The reason for the kerfuffle is that Khashoggi was a journalist so that makes him far more important than a normal person. They write the news, but they also believe they make the news.
Just look how much time BBC News spends on BBC issues
Yeah it was bleating this morning about some of its presenters having to pay tax and NI like the rest of us and how, really, the BBC i.e. you and me should pay their tax bills now that they'd been caught because, of course, it would have been inconceivable for highly paid journalists to have paid for advice on the tax implications of setting up a company and doing their work through it for one client only.
If one of these two doesn't go to jail, well no-one ever will. Or perhaps (maybe in addition) I'd hope the shareholders would be able to go after these directors personally. Heads NEED to roll on this one, it is worse than RBS I think.
I know about RBS. I doubt this is worse. But it does look like a mess and I can think of a number of potential criminal offences which may have been committed.
Odd decision for the company to carry out its own internal investigation. Unless they have good experienced in-house investigators (something I doubt). I assume they are using a law firm but who is doing the in-house work? They will be potentially conflicted. As will the directors they are reporting to.
Lots more to come out I suspect.
RBS had a massively complicated balance sheet though, this is shops, suppliers, cakes and cash. Whilst complexity is no excuse in RBS case and the scale of this is lower it looks worse .
while PB was having its Brexit meltdown yesterday I spent my time watching the BBC programme on the collapse of RBS. Its still on iPlayer. worth watching if you didnt catch it when broadcast.
I watched it last week - highly recommended. I wonder if, having watched it, anyone can seriously suggest HMG could have let RBS (and HBOS) go to the wall?
No, but they could have prosecuted the perpetrators. As the programme noted the bankers getting off scot free is still a toxic legacy which hangs over the economy.
The reason they didn't prosecute the people who were responsible for setting in motion the train of events which led to RBS's downfall (I am choosing my words carefully) is because the then regulator was utterly feeble and refused to carry out a proper investigation. It then carried out and published an investigation into the bank which conveniently started the chronology after the events I am referring to thus omitting its own inglorious part in the whole affair.
RBS's downfall could - and in a properly functioning regulatory system - should have been stopped 18 months earlier had those who were meant to be in charge done their jobs properly.
Block quote goes awry again. I said: Something else which can be held against Maggie T is that she regarded ‘public service’ as unsuitable as a career for the brightest and best, and made that view clear. Strange when one thinks her father was a long-standing alderman, but perhaps some nefarious schemes were frustrated by a sea-green incorruptible and competent Town Clerk.
Which reminds me, I started watching, some years ago, part of a series of Professor Brian Cox, but gave up after the first 15-20 minutes or so was devoted to the 'arrow of time'.
I know the past has happened and the future is ahead, and that cause precedes effect. I don't need to be reminded at length.
yes, but dont forget that gave Prof Cox at least 5 flighs to exotic locations and a frequent flyers gold card.
Interesting that on that poll the EU is actually less popular in Hungary than it is here, and barely more popular in Czecha and Austria.
Given that polls have consistently underestimated dislike for the EU when measured against real world votes, those figures should cause panic in Brussels.
They won't, because they drift along in an alcoholic haze of complacency, but they should.
ITALY - is currently the most Eurosceptic of all atm
In other news Putin has now hinted he will buy Italian bonds when they go for their kicking at Ecofin just so they cant upset the Commission.
No doubt there will be a quid pro quo somehwere down the line
So if Russia had been against Brexit you would have come out in support of it?
You're putting the cart before the horse. Russia being wildly in favour of Brexit is a symptom of what a bad idea it is, not a reason for supporting Remain.
The reason for the kerfuffle is that Khashoggi was a journalist so that makes him far more important than a normal person. They write the news, but they also believe they make the news.
Just look how much time BBC News spends on BBC issues
Yeah it was bleating this morning about some of its presenters having to pay tax and NI like the rest of us and how, really, the BBC i.e. you and me should pay their tax bills now that they'd been caught because, of course, it would have been inconceivable for highly paid journalists to have paid for advice on the tax implications of setting up a company and doing their work through it for one client only.
That was one of the first things colleagues told me when I started being a locum pharmacist. Shift your work around several places, don’t work for the same firm too long. Otherwise the Revenue will regard you as ‘employed’. When was that...... 1985 or so.
Bloody Metropolitan out-of-touch London elite again. With their namby-pamby inability to identify livestock.
I was an urban child, and vividly remember the teacher's fury when we were asked to spell the names of animals and I wrote "C-A-L-F" under a lamb. She was convinced I was winding her up, but at age 5 or so I'd never seen either one.
If I'd been asked to spell "pavement" I'd have been fine.
One of my colleagues aged about 40 did not understand where milk came from. Seriously.
I have often idly wondered about the first person to discover the milk of other animals as a source of nourishment. That's adventurousness bordering on the perverted.
So here's my question - where do vegans stand on calfs drinking their mother's milk?
Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine. And drinking milk as an adult foodstuff for adults is primarily a Western, and some African, thing. Other peoples, Japanese especially haven’t evolved the systems to deal with it, and can get ill if they drink it, and, IIRC, eat cheese and similar milk products.
"Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine"
What other type of milk is there?
And if it's ok for the offspring of the producing animal to drink it, why is it not ok for anyone else to drink it?
Westerners have developed an enzyme that can digest milk. So, presumably have Masai and similar. However peoples who haven’t got that, who’s ancestors didn’t try milk at some ;point 10 or so thousand years ago, can't
I suspect the mutation that allows lactose tolerance beyond weaning occurs occasionally everywhere but in the stone age period in north western Europe it became prevalent among the population because those that had it survived to adulthood and bred, those that didn't tended to die before reaching adulthood. It seems that dairy was vital in stone age NW Europe.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
The Saudis have killed tens of thousands in Yemen already and are using famine as a weapon to threaten hundreds of thousands more. It is a bit odd that we get our knickers in a twist about the chopping up of one of their own citizens just because he occasionally wrote for the Washington Post.
It's a consequence of what makes the news. As Dura Ace notes - Corbyn has been opposing arms sales to the Saudis well before the Khashoggi case.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
I'd go much further than him and stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools, university chairs, charities, madrassas etc in this country. Saudis don't spend that money out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to spread their ideology around and we should play no part in permitting it to spread in this country.
I wonder whether Corbyn would go that far. He was willing after all to demonstrate with those imams protesting against the Danish cartoons so is perhaps not so concerned about illiberal views being promulgated in the West to the detriment of Western citizens.
Which reminds me, I started watching, some years ago, part of a series of Professor Brian Cox, but gave up after the first 15-20 minutes or so was devoted to the 'arrow of time'.
I know the past has happened and the future is ahead, and that cause precedes effect. I don't need to be reminded at length.
I stuck with that programme - it was really good if you, er..., gave it time. (But don't ask me to explain it!)
Bloody Metropolitan out-of-touch London elite again. With their namby-pamby inability to identify livestock.
I was an urban child, and vividly remember the teacher's fury when we were asked to spell the names of animals and I wrote "C-A-L-F" under a lamb. She was convinced I was winding her up, but at age 5 or so I'd never seen either one.
If I'd been asked to spell "pavement" I'd have been fine.
One of my colleagues aged about 40 did not understand where milk came from. Seriously.
I have often idly wondered about the first person to discover the milk of other animals as a source of nourishment. That's adventurousness bordering on the perverted.
So here's my question - where do vegans stand on calfs drinking their mother's milk?
How about human babies drinking their mother's milk? You can't be a lifetime vegan.
Almond milk? With a tofu froth?
There is a probable urban myth that when what we now know as "almond milk" came onto the supermarket shelves, it was sold as "Nut Juice". Unsurprisingly, it didn't sell.......
Germans faced with much larger bill to finance EU when UK leaves. Government says €10bn but €15bn nearer the mark. France and Ireland also hit with bigger bills.
But for that extra money, German politicians will deliver what it's military couldn't deliver in two World Wars - vassalage of the rest of mainland Europe.....
Bloody Metropolitan out-of-touch London elite again. With their namby-pamby inability to identify livestock.
I was an urban child, and vividly remember the teacher's fury when we were asked to spell the names of animals and I wrote "C-A-L-F" under a lamb. She was convinced I was winding her up, but at age 5 or so I'd never seen either one.
If I'd been asked to spell "pavement" I'd have been fine.
One of my colleagues aged about 40 did not understand where milk came from. Seriously.
I have often idly wondered about the first person to discover the milk of other animals as a source of nourishment. That's adventurousness bordering on the perverted.
So here's my question - where do vegans stand on calfs drinking their mother's milk?
Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine. And drinking milk as an adult foodstuff for adults is primarily a Western, and some African, thing. Other peoples, Japanese especially haven’t evolved the systems to deal with it, and can get ill if they drink it, and, IIRC, eat cheese and similar milk products.
"Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine"
What other type of milk is there?
And if it's ok for the offspring of the producing animal to drink it, why is it not ok for anyone else to drink it?
Westerners have developed an enzyme that can digest milk. So, presumably have Masai and similar. However peoples who haven’t got that, who’s ancestors didn’t try milk at some ;point 10 or so thousand years ago, can't
I suspect the mutation that allows lactose tolerance beyond weaning occurs occasionally everywhere but in the stone age period in north western Europe it became prevalent among the population because those that had it survived to adulthood and bred, those that didn't tended to die before reaching adulthood. It seems that dairy was vital in stone age NW Europe.
Interesting question. Dairy use seems to have developed, IIRC, in what we now know as Slovakia. There’s quite a lot of research around it, and quite a lot on Wikipedia, but at the moment the gym calls ...... got to get rid if Tuesday’s excesses somehow...... and I must away.
Mr. Pointer, fair enough, but, as with The Lies of Locke Lamora (which I stuck with and really enjoyed) I think it's understandable to ditch something if it's just not working at the start.
Reminds me a bit of a FFXIII skit by Zero Punctuation, where he pointed out "It gets good after the first 12 hours" isn't actually a selling point.
The reason for the kerfuffle is that Khashoggi was a journalist so that makes him far more important than a normal person. They write the news, but they also believe they make the news.
Just look how much time BBC News spends on BBC issues
Yeah it was bleating this morning about some of its presenters having to pay tax and NI like the rest of us and how, really, the BBC i.e. you and me should pay their tax bills now that they'd been caught because, of course, it would have been inconceivable for highly paid journalists to have paid for advice on the tax implications of setting up a company and doing their work through it for one client only.
That was one of the first things colleagues told me when I started being a locum pharmacist. Shift your work around several places, don’t work for the same firm too long. Otherwise the Revenue will regard you as ‘employed’. When was that...... 1985 or so.
Yes. I am facing a similar issue. I am currently working on a long project for one client. The client indicated that it is likely to last longer than originally anticipated and that if I want I can continue to work on it. They would like me to. And I would. It is very interesting. As well as lucrative. And I am pretty busy so am not marketing as much as I was.
But I do not want to become an employee. So will be talking to my accountant.
All of this was too much for journalists or for the BBC.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
I'd go much further than him and stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools, university chairs, charities, madrassas etc in this country. Saudis don't spend that money out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to spread their ideology around and we should play no part in permitting it to spread in this country.
I wonder whether Corbyn would go that far. He was willing after all to demonstrate with those imams protesting against the Danish cartoons so is perhaps not so concerned about illiberal views being promulgated in the West to the detriment of Western citizens.
The Saudis are only relevant because of oil, once the west gets itself off petrol, it will return to being a poor back water
The reason for the kerfuffle is that Khashoggi was a journalist so that makes him far more important than a normal person. They write the news, but they also believe they make the news.
Just look how much time BBC News spends on BBC issues
Yeah it was bleating this morning about some of its presenters having to pay tax and NI like the rest of us and how, really, the BBC i.e. you and me should pay their tax bills now that they'd been caught because, of course, it would have been inconceivable for highly paid journalists to have paid for advice on the tax implications of setting up a company and doing their work through it for one client only.
That was one of the first things colleagues told me when I started being a locum pharmacist. Shift your work around several places, don’t work for the same firm too long. Otherwise the Revenue will regard you as ‘employed’. When was that...... 1985 or so.
I remember wondering how actors escaped Gordon Brown's IR35 when it was introduced. They were listed as "self employed" and I thought of the cast of Corrie, East Enders and Emmerdale, some of whom had never acted on any other show and many of whom where there for decades.... It sounded like employment to me.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
I'd go much further than him and stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools, university chairs, charities, madrassas etc in this country. Saudis don't spend that money out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it to spread their ideology around and we should play no part in permitting it to spread in this country.
I wonder whether Corbyn would go that far. He was willing after all to demonstrate with those imams protesting against the Danish cartoons so is perhaps not so concerned about illiberal views being promulgated in the West to the detriment of Western citizens.
The Saudis are only relevant because of oil, once the west gets itself off petrol, it will return to being a poor back water
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
Which reminds me, I started watching, some years ago, part of a series of Professor Brian Cox, but gave up after the first 15-20 minutes or so was devoted to the 'arrow of time'.
I know the past has happened and the future is ahead, and that cause precedes effect. I don't need to be reminded at length.
It is not a matter of reminding you Mr Dancer. The question that needs answering (from a Physics point of view) is why cause precedes effect and what stops Nature from running events backwards as the equations work equally well in each direction of time. What stops a dropped egg from being put back in the shell?
Oh I agree. There have been far too many people at the top rewarded for their failures. I can think of at least one CEO, whose entity while he was in charge was involved in Britain’s biggest criminal fraud and two of the worst market manipulation schemes, who then went on to be appointed CEO at a leading stock exchange , which is also a regulator, left there with questions raised about some share-dealing he indulged in, and is now Chairman of an FCA authorised investment firm run by someone with a similarly dubious record.
What the hell are the authorities thinking allowing such people to operate? It’s not as if they don’t know /haven’t been told.
Too bloody feeble. No wonder people lose faith. No wonder those who try to do their jobs honestly feel disheartened, feel like mugs for being honest.
Honestly, don’t get me started on this! I could rage about this all day.
Please feel free to rage all day - it will continue the "PB Rage Day" theme of yesterday (which I found highly entertaining BTW)
Mrs C I'm married to an emotional remain voting mathematician who works in IT. I come here to get away from all that :-)
Behave.
I didn't believe there is an intersection between "mathematician who works in IT" and "emotional"?
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
Germans faced with much larger bill to finance EU when UK leaves. Government says €10bn but €15bn nearer the mark. France and Ireland also hit with bigger bills.
But for that extra money, German politicians will deliver what it's military couldn't deliver in two World Wars - vassalage of the rest of mainland Europe.....
it sort of makes you wonder what all the fuss in the last century was about.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
RBS's downfall could - and in a properly functioning regulatory system - should have been stopped 18 months earlier had those who were meant to be in charge done their jobs properly.
Block quote goes awry again. I said: Something else which can be held against Maggie T is that she regarded ‘public service’ as unsuitable as a career for the brightest and best, and made that view clear. Strange when one thinks her father was a long-standing alderman, but perhaps some nefarious schemes were frustrated by a sea-green incorruptible and competent Town Clerk.
I remember that. I was a public servant at the time. The message came through loud and clear that no matter how hard you worked promotion would be limited (only if someone dies, as someone put it) and pay would be rubbish. But you couldn't be sacked and would get a good pension provided you hadn't died of boredom before you could collect it. After two years, most of my cohort legged it.
One of our regulators is looking for an experienced Head of Department (lawyer/investigator) in charge of 40-50 people and responsible for high profile investigations. Likely salary range: £120-£140K.
A good salary but when first year solicitors who have managed nothing and have no experience can get £70-£80K, who do they think they are going to attract? Money isn't everything. But that job brings a lot of headaches, a lot of responsibility, lots and lots of committee meetings (yay!) and your bosses won't have your back if you make one mistake. Why should someone in their 30's/40's with a mortgage/family etc take that sort of risk? Or they do it for 2-3 years and then go into the private sector, doubling their money etc. So the public sector doesn't get the benefit of their experience. Or they end up hiring other public sector workers who may well be good. But they lose the chance of getting fresh thinking and a different perspective in.
In the US there is much more to-ing and fro-ing from the private into the public sector and back again. We need more of that here. But it's not easy when there are such disparities in pay and approach.
Bloody Metropolitan out-of-touch London elite again. With their namby-pamby inability to identify livestock.
I was an urban child, and vividly remember the teacher's fury when we were asked to spell the names of animals and I wrote "C-A-L-F" under a lamb. She was convinced I was winding her up, but at age 5 or so I'd never seen either one.
If I'd been asked to spell "pavement" I'd have been fine.
One of my colleagues aged about 40 did not understand where milk came from. Seriously.
I have often idly wondered about the first person to discover the milk of other animals as a source of nourishment. That's adventurousness bordering on the perverted.
So here's my question - where do vegans stand on calfs drinking their mother's milk?
Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine. And drinking milk as an adult foodstuff for adults is primarily a Western, and some African, thing. Other peoples, Japanese especially haven’t evolved the systems to deal with it, and can get ill if they drink it, and, IIRC, eat cheese and similar milk products.
"Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine"
What other type of milk is there?
And if it's ok for the offspring of the producing animal to drink it, why is it not ok for anyone else to drink it?
Westerners have developed an enzyme that can digest milk. So, presumably have Masai and similar. However peoples who haven’t got that, who’s ancestors didn’t try milk at some ;point 10 or so thousand years ago, can't
A rhetorical question, a TV programme I watched sometime ago about how milk became so popular around the mid 1800's in the UK, before pasteurisation, filtration and chilling came into the process. Many entrepreneurs were extending the life of milk by adding chemicals to cover up the smell of the milk going off. Needless to say, not only were some of the chemicals themselves poisonous, but they didn't stop the biological processes in the milk from going bad. It is more than possible that we have become lactose tolerant more from natural selection, much in the same way we humans have become alcohol tolerant.
Some events can be rewound or repeated (you can make a jigsaw, scatter the pieces, then make it again), others can't (boiling an egg). If the component parts of an event are altered in such a way that cannot be rewound, the even can't be done again or reversed.
I got more insight into the BBC travel budget than any interesting revelation on physics.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
Stopped-clock syndrome. He wasn't ahead of the public because, by a set of logical steps, he'd arrived at a conclusion based on evidence; he was ahead of the public because events happened to move public opinion into alignment with views he already held for independent reasons.
Russia being for or against something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.
You are putting the cart before the horse also. Look at the reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit and the reasons why it opposed ISIS.
The reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit are reasons that should give anyone who has the interests of Britain at heart a lot of pause for thought.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
if you think sheep are stupid try pheasants
Pheasants are reared by humans and released just before they are shot. They are so used to humans feeding them that when the shoot come around they'll happily wander up looking for some grain.
The 'beaters' practically have to throw them in the air.
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
Do you think all hunting and shooting should be illegal?
Mr. Me, did being on the same side as Gerry Adams give pause to the Remain side?
Pointing at an opponent and suggesting any view they hold on anything is wrong is as mistaken as following a wise man without ever considering he might be wrong.
Had the UK Government kept its promise for a Lisbon referendum, I would've been happier. But the reneging of that promise and the endless creep of integration means we face a strategic choice. Either we govern ourselves, or admit we're going to be part of a federal nation called the EU. I prefer the former.
Mr. Meeks, what of the reasons why Leave supporters favour departing? You've tended, alas, to denigrate and insult such people without contemplating their genuine concerns (despite, early in the campaign, indicating you were undecided on the matter).
I do think your post hits the nail on the head regarding why the division is so great. Both sides think they stand for the national interest and their adversaries, by definition, oppose it (wittingly or not).
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
if you think sheep are stupid try pheasants
Pheasants are reared by humans and released just before they are shot. They are so used to humans feeding them that when the shoot come around they'll happily wander up looking for some grain.
The 'beaters' practically have to throw them in the air.
And I reckon more end up as road kill than get shot.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I don't know why. Perhaps he will tell us. Farmers do shoot their livestock and are unsentimental about having to do so when it's necessary.
There seems something both frivolous and deeply twattish about this woman claiming to be a "hunter" and posing as if she's been brave when she's been no such thing. And if you shoot an animal you have to be a very good shot so that it does not suffer. The idea of tourists who may not be a good shot paying to kill domesticated livestock seems somehow off to me.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
Mr. Meeks, what of the reasons why Leave supporters favour departing? You've tended, alas, to denigrate and insult such people without contemplating their genuine concerns (despite, early in the campaign, indicating you were undecided on the matter).
Non sequitur of the day so far. Russia's motives for cheerleading Brexit need separate consideration and weighing. Leave supporters have been remarkably reluctant to do so, having invested far too heavily in the result.
I'd have thought the world's most disorderly and disruptive power wanting increased freedom to be disorderly and disruptive was something that should be concerning to those with British interests at heart, but it seems not.
Russia being for or against something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.
You are putting the cart before the horse also. Look at the reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit and the reasons why it opposed ISIS.
The reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit are reasons that should give anyone who has the interests of Britain at heart a lot of pause for thought.
That works both ways though.
For example, the Russians would be substantially in favour of your favoured policy to demilitarise the UK’s military expeditionary capability on your stated grounds that a quarter of the world is no longer painted pink and you find it embarrassing and a waste of resources.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I don't know why. Perhaps he will tell us. Farmers do shoot their livestock and are unsentimental about having to do so when it's necessary.
There seems something both frivolous and deeply twattish about this woman claiming to be a "hunter" and posing as if she's been brave when she's been no such thing. And if you shoot an animal you have to be a very good shot so that it does not suffer. The idea of tourists who may not be a good shot paying to kill domesticated livestock seems somehow off to me.
It is all a bit surreal but it seems this is her thing, and domesticity aside (as @Alistair has noted, pheasants are a smidge away from being domestic animals, but then so are many if not most farm animals) I see nothing wrong in her killing the thing if it is legal to do so. The outrage that it is "a sheep" is misplaced as there are many not even made it to "sheep" on the shelves at Sainsburys. Was she a good shot? She says she was.
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Or we could consider what is in the British interest. I fundamentally disagree with those who advocate a federal nation state, but do respect their honesty. The only sensible alternative (as any kind of end to integration seems impossible, sadly) is to depart.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
The Saudis have killed tens of thousands in Yemen already and are using famine as a weapon to threaten hundreds of thousands more. It is a bit odd that we get our knickers in a twist about the chopping up of one of their own citizens just because he occasionally wrote for the Washington Post.
It's a consequence of what makes the news. As Dura Ace notes - Corbyn has been opposing arms sales to the Saudis well before the Khashoggi case.
You need to complete the picture and put in all the times he has appeared on Press TV, for which he was paid, and the talks he has given at pro-Iranian conferences and the fact that he lied, during a recent interview, about when he stopped doing work for Press TV. He claimed that it was once he knew about the Iranian government's torture of a Channel 4 journalist when in fact he carried on appearing on Press TV for some considerable time after he knew of this.
A rhetorical question, a TV programme I watched sometime ago about how milk became so popular around the mid 1800's in the UK, before pasteurisation, filtration and chilling came into the process. Many entrepreneurs were extending the life of milk by adding chemicals to cover up the smell of the milk going off. Needless to say, not only were some of the chemicals themselves poisonous, but they didn't stop the biological processes in the milk from going bad. It is more than possible that we have become lactose tolerant more from natural selection, much in the same way we humans have become alcohol tolerant.
Pre-refrigeration, cheese was an important way to store protein. Another western habit was to drink wine, beer, spirits and ale as the alcohol sterilised the water used (normal water carried a high risk of disease).
Since these were predominately used in the West, Westerners/Europeans etc developed a tolerance to lactose and to alcohol which is why, in many other parts of the world, people there get drunk easily and have lactose intolerance.
Russia being for or against something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.
You are putting the cart before the horse also. Look at the reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit and the reasons why it opposed ISIS.
The reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit are reasons that should give anyone who has the interests of Britain at heart a lot of pause for thought.
That works both ways though.
For example, the Russians would be substantially in favour of your favoured policy to demilitarise the UK’s military expeditionary capability on your stated grounds that a quarter of the world is no longer painted pink and you find it embarrassing and a waste of resources.
Brexit makes the reduction of Britain's military forces inevitable. Its relative impoverishment caused by prioritising anti-immigration measures over trade measures will require Britain to retreat still further.
Some events can be rewound or repeated (you can make a jigsaw, scatter the pieces, then make it again), others can't (boiling an egg). If the component parts of an event are altered in such a way that cannot be rewound, the even can't be done again or reversed.
I got more insight into the BBC travel budget than any interesting revelation on physics.
You are dodging the question of why the shell cannot unbreak itself.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
Painting over a mural that does not belong to her seems, pf, to be criminal damage. Perhaps the university authorities might have a quiet word with her about that. Oh and the cost of repairing the mural.
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
Mr. Meeks, what of the reasons why Leave supporters favour departing? You've tended, alas, to denigrate and insult such people without contemplating their genuine concerns (despite, early in the campaign, indicating you were undecided on the matter).
Non sequitur of the day so far. Russia's motives for cheerleading Brexit need separate consideration and weighing. Leave supporters have been remarkably reluctant to do so, having invested far too heavily in the result.
I'd have thought the world's most disorderly and disruptive power wanting increased freedom to be disorderly and disruptive was something that should be concerning to those with British interests at heart, but it seems not.
The same might be said of Trump's America, these days.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
The Saudis have killed tens of thousands in Yemen already and are using famine as a weapon to threaten hundreds of thousands more. It is a bit odd that we get our knickers in a twist about the chopping up of one of their own citizens just because he occasionally wrote for the Washington Post.
It's a consequence of what makes the news. As Dura Ace notes - Corbyn has been opposing arms sales to the Saudis well before the Khashoggi case.
You need to complete the picture and put in all the times he has appeared on Press TV, for which he was paid, and the talks he has given at pro-Iranian conferences and the fact that he lied, during a recent interview, about when he stopped doing work for Press TV. He claimed that it was once he knew about the Iranian government's torture of a Channel 4 journalist when in fact he carried on appearing on Press TV for some considerable time after he knew of this.
I think everyone on here knows he appeared on press tv, which I think was a mistake. But hardly anyone seems to know about the links I posted, which is why I posted them.
Bloody Metropolitan out-of-touch London elite again. With their namby-pamby inability to identify livestock.
I was an urban child, and vividly remember the teacher's fury when we were asked to spell the names of animals and I wrote "C-A-L-F" under a lamb. She was convinced I was winding her up, but at age 5 or so I'd never seen either one.
If I'd been asked to spell "pavement" I'd have been fine.
One of my colleagues aged about 40 did not understand where milk came from. Seriously.
I have often idly wondered about the first person to discover the milk of other animals as a source of nourishment. That's adventurousness bordering on the perverted.
I knew there was something about ants. They are all perverted.
Mr. Meeks, " "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. "
You could replace Brussels with Moscow, the EU with the Soviet Union, and Britain with Estonia.
Athens opposed Samos and others attempting to leave its 'alliance'. That doesn't mean it was in the interest of Samos to remain in it.
So what if the EU's stronger with the UK in it? I'm wealthier if everyone in my street pays me £100 a week. That doesn't mean it's in their interests. The British interest, not the EU interest, is my concern.
Edited extra bit: and the 'collective' line does remind me a bit of the Borg.
Mr. Meeks, " "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. "
You could replace Brussels with Moscow, the EU with the Soviet Union, and Britain with Estonia.
Athens opposed Samos and others attempting to leave its 'alliance'. That doesn't mean it was in the interest of Samos to remain in it.
So what if the EU's stronger with the UK in it? I'm wealthier if everyone in my street pays me £100 a week. That doesn't mean it's in their interests. The British interest, not the EU interest, is my concern.
You're wandering off the point, if you were ever on it.
My original point was that Russia's rationale for cheerleading Brexit should give those with British interests at heart pause for thought (@Cyclefree makes the very good point about Donald Trump having a similar rationale).
You then raised the question of the EU's motives. I noted their motive as I see it, and that is not one that should particularly give those with British interests at heart pause for thought. It is one that Britain can accommodate or not according to its own interests.
You then say that it is the British interest, not the EU's interest, that is your concern. I agree. So that point about Russia's rationale continues to be concerning (while the EU's rationale does not).
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
This is a genuine question. What do the rest of the EU think that Britain brings to the EU (beyond money, trade and allowing the EU to be bigger)?
Before the referendum there was a move by some in Europe to say how much they loved the Brits, all smiley faces and hugs. It didn't last much beyond a few days.
Bernard-Henri Levy recently wrote this: "Europe will collapse if Brexit goes ahead. It will collapse because when the body is deprived of its brain and its heart, its spirit dies. Britain is not just an additional piece of the European Union, it is the brain.” (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bernard-henri-levys-brexit-lament-nkrnvwvss)
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
Do you think all hunting and shooting should be illegal?
Not especially. I do believe in civil liberties. That doesn't mean I have to like what the people do with those liberties, or indeed, those people. I certainly don't regard shooting defenceless wildlife as any kind of "sport", which implies some kind of equivalence.
That said, I also recognise that there are arguments for controlling the populations of certain types of animal and while hunting might be inefficient, that's no reason of itself to ban it.
Sheep are unbelievably stupid. I know of no other mammal which can roll on to its back and get stuck.
They are, in the words of one sheep farmer of my acquaintance, wandering around looking for ways to die.
You're being unkind to sheep. In Cumbria, they survive the most ferocious winters out on the fells. When even "Miss-I-am-a-good-shot-look-at-my-selfie-of-me-shooting-a-barn-door" will be safely tucked up inside.
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
This is a genuine question. What do the rest of the EU think that Britain brings to the EU (beyond money, trade and allowing the EU to be bigger)?
If they have sense, they would value the following:
1) Increased heft - in a world of power blocs, the bigger the bloc, the bigger the power 2) Military puissance - Britain and France dwarf the rest of the EU's capabilities 3) Britain's permanent UN Security Council seat 4) London's markets 5) Britain's contribution to learning (its universities rank far better than most in Europe, its Nobel Prize record is outstanding) 6) Britain's cultural contribution - there's a reason Britain ranks so highly in those soft power indices 7) Don't laugh, Britain's bureaucratic skills - though post-Brexit that's a tougher sell than before 8) Britain's international connections
In the grand scheme of things the financial contribution is trivial.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
Painting over a mural that does not belong to her seems, pf, to be criminal damage. Perhaps the university authorities might have a quiet word with her about that. Oh and the cost of repairing the mural.
Related to this, Aaronovitch on academia and free speech:
"Ironically and tragically, this idiocy by the liberal left allows the far right to pose as the champions of free speech and therefore as champions of true British aspirations."
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
This is a genuine question. What do the rest of the EU think that Britain brings to the EU (beyond money, trade and allowing the EU to be bigger)?
If they have sense, they would value the following:
1) Increased heft - in a world of power blocs, the bigger the bloc, the bigger the power 2) Military puissance - Britain and France dwarf the rest of the EU's capabilities 3) Britain's permanent UN Security Council seat 4) London's markets 5) Britain's contribution to learning (its universities rank far better than most in Europe, its Nobel Prize record is outstanding) 6) Britain's cultural contribution - there's a reason Britain ranks so highly in those soft power indices 7) Don't laugh, Britain's bureaucratic skills - though post-Brexit that's a tougher sell than before 8) Britain's international connections
In the grand scheme of things the financial contribution is trivial.
Thanks.
I would add: its legal system (I know, I would, wouldn't I) and its political stability (again, don't laugh).
Do you think the EU or its member states do value all or any of these things?
Sheep are unbelievably stupid. I know of no other mammal which can roll on to its back and get stuck.
They are, in the words of one sheep farmer of my acquaintance, wandering around looking for ways to die.
You're being unkind to sheep. In Cumbria, they survive the most ferocious winters out on the fells. When even "Miss-I-am-a-good-shot-look-at-my-selfie-of-me-shooting-a-barn-door" will be safely tucked up inside.
Everywhere I went, there were sheep. Some of them were breeds I'd never seen before (eg Hebrideans). For the first time in my life, I also saw them being rounded up by sheepdogs, which was fascinating.
As an aside - I note that Angela Merkel has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This is in addition to stopping any new deals from happening (already part of coalition agreement).
It's not going to happen here. May would die on a cross for the House of Saud.
Fair fucks to Corbo. He is normally as thick as shit and twice as repellent but he was ahead of public opinion on the Saudis.
The Saudis have killed tens of thousands in Yemen already and are using famine as a weapon to threaten hundreds of thousands more. It is a bit odd that we get our knickers in a twist about the chopping up of one of their own citizens just because he occasionally wrote for the Washington Post.
It's a consequence of what makes the news. As Dura Ace notes - Corbyn has been opposing arms sales to the Saudis well before the Khashoggi case.
Corbyn is not likely to want to sell arms to anyone (except HMG, which is necessary to keep the jobs going and hence Unite happy; he just won't use the weapons there).
This is a genuine question. What do the rest of the EU think that Britain brings to the EU (beyond money, trade and allowing the EU to be bigger)?
Kind of feel like I'm stating the obvious here but maybe it's not obvious to some people in Britain who think... well, I don't know what they think.
Each country has citizens and businesses. These citizens and businesses want to travel, study, work and trade. To do this they want to get rid of laws that would make it harder to travel, study, work and trade between different countries, and agree on common laws where having varying ones will stop you doing one of those things, or where different laws might undermine yours (eg you don't want to make your companies cut CO2, only to see them move to the country next door and pollute from there instead.)
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Surely it is better having her run around the less populated areas of the country shooting sheep than to have her running around Africa bagging Rhinos?
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
This is a genuine question. What do the rest of the EU think that Britain brings to the EU (beyond money, trade and allowing the EU to be bigger)?
If they have sense, they would value the following:
1) Increased heft - in a world of power blocs, the bigger the bloc, the bigger the power 2) Military puissance - Britain and France dwarf the rest of the EU's capabilities 3) Britain's permanent UN Security Council seat 4) London's markets 5) Britain's contribution to learning (its universities rank far better than most in Europe, its Nobel Prize record is outstanding) 6) Britain's cultural contribution - there's a reason Britain ranks so highly in those soft power indices 7) Don't laugh, Britain's bureaucratic skills - though post-Brexit that's a tougher sell than before 8) Britain's international connections
In the grand scheme of things the financial contribution is trivial.
You missed "Equality" out. The UK has driven much of the EU's legislation on ending discrimination.
"Troubled UK café chain Patisserie Valerie on Wednesday revealed it had awarded millions of pounds of share bonuses to its two top executives without notifying shareholders.
Half of the undisclosed awards were exercised by Paul May, chief executive, and Chris Marsh, finance director, just three months before the fast-growing group suspended its shares after uncovering “significant, and potentially fraudulent” accounting irregularities. The two made £1.7m in profits on the sale of those options, exercised on July 20."
If one of these two doesn't go to jail, well no-one ever will. Or perhaps (maybe in addition) I'd hope the shareholders would be able to go after these directors personally. This is a different kettle of fish to a company that goes bankrupt quickly due to a collapse in intangibles say due a complete loss of confidence in the product. Heads NEED to roll on this one, it is worse than RBS I think.
I know about RBS. I doubt this is worse. But it does look like a mess and I can think of a number of potential criminal offences which may have been committed.
Odd decision for the company to carry out its own internal investigation. Unless they have good experienced in-house investigators (something I doubt). I assume they are using a law firm but who is doing the in-house work? They will be potentially conflicted. As will the directors they are reporting to.
Lots more to come out I suspect.
RBS had a massively complicated balance sheet though, this is shops, suppliers, cakes and cash. Whilst complexity is no excuse in RBS case and the scale of this is lower it looks worse to me ... The actions look clearly more fraudulent than even The shred !
I cannot reveal all I know. But you would be wrong to assume that there was no criminal behaviour in the events which led to RBS’s collapse. You would be right to ask why, if that were the case, no action has been taken.
while PB was having its Brexit meltdown yesterday I spent my time watching the BBC programme on the collapse of RBS. Its still on iPlayer. worth watching if you didnt catch it when broadcast.
The programme focuses on the personalities rather than the cause of the RBS and other collapses.
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
This is a genuine question. What do the rest of the EU think that Britain brings to the EU (beyond money, trade and allowing the EU to be bigger)?
If they have sense, they would value the following:
1) Increased heft - in a world of power blocs, the bigger the bloc, the bigger the power 2) Military puissance - Britain and France dwarf the rest of the EU's capabilities 3) Britain's permanent UN Security Council seat 4) London's markets 5) Britain's contribution to learning (its universities rank far better than most in Europe, its Nobel Prize record is outstanding) 6) Britain's cultural contribution - there's a reason Britain ranks so highly in those soft power indices 7) Don't laugh, Britain's bureaucratic skills - though post-Brexit that's a tougher sell than before 8) Britain's international connections
In the grand scheme of things the financial contribution is trivial.
You missed "Equality" out. The UK has driven much of the EU's legislation on ending discrimination.
And with the departure of U.K. MEPs the number of ethnic minority MEPs will halve....
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Beginning to think that Macron might actually be dumb as a brick.....
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
Bloody Metropolitan out-of-touch London elite again. With their namby-pamby inability to identify livestock.
I was an urban child, and vividly remember the teacher's fury when we were asked to spell the names of animals and I wrote "C-A-L-F" under a lamb. She was convinced I was winding her up, but at age 5 or so I'd never seen either one.
If I'd been asked to spell "pavement" I'd have been fine.
One of my colleagues aged about 40 did not understand where milk came from. Seriously.
I have often idly wondered about the first person to discover the milk of other animals as a source of nourishment. That's adventurousness bordering on the perverted.
So here's my question - where do vegans stand on calfs drinking their mother's milk?
Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine. And drinking milk as an adult foodstuff for adults is primarily a Western, and some African, thing. Other peoples, Japanese especially haven’t evolved the systems to deal with it, and can get ill if they drink it, and, IIRC, eat cheese and similar milk products.
"Breast (or udder) whatever milk is fine"
What other type of milk is there?
And if it's ok for the offspring of the producing animal to drink it, why is it not ok for anyone else to drink it?
Westerners have developed an enzyme that can digest milk. So, presumably have Masai and similar. However peoples who haven’t got that, who’s ancestors didn’t try milk at some ;point 10 or so thousand years ago, can't
I suspect the mutation that allows lactose tolerance beyond weaning occurs occasionally everywhere but in the stone age period in north western Europe it became prevalent among the population because those that had it survived to adulthood and bred, those that didn't tended to die before reaching adulthood. It seems that dairy was vital in stone age NW Europe.
Interesting question. Dairy use seems to have developed, IIRC, in what we now know as Slovakia. There’s quite a lot of research around it, and quite a lot on Wikipedia, but at the moment the gym calls ...... got to get rid if Tuesday’s excesses somehow...... and I must away.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
An organisation which is inflexible eventually breaks.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Oh dear. They've learnt the wrong lesson then. What else is Macron doing now but trying to twist the European debate to France's own interests? I'm quite certain that if France had had the level of FoM that Britain had proportionate to its population and density it would have kicked up a fuss.
Cameron was not toying with Europe, though he was too rushed and superficial in the way he addressed the issue. He was trying to find a way to keep Britain in in a way with which it felt comfortable and also deal with the bad faith which the EU displayed in the way they dealt with him over the euro crisis (see Ivan Rogers' lengthy article on this which explains the issue). The EU should have thought then - and should be thinking now- about how to deal with a collective which has some in the eurozone and some outside and how to get the proper balance between the two. They should have helped sell the deal to Britain (I realise I'm in a minority on this) not have that fool Hollande boast about how they had tied down the City. And it should also have thought more carefully about the fact that what can look like FoM to someone on the Belgian/French border looks like migration to people living on an island. Or that if FoM inside a collective is so important then secure borders around the collective are important (Mrs Merkel - I'm looking at you). Or it can operate on the basis that everyone will be in the eurozone and anyone who doesn't want to be in it can bugger off.
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
"Troubled UK café chain Patisserie Valerie on Wednesday revealed it had awarded millions of pounds of share bonuses to its two top executives without notifying shareholders.
Half of the undisclosed awards were exercised by Paul May, chief executive, and Chris Marsh, finance director, just three months before the fast-growing group suspended its shares after uncovering “significant, and potentially fraudulent” accounting irregularities. The two made £1.7m in profits on the sale of those options, exercised on July 20."
If one of these two doesn't go to jail, well no-one ever will. Or perhaps (maybe in addition) I'd hope the shareholders would be able to go after these directors personally. This is a different kettle of fish to a company that goes bankrupt quickly due to a collapse in intangibles say due a complete loss of confidence in the product. Heads NEED to roll on this one, it is worse than RBS I think.
I know about RBS. I doubt this is worse. But it does look like a mess and I can think of a number of potential criminal offences which may have been committed.
Odd decision for the company to carry out its own internal investigation. Unless they have good experienced in-house investigators (something I doubt). I assume they are using a law firm but who is doing the in-house work? They will be potentially conflicted. As will the directors they are reporting to.
Lots more to come out I suspect.
RBS had a massively complicated balance sheet though, this is shops, suppliers, cakes and cash. Whilst complexity is no excuse in RBS case and the scale of this is lower it looks worse to me ... The actions look clearly more fraudulent than even The shred !
I cannot reveal all I know. But you would be wrong to assume that there was no criminal behaviour in the events which led to RBS’s collapse. You would be right to ask why, if that were the case, no action has been taken.
while PB was having its Brexit meltdown yesterday I spent my time watching the BBC programme on the collapse of RBS. Its still on iPlayer. worth watching if you didnt catch it when broadcast.
The programme focuses on the personalities rather than the cause of the RBS and other collapses.
The pesonalities were a large part of the cause. One word: hubris. I saw it several times in my career: e.g Equitable Life's collapse.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Like France we should have just ignored the rules when it suited us instead of trying to renegotiate them, wed still be in the EU if we had.
Comments
It's good to see that bulwark of democracy and liberal values Erdogan leading the charge.
Part of explaining that time only goes one way involved flying to Patagonia to watch a glacier as the edge crumbled into the sea.
When was that...... 1985 or so.
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/184 [Accuses Iranian Govt of torturing minority groups]
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2005-06/1228 [Calls for Iranian Govt to release trade unionists]
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/2526 [Calls for Iranian Govt to release trade unionists]
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2005-06/1472 [Calls for Iranian Govt to release trade union leader]
I wonder whether Corbyn would go that far. He was willing after all to demonstrate with those imams protesting against the Danish cartoons so is perhaps not so concerned about illiberal views being promulgated in the West to the detriment of Western citizens.
Russia being for or against something doesn't inherently make it right or wrong.
There’s quite a lot of research around it, and quite a lot on Wikipedia, but at the moment the gym calls ...... got to get rid if Tuesday’s excesses somehow...... and I must away.
Reminds me a bit of a FFXIII skit by Zero Punctuation, where he pointed out "It gets good after the first 12 hours" isn't actually a selling point.
But I do not want to become an employee. So will be talking to my accountant.
All of this was too much for journalists or for the BBC.
Bye!!!
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
Oh sorry ....
Some events can be rewound or repeated (you can make a jigsaw, scatter the pieces, then make it again), others can't (boiling an egg). If the component parts of an event are altered in such a way that cannot be rewound, the even can't be done again or reversed.
I got more insight into the BBC travel budget than any interesting revelation on physics.
The reasons why Russia is in favour of Brexit are reasons that should give anyone who has the interests of Britain at heart a lot of pause for thought.
The 'beaters' practically have to throw them in the air.
Pointing at an opponent and suggesting any view they hold on anything is wrong is as mistaken as following a wise man without ever considering he might be wrong.
Had the UK Government kept its promise for a Lisbon referendum, I would've been happier. But the reneging of that promise and the endless creep of integration means we face a strategic choice. Either we govern ourselves, or admit we're going to be part of a federal nation called the EU. I prefer the former.
Mr. Meeks, what of the reasons why Leave supporters favour departing? You've tended, alas, to denigrate and insult such people without contemplating their genuine concerns (despite, early in the campaign, indicating you were undecided on the matter).
I do think your post hits the nail on the head regarding why the division is so great. Both sides think they stand for the national interest and their adversaries, by definition, oppose it (wittingly or not).
https://twitter.com/SotonPres/status/1055118853167026176
https://twitter.com/ukhistorygirl/status/1055357411270320128
There seems something both frivolous and deeply twattish about this woman claiming to be a "hunter" and posing as if she's been brave when she's been no such thing. And if you shoot an animal you have to be a very good shot so that it does not suffer. The idea of tourists who may not be a good shot paying to kill domesticated livestock seems somehow off to me.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
I'd have thought the world's most disorderly and disruptive power wanting increased freedom to be disorderly and disruptive was something that should be concerning to those with British interests at heart, but it seems not.
For example, the Russians would be substantially in favour of your favoured policy to demilitarise the UK’s military expeditionary capability on your stated grounds that a quarter of the world is no longer painted pink and you find it embarrassing and a waste of resources.
Or we could consider what is in the British interest. I fundamentally disagree with those who advocate a federal nation state, but do respect their honesty. The only sensible alternative (as any kind of end to integration seems impossible, sadly) is to depart.
Since these were predominately used in the West, Westerners/Europeans etc developed a tolerance to lactose and to alcohol which is why, in many other parts of the world, people there get drunk easily and have lactose intolerance.
Don't see the news story, that said.
Some insects do the same. Drunken males are often incapable of movement, whether on their back or front.
But hardly anyone seems to know about the links I posted, which is why I posted them.
I sometimes listen to these as I am going to bed, and this one kept me awake !
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/7-animals-that-know-how-to-farm/farmer-ants
You could replace Brussels with Moscow, the EU with the Soviet Union, and Britain with Estonia.
Athens opposed Samos and others attempting to leave its 'alliance'. That doesn't mean it was in the interest of Samos to remain in it.
So what if the EU's stronger with the UK in it? I'm wealthier if everyone in my street pays me £100 a week. That doesn't mean it's in their interests. The British interest, not the EU interest, is my concern.
Edited extra bit: and the 'collective' line does remind me a bit of the Borg.
My original point was that Russia's rationale for cheerleading Brexit should give those with British interests at heart pause for thought (@Cyclefree makes the very good point about Donald Trump having a similar rationale).
You then raised the question of the EU's motives. I noted their motive as I see it, and that is not one that should particularly give those with British interests at heart pause for thought. It is one that Britain can accommodate or not according to its own interests.
You then say that it is the British interest, not the EU's interest, that is your concern. I agree. So that point about Russia's rationale continues to be concerning (while the EU's rationale does not).
Before the referendum there was a move by some in Europe to say how much they loved the Brits, all smiley faces and hugs. It didn't last much beyond a few days.
Bernard-Henri Levy recently wrote this: "Europe will collapse if Brexit goes ahead. It will collapse because when the body is deprived of its brain and its heart, its spirit dies. Britain is not just an additional piece of the European Union, it is the brain.” (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bernard-henri-levys-brexit-lament-nkrnvwvss)
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
That said, I also recognise that there are arguments for controlling the populations of certain types of animal and while hunting might be inefficient, that's no reason of itself to ban it.
I've laid her back to equal green with the rags - doesn't deserve such a short price I think.
1) Increased heft - in a world of power blocs, the bigger the bloc, the bigger the power
2) Military puissance - Britain and France dwarf the rest of the EU's capabilities
3) Britain's permanent UN Security Council seat
4) London's markets
5) Britain's contribution to learning (its universities rank far better than most in Europe, its Nobel Prize record is outstanding)
6) Britain's cultural contribution - there's a reason Britain ranks so highly in those soft power indices
7) Don't laugh, Britain's bureaucratic skills - though post-Brexit that's a tougher sell than before
8) Britain's international connections
In the grand scheme of things the financial contribution is trivial.
Related to this, Aaronovitch on academia and free speech:
"Ironically and tragically, this idiocy by the liberal left allows the far right to pose as the champions of free speech and therefore as champions of true British aspirations."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/illiberal-left-plays-into-hands-of-the-far-right-qwwcwvrmd
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
I would add: its legal system (I know, I would, wouldn't I) and its political stability (again, don't laugh).
Do you think the EU or its member states do value all or any of these things?
Each country has citizens and businesses. These citizens and businesses want to travel, study, work and trade. To do this they want to get rid of laws that would make it harder to travel, study, work and trade between different countries, and agree on common laws where having varying ones will stop you doing one of those things, or where different laws might undermine yours (eg you don't want to make your companies cut CO2, only to see them move to the country next door and pollute from there instead.)
This is why there is the EU. HTH.
https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1055392609068351489?s=20
(even then I wouldn't...)
Cameron was not toying with Europe, though he was too rushed and superficial in the way he addressed the issue. He was trying to find a way to keep Britain in in a way with which it felt comfortable and also deal with the bad faith which the EU displayed in the way they dealt with him over the euro crisis (see Ivan Rogers' lengthy article on this which explains the issue). The EU should have thought then - and should be thinking now- about how to deal with a collective which has some in the eurozone and some outside and how to get the proper balance between the two. They should have helped sell the deal to Britain (I realise I'm in a minority on this) not have that fool Hollande boast about how they had tied down the City. And it should also have thought more carefully about the fact that what can look like FoM to someone on the Belgian/French border looks like migration to people living on an island. Or that if FoM inside a collective is so important then secure borders around the collective are important (Mrs Merkel - I'm looking at you). Or it can operate on the basis that everyone will be in the eurozone and anyone who doesn't want to be in it can bugger off.
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-45975674