bodies and will no longer be included in any new treaties or agreements.
https://twitter.com/LaurenceThinks/status/923123500071772162
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/923125219979644929
Edit. This is an issue for a lot of third country agreements. The EU system is important to those third countries.
Full disclosure. I co-wrote a report about why a Canada style deal is bad for the biggest tax contributing industry in the country.
It's depressing rather than unspoofable. It's because people like this have a purchase on the Labour Party that we had, at its recent conference, the spectacle of people claiming that they ought to debate whether the Holocaust happened. When sections of the Labour Party think that denying facts is OK and behave like the David Irving Appreciation Society or the BNP, it is no laughing matter.
"Boundary review or not, the deselection of moderates is on its way."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/26/dont-fooled-labours-seeming-unity-sooner-later-moderates-will/
He is a politician and should have known, indeed he no doubt expected his comments to be interpreted as they have since been.
So 'her' sister and 'her' husband refer to the sister and husband of the subject, in this case, the murderess.
You are right that is not what they meant. That's not the point though. It's what they said. People often say what they don't mean.
Anyway, I have more paperwork to do (aargh). Have a good evening.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier
Oh...
I never mentioned Gove.
In this case, the head of a pharmaceutical manufacturer, who might be considered an expert in that field, made a statement that is disputed by Brexiteers.
Just like the meaning of Article 50 is confidently expounded by the Brexiteers in contradiction to the guy that wrote it.
They know better than experts.
Those are the facts, and they are not in dispute...
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/923525105405263873
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/923569110369357824
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/923569440205279232
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/923569627925549056
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/923569843424710656
In the particular case of pharmaceuticals, I'd be surprised if the Chinese wanted to suddenly cut themselves off from a major source of treatments.
So while a Canada deal is not perfect for now it is the best alternative there is.
Also - will suit Davis for the deal to be agreed at the last minute - less chance of Westminster voting it down.
50% think a Canada deal would be good for the UK compared to 35% each for the Norway option or hard Brexit.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/18/majority-people-think-freedom-movement-fair-price-/
If David Davis is getting tripped up by Labour MPs then how's he going to cope with the Eurocrats?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/923583363302281217
You really are all at sea about, well, everything. As to the meaning of Article 50, it is a clear principle of the law on the construction of documents that the intention of "the guy who wrote it" is of limited value, and in many cases is inadmissible as evidence. You are, in other words, dead wrong.
Pascal Soriot is a vet by training and a CEO by career so, no, he is unlikely to be an expert on the law governing his company's exports to China and when he needs to know about it, I guess he consults an expert. So again, you are wrong.
And here is something Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." And Feynman was an expert. Doesn't it do your head in?
So it turns out the DUP deal doesn't breach doesn't the Good Friday Agreement.
A crowdfunded bid at the high court in London to challenge the government’s controversial parliamentary deal with the Democratic Unionist party has failed.
Two judges rejected an application made on Thursday by Ciaran McClean, an unsuccessful Westminster candidate for the Green party in Northern Ireland in the general election, to bring a judicial review of the legality of the £1bn deal.
The claim alleged the deal breached the landmark 1998 Good Friday agreement and the Bribery Act.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/26/crowdfunded-high-court-challenge-against-tory-dup-1bn-deal-fails
Anyone who retweets Faisal, Ed "train fare" Conway, or Ian Dunt needs to drink more and get laid.
https://medium.com/@MeetLaFT/bye-london-we-are-moving-to-paris-so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-fish-and-chips-e3de5be3c7
I have lost track of the number of developers, marketing managers or data scientists who refused to join us following the Brexit vote. Questions emerging around the British economy and the role of the UK in Europe cooled their interest, despite an interesting salary.
Soft or Hard Brexit? How much will it cost to sponsor a visa? What will be the cost of inflation and devaluation of the British Pound? Uncertainty is the worst enemy of the entrepreneur and the signal coming from the United Kingdom through the Brexit vote is absolutely disastrous.
I've heard that teaching English to Chinese students online can be a profitable, flexible working option if you want to keep time aside for your writing...