Newcastle United could still have new owners before the start of next season
Exclusive: American businessman Henry Mauriss believes he is in pole position to buy after a takeover by a Saudi-led consortium collapsed....
...Not much is known about the American, but Telegraph Sport has been assured by those close to the deal that he has a well financed and well planned project that includes the money to not only buy the club, but to also invest in it.
It is understood the loose business model will be based on the approach taken by FSF at Liverpool, with budgeted, gradual growth at the core of the mission statement.
That is honestly the best possible scenario for Newcastle and I hope it goes through for them.
Much better a reputable business like that than selling your soul to the Saudis or continuing with that swine Ashley.
Though I assume they mean FSG and not FSF?
Yeah but what you don't want is for him to end up being Hicks and Gillet style chancers. For Liverpool that wasn't a complete disaster because they were always going to be bought before administration, for Newcastle it would be tough to find a buyer that would purchase pre-administration. Aiui, Liverpool were weeks away from the points deduction and it was only because the banks forced the sale of the club before that happened and permanently damaged the asset.
Even Man United had a few dodgy PIKs that the Glazers used and needed to float the company in Singapore to get rid of. Whatever anyone says about Ashley, he's never going to let Newcastle go bankrupt. This new buyer feels more like Hicks and Gillet than FSG or even the Glazers.
Indeed even with all the stick Ashley gets, he's not as I understood it loaded any debts onto the club. That's quite impressive compared to many owners.
Indeed, and we've seen even big clubs like Liverpool can be brought to near relegation by owners who load up clubs with unsustainable debts. Newcastle would probably end up like Blackburn with that type of owner, double relegation.
Indeed. Look how long its taken Leeds United to get back into the Premier League.
Exactly, and Leeds are a club with a comparable history and fan base to Newcastle.
Ashley is the focal point of a lot of hate from Newcastle fans, but ultimately it's the players and managers who haven't delivered good football. Spurs have had an almost negative net transfer spend for the better part of a decade and a decade ago we were finishing in the rubbish mid table positions.
It's all about making good signings, isn't it? In the case of Spurs it was Carrick, then Berbatov, then Bale and Modric. With Liverpool it was Suarez and Coutinho (with Sterling coming through too). And before both of them there was Arsenal and Anelka. All of those signings were sold and funded greater things.
Still should be setting an example and has he told us how many the net increase in police numbers are since the recruitment drive?
There's no requirement to wear a mask outside. If they were wearing a mask, questions would be asked as to why it isn't policy. Simple as that.
Maybe it should be
Do you want people to exercise? If so, I suggest we don't adopt that as policy.
Johnson isn’t exercising that should be an exclusion as long as not in crowded areas
You are trying to make your own rules that nobody has to comply with mainly because you dislike everything Boris does
Not quite in the league of Scott, most of what Johnson does and says I can’t be bothered commenting on. I only got involved because someone called him a c*** Scott that is not Johnson. Not very nice in my opinion
Newcastle United could still have new owners before the start of next season
Exclusive: American businessman Henry Mauriss believes he is in pole position to buy after a takeover by a Saudi-led consortium collapsed....
...Not much is known about the American, but Telegraph Sport has been assured by those close to the deal that he has a well financed and well planned project that includes the money to not only buy the club, but to also invest in it.
It is understood the loose business model will be based on the approach taken by FSF at Liverpool, with budgeted, gradual growth at the core of the mission statement.
That is honestly the best possible scenario for Newcastle and I hope it goes through for them.
Much better a reputable business like that than selling your soul to the Saudis or continuing with that swine Ashley.
Though I assume they mean FSG and not FSF?
Yeah but what you don't want is for him to end up being Hicks and Gillet style chancers. For Liverpool that wasn't a complete disaster because they were always going to be bought before administration, for Newcastle it would be tough to find a buyer that would purchase pre-administration. Aiui, Liverpool were weeks away from the points deduction and it was only because the banks forced the sale of the club before that happened and permanently damaged the asset.
Even Man United had a few dodgy PIKs that the Glazers used and needed to float the company in Singapore to get rid of. Whatever anyone says about Ashley, he's never going to let Newcastle go bankrupt. This new buyer feels more like Hicks and Gillet than FSG or even the Glazers.
Indeed even with all the stick Ashley gets, he's not as I understood it loaded any debts onto the club. That's quite impressive compared to many owners.
Partially that is due to the fact that he doesn't own the ground. It has always been Council. And also cos he tries to turn a profit. Which is why NUFC simultaneously punch above and below their weight.
What is their weight, though? Is it above or below Everton, who have spent a fortune to get to 12th in the league.
A good question. They are perfectly capable of being regular European contenders. But Ashley tries to make money. Which is not what modern football is about. As for Everton. Don't ask
Well that's no good. They announce new restrictions, not sure of the detail, and no sign of them whatsoever on the government's local lockdown webpage. Looks like something fairly limited to me, but really left in the dark.
Still should be setting an example and has he told us how many the net increase in police numbers are since the recruitment drive?
There's no requirement to wear a mask outside. If they were wearing a mask, questions would be asked as to why it isn't policy. Simple as that.
Maybe it should be
Do you want people to exercise? If so, I suggest we don't adopt that as policy.
Johnson isn’t exercising that should be an exclusion as long as not in crowded areas
You are trying to make your own rules that nobody has to comply with mainly because you dislike everything Boris does
Not quite in the league of Scott, most of what Johnson does and says I can’t be bothered commenting on. I only got involved because someone called him a c*** Scott that is not Johnson. Not very nice in my opinion
I rarely agree with anything Scott posts but I reject that language to any poster
Newcastle United could still have new owners before the start of next season
Exclusive: American businessman Henry Mauriss believes he is in pole position to buy after a takeover by a Saudi-led consortium collapsed....
...Not much is known about the American, but Telegraph Sport has been assured by those close to the deal that he has a well financed and well planned project that includes the money to not only buy the club, but to also invest in it.
It is understood the loose business model will be based on the approach taken by FSF at Liverpool, with budgeted, gradual growth at the core of the mission statement.
That is honestly the best possible scenario for Newcastle and I hope it goes through for them.
Much better a reputable business like that than selling your soul to the Saudis or continuing with that swine Ashley.
Though I assume they mean FSG and not FSF?
Yeah but what you don't want is for him to end up being Hicks and Gillet style chancers. For Liverpool that wasn't a complete disaster because they were always going to be bought before administration, for Newcastle it would be tough to find a buyer that would purchase pre-administration. Aiui, Liverpool were weeks away from the points deduction and it was only because the banks forced the sale of the club before that happened and permanently damaged the asset.
Even Man United had a few dodgy PIKs that the Glazers used and needed to float the company in Singapore to get rid of. Whatever anyone says about Ashley, he's never going to let Newcastle go bankrupt. This new buyer feels more like Hicks and Gillet than FSG or even the Glazers.
Indeed even with all the stick Ashley gets, he's not as I understood it loaded any debts onto the club. That's quite impressive compared to many owners.
Indeed, and we've seen even big clubs like Liverpool can be brought to near relegation by owners who load up clubs with unsustainable debts. Newcastle would probably end up like Blackburn with that type of owner, double relegation.
Indeed. Look how long its taken Leeds United to get back into the Premier League.
Exactly, and Leeds are a club with a comparable history and fan base to Newcastle.
Ashley is the focal point of a lot of hate from Newcastle fans, but ultimately it's the players and managers who haven't delivered good football. Spurs have had an almost negative net transfer spend for the better part of a decade and a decade ago we were finishing in the rubbish mid table positions.
It's all about making good signings, isn't it? In the case of Spurs it was Carrick, then Berbatov, then Bale and Modric. With Liverpool it was Suarez and Coutinho (with Sterling coming through too). And before both of them there was Arsenal and Anelka. All of those signings were sold and funded greater things.
True, and not being a selling club. Part of our problem in the late noughties was that we were a feeder club for bigger PL clubs, I think Levy definitely changed that mentality after Berbatov and we now sell our star players overseas so we aren't strengthening our rivals. Now there's no chance that if Kane leaves that we'd allow him to be sold to a PL club, he'd end up at Juve or Madrid for £100m+ in transfer fees. Newcastle would end up selling a Kane style player for £40m to Man United.
Newcastle United could still have new owners before the start of next season
Exclusive: American businessman Henry Mauriss believes he is in pole position to buy after a takeover by a Saudi-led consortium collapsed....
...Not much is known about the American, but Telegraph Sport has been assured by those close to the deal that he has a well financed and well planned project that includes the money to not only buy the club, but to also invest in it.
It is understood the loose business model will be based on the approach taken by FSF at Liverpool, with budgeted, gradual growth at the core of the mission statement.
That is honestly the best possible scenario for Newcastle and I hope it goes through for them.
Much better a reputable business like that than selling your soul to the Saudis or continuing with that swine Ashley.
Though I assume they mean FSG and not FSF?
Yeah but what you don't want is for him to end up being Hicks and Gillet style chancers. For Liverpool that wasn't a complete disaster because they were always going to be bought before administration, for Newcastle it would be tough to find a buyer that would purchase pre-administration. Aiui, Liverpool were weeks away from the points deduction and it was only because the banks forced the sale of the club before that happened and permanently damaged the asset.
Even Man United had a few dodgy PIKs that the Glazers used and needed to float the company in Singapore to get rid of. Whatever anyone says about Ashley, he's never going to let Newcastle go bankrupt. This new buyer feels more like Hicks and Gillet than FSG or even the Glazers.
Indeed even with all the stick Ashley gets, he's not as I understood it loaded any debts onto the club. That's quite impressive compared to many owners.
Partially that is due to the fact that he doesn't own the ground. It has always been Council. And also cos he tries to turn a profit. Which is why NUFC simultaneously punch above and below their weight.
What is their weight, though? Is it above or below Everton, who have spent a fortune to get to 12th in the league.
A good question. They are perfectly capable of being regular European contenders. But Ashley tries to make money. Which is not what modern football is about. As for Everton. Don't ask
Has football ever been about making money? All that's changed since Jack Walker bought the Premier League with Blackburn is the number of digits.
Ultimately there is only one Kevin De Bruyne, and even if all 20 PL clubs had the riches of Man City, three would be relegated at the end of the season. And then there are irritating clubs like Sheff Utd who manage to gatecrash the Top 10 without spending huge amounts.
Still should be setting an example and has he told us how many the net increase in police numbers are since the recruitment drive?
There's no requirement to wear a mask outside. If they were wearing a mask, questions would be asked as to why it isn't policy. Simple as that.
Maybe it should be
Do you want people to exercise? If so, I suggest we don't adopt that as policy.
Johnson isn’t exercising that should be an exclusion as long as not in crowded areas
You are trying to make your own rules that nobody has to comply with mainly because you dislike everything Boris does
Not quite in the league of Scott, most of what Johnson does and says I can’t be bothered commenting on. I only got involved because someone called him a c*** Scott that is not Johnson. Not very nice in my opinion
I rarely agree with anything Scott posts but I reject that language to any poster
I have tried on several occasions to popularise "horp" on the basis that one substring of Scunthorpe is as good as another. Not catching on, though.
Still should be setting an example and has he told us how many the net increase in police numbers are since the recruitment drive?
There's no requirement to wear a mask outside. If they were wearing a mask, questions would be asked as to why it isn't policy. Simple as that.
Maybe it should be
Do you want people to exercise? If so, I suggest we don't adopt that as policy.
Johnson isn’t exercising that should be an exclusion as long as not in crowded areas
You are trying to make your own rules that nobody has to comply with mainly because you dislike everything Boris does
Not quite in the league of Scott, most of what Johnson does and says I can’t be bothered commenting on. I only got involved because someone called him a c*** Scott that is not Johnson. Not very nice in my opinion
I rarely agree with anything Scott posts but I reject that language to any poster
I have tried on several occasions to popularise "horp" on the basis that one substring of Scunthorpe is as good as another. Not catching on, though.
I'll try to use that in future. I apologise for any offence; it just angers me that people seek to make political capital out of people dying. I suspect there are some people secretly wanting things to go bad so that they can lay into the government that they don't like.
Still should be setting an example and has he told us how many the net increase in police numbers are since the recruitment drive?
There's no requirement to wear a mask outside. If they were wearing a mask, questions would be asked as to why it isn't policy. Simple as that.
Maybe it should be
Do you want people to exercise? If so, I suggest we don't adopt that as policy.
Johnson isn’t exercising that should be an exclusion as long as not in crowded areas
You are trying to make your own rules that nobody has to comply with mainly because you dislike everything Boris does
Not quite in the league of Scott, most of what Johnson does and says I can’t be bothered commenting on. I only got involved because someone called him a c*** Scott that is not Johnson. Not very nice in my opinion
I rarely agree with anything Scott posts but I reject that language to any poster
I have tried on several occasions to popularise "horp" on the basis that one substring of Scunthorpe is as good as another. Not catching on, though.
I'll try to use that in future. I apologise for any offence; it just angers me that people seek to make political capital out of people dying. I suspect there are some people secretly wanting things to go bad so that they can lay into the government that they don't like.
Yes, a big portion of remainers want the trade talks to fail to get their "I told you so" moment.
Yes, a big portion of remainers want the trade talks to fail to get their "I told you so" moment.
How can you see far enough into their heads to know that? They might want the talks to succeed but think that failure will have the merit of showing what a bunch of complete and utter thors leavers actually are. Which it will.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
To play devil's advocate, how long are we going to tolerate a situation where we are in and out of lockdowns like this?
Perhaps Sumption is right and we have to live with it and get on with lives.
For ages, I should think. Everyone I know (including lots of critics of the Government) think that semi-normality plus occasional lockdowns is a reasonablew compromise, compared with permanent lockdown or reckless embrace of risk. Lots of us are very critical of the early stages of the Government's response, and we reserve judg,ment on what's coming, but the intermittent local lockdowns seem sensible.
On the other hand - I had a delivery from Sainsbury this evening at 930pm. I said I hoped I wass his last customer - he said no, he had three more still to do, and Sainsbury was pushing drivers to keep going after 10 now. "It's OK for now but I'm dreading tthe winter and having to do this in the dark".
To play devil's advocate, how long are we going to tolerate a situation where we are in and out of lockdowns like this?
Perhaps Sumption is right and we have to live with it and get on with lives.
I suspect it will be a long time before the media - and they are important - accept this as a choice. The good (if you can call it that) news is that for the moment most of the world is in the same boat. That should give us some room for managing the economic problems without the pound completely tanking. But it is going to be painful either way.
Well that's no good. They announce new restrictions, not sure of the detail, and no sign of them whatsoever on the government's local lockdown webpage. Looks like something fairly limited to me, but really left in the dark.
In other words don't just govern by tweet Hancock, publish the fucking information properly, MP's scurrying round for clarification at half ten at night is no fucking good at all.
Hancock's barking mad. The default for all consultations should be video?
The virus has done his head in. Time for a new Health Sec in the reshuffle.
Its a very good idea. Sitting in a crowded room of sick people waiting to be seen is the last thing anyone should want. Going into a waiting room with other sick people should only be done if necessary.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
To play devil's advocate, how long are we going to tolerate a situation where we are in and out of lockdowns like this?
Perhaps Sumption is right and we have to live with it and get on with lives.
I suspect it will be a long time before the media - and they are important - accept this as a choice. The good (if you can call it that) news is that for the moment most of the world is in the same boat. That should give us some room for managing the economic problems without the pound completely tanking. But it is going to be painful either way.
You can tell the Gov't is taking the virus seriously when the journos are squeaking
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
The Wehrmacht were far from innocent too, they were widely involved in Nazi atrocities.
A gross generalisation. Some of them conspired to kill Hitler, for starters. And anyway the guy wasn't even mourning them, he was saying that war is not a great thing, which seems to follow from the fact that there are 30,000 of them in a cemetery even if - or rather especially if - they are all war criminals.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
The Wehrmacht were far from innocent too, they were widely involved in Nazi atrocities.
They were. Their dead though were largely conscripts who had little choice but to fight.
There should be a difference between how we view the atrocities of the Nazis, and how we view the tragedy of graveyards. Mass graves are tragic, no matter who is buried in them.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
I think they would still need UK registration. A GP friend of mine now does 85% of his consultations by phone or video. He sees a half dozen or so patients per day.
It may work for some issues, but for some symptoms is pointless, and others dangerous.
I suspect the vast majority of those dead soldiers were not Nazis.
He was making a valid point about the cost of war and its impact on families. McMillin chose to make it about politics
If Hoekstra is consistent and would say similar things about Dutch, Brtitish or Soviet cemeteries, I don't have a problem with it either, despite thinking that it would have been good if the entire Germany army had dropped dead in 1939. It's time we stopped fighting WW2.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
No it isn't, no one *wants* to sit in the GP waiting room, it's a chore.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
Oh come off it!
The GPs practice is the last place anyone should be going for "socialising". If bloody hypochondriacs are going there to socialise then getting rid of that is fantastic news.
Getting rid of cramming old and vulnerable sick people into the same room to catch each other's contagions is a very good idea.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
No it isn't, no one *wants* to sit in the GP waiting room, it's a chore.
A video conversation is not the same as a real conversation, as we have all found out in the last four months.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
The Wehrmacht were far from innocent too, they were widely involved in Nazi atrocities.
They were. Their dead though were largely conscripts who had little choice but to fight.
There should be a difference between how we view the atrocities of the Nazis, and how we view the tragedy of graveyards. Mass graves are tragic, no matter who is buried in them.
It is a myth though. The rare examples of Wehrmacht troops refusing to kill Jews or other civilians, very rarely resulted in punishment. Usually they were simply given other duties.
A brutal regime and peer pressure normalises a lot of atrocities, and most went along with it. Whether conscript or fanatic volunteer matters little.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
No it isn't, no one *wants* to sit in the GP waiting room, it's a chore.
A video conversation is not the same as a real conversation, as we have all found out in the last four months.
So if someone needs a face to face conversation they can come in for one - but when they come in for one they won't be crammed into a room full of dozens of other people coughing and spluttering.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
'Manfred Oldenburg, in his book Ideology and Military Calculation, stated that there are no known cases where the refusal to participate in an execution of civilians has led to drastic consequences for soldiers of the Wehrmacht or SS.'
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
The Wehrmacht were far from innocent too, they were widely involved in Nazi atrocities.
They were. Their dead though were largely conscripts who had little choice but to fight.
There should be a difference between how we view the atrocities of the Nazis, and how we view the tragedy of graveyards. Mass graves are tragic, no matter who is buried in them.
It is a myth though. The rare examples of Wehrmacht troops refusing to kill Jews or other civilians, very rarely resulted in punishment. Usually they were simply given other duties.
A brutal regime and peer pressure normalises a lot of atrocities, and most went along with it. Whether conscript or fanatic volunteer matters little.
Oh indeed, but troops who refused to serve in the military and refused to fight the British, Russians or Americans etc? They would have struggled surely. The soldiers our soldiers were fighting were there because they had to be not because they were passionate Nazis.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
No it isn't, no one *wants* to sit in the GP waiting room, it's a chore.
A video conversation is not the same as a real conversation, as we have all found out in the last four months.
For GPs it is. I say that not having been to a GP in years and having used Babylon for all of my GP needs for two years. Video appointments are the right move and eventually we should get rid of those too and not have GPs.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
I think they would still need UK registration. A GP friend of mine now does 85% of his consultations by phone or video. He sees a half dozen or so patients per day.
It may work for some issues, but for some symptoms is pointless, and others dangerous.
How does a doctor feel swollen glands or listen to your chest by phone or video? Or inspect a swollen hot red leg? Or feel a breast lump?
I’m sure simple stuff can be sorted via phone but as someone with a history of complicated conditions, which were only discovered by extensive in person tests and, in one case, a sharp-eyed experienced GP who realised that 3 bouts of pneumonia in 6 months was not normal in a 23 year old, I worry about changes which might make it harder for these sorts of conditions to be seen early enough.
This should not be used as a way of limiting access to GPs even more. But if it frees them up to do the important stuff so much the better.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
'Manfred Oldenburg, in his book Ideology and Military Calculation, stated that there are no known cases where the refusal to participate in an execution of civilians has led to drastic consequences for soldiers of the Wehrmacht or SS.'
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
The Wehrmacht were far from innocent too, they were widely involved in Nazi atrocities.
They were. Their dead though were largely conscripts who had little choice but to fight.
There should be a difference between how we view the atrocities of the Nazis, and how we view the tragedy of graveyards. Mass graves are tragic, no matter who is buried in them.
It is a myth though. The rare examples of Wehrmacht troops refusing to kill Jews or other civilians, very rarely resulted in punishment. Usually they were simply given other duties.
A brutal regime and peer pressure normalises a lot of atrocities, and most went along with it. Whether conscript or fanatic volunteer matters little.
Most of these guys, most of the time, were fighting battles. We know this because the battles happened and somebody must have been on the other side. So the rare examples of them refusing to kill Jews are probably to do with the rarity of their being asked to do so. And surely if you accept that the conscripts were victims of a "brutal regime" you can cut them a tiny bit of slack, to the extent of thinking it's ok for someone to observe that their graves are evidence of the horror of war?
Yes, a big portion of remainers want the trade talks to fail to get their "I told you so" moment.
How can you see far enough into their heads to know that? They might want the talks to succeed but think that failure will have the merit of showing what a bunch of complete and utter thors leavers actually are. Which it will.
I think I can claim to be one of PB "arch-remainers" and definitely no fan of Brexit. I do not give a d*mn whether it succeeds or fails.
I do not want it to fail. I just think that it will fail.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I have no idea, but if they swore the oath under compulsion I don't attach any weight to it. Soldiers in all armies including Allied ones commit atrocities.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
Seems you don't recall (or were not around) when Ronald Reagan's Bitburg controversy.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
I think they would still need UK registration. A GP friend of mine now does 85% of his consultations by phone or video. He sees a half dozen or so patients per day.
It may work for some issues, but for some symptoms is pointless, and others dangerous.
How does a doctor feel swollen glands or listen to your chest by phone or video? Or inspect a swollen hot red leg? Or feel a breast lump?
I’m sure simple stuff can be sorted via phone but as someone with a history of complicated conditions, which were only discovered by extensive in person tests and, in one case, a sharp-eyed experienced GP who realised that 3 bouts of pneumonia in 6 months was not normal in a 23 year old, I worry about changes which might make it harder for these sorts of conditions to be seen early enough.
This should not be used as a way of limiting access to GPs even more. But if it frees them up to do the important stuff so much the better.
If.
Which is why we need walk in centres open from 7am-11pm 7 days a week. No messing about with appointments 3 weeks away.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
Seems you don't recall (or were not around) when Ronald Reagan's Bitburg controversy.
First I've heard of it.
From a Google search, I would have been two years old then. So yeah, I don't recall it.
I agree 100% with what the great man said here: These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I have no idea, but if they swore the oath under compulsion I don't attach any weight to it. Soldiers in all armies including Allied ones commit atrocities.
Soldiers who did not want to participate in atrocities did not suffer for their refusals, as others have said above. So soldiers who participated were Nazi criminals, regardless of whether they were conscripted or members of the party.
Atrocities - especially on the Eastern front - were not seen as crimes but were intended by the German leadership and the German army went along with it willingly. There was a notorious Order to this effect before the 1941 invasion of Russia.
Atrocities by Allied soldiers have always been seen as crimes not as the purpose of war, even if - though I don’t know about this aspect - they may not always have been punished.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
How is that relevant to why they are in the cemetery?
I thought it was a cemetery for dead soldiers killed by the war, not a cemetery dedicated to only those who killed prisoners or civilians?
Because the Wehrmacht was intimately involved in those atrocities.
My brother married a German woman who had two uncles die on the Eastern front, but as my father pointed out (out of earshot!) they shouldn't have been there in the first place. I agree.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
'Manfred Oldenburg, in his book Ideology and Military Calculation, stated that there are no known cases where the refusal to participate in an execution of civilians has led to drastic consequences for soldiers of the Wehrmacht or SS.'
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
How is that relevant to why they are in the cemetery?
I thought it was a cemetery for dead soldiers killed by the war, not a cemetery dedicated to only those who killed prisoners or civilians?
Because the Wehrmacht was intimately involved in those atrocities.
My brother married a German woman who had two uncles die on the Eastern front, but as my father pointed out (out of earshot!) they shouldn't have been there in the first place. I agree.
What, all of the wehrmacht?
Did you work for the NHS at the same time as Harold Shipman?
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
No it isn't, no one *wants* to sit in the GP waiting room, it's a chore.
A video conversation is not the same as a real conversation, as we have all found out in the last four months.
So if someone needs a face to face conversation they can come in for one - but when they come in for one they won't be crammed into a room full of dozens of other people coughing and spluttering.
It’s not the conversation which matters but the physical and visual inspection of the patient, which is often pretty important in reaching a diagnosis.
A GP's practice is part of the community, part of the social glue. A video-only service will just add to the atomisation and isolation that is rampant in our modern society.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
I think they would still need UK registration. A GP friend of mine now does 85% of his consultations by phone or video. He sees a half dozen or so patients per day.
It may work for some issues, but for some symptoms is pointless, and others dangerous.
How does a doctor feel swollen glands or listen to your chest by phone or video? Or inspect a swollen hot red leg? Or feel a breast lump?
I’m sure simple stuff can be sorted via phone but as someone with a history of complicated conditions, which were only discovered by extensive in person tests and, in one case, a sharp-eyed experienced GP who realised that 3 bouts of pneumonia in 6 months was not normal in a 23 year old, I worry about changes which might make it harder for these sorts of conditions to be seen early enough.
This should not be used as a way of limiting access to GPs even more. But if it frees them up to do the important stuff so much the better.
If.
Which is why we need walk in centres open from 7am-11pm 7 days a week. No messing about with appointments 3 weeks away.
Named GPs are a waste of time and money.
My GP in London has emergency appointments available every single day. Same in Cumbria. No reason why that can’t be routine, along with video/phone consultations - where appropriate, not as a default - and face-to-face ones.
There 30, 000+ in the cemetery. Less than 100 are WW1 casualties.
That's OK then. Let's all laugh at 29,900 dead Germans.
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
The Wehrmacht were not innocents in WW2. Particularly on the Eastern Front they were involved in atrocities and war crimes, though that does not mean every single soldier was. Nor does it mean that every soldier was a card-carrying Nazi. But I thought that every soldier had to swear a personal oath of loyalty to Hitler, no?
I'm guessing it was that or an injection of lead into the back of the head.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
No, there is no record of the Wehrmacht executing soldiers who refused to kill prisoners or civilians:
To play devil's advocate, how long are we going to tolerate a situation where we are in and out of lockdowns like this?
Perhaps Sumption is right and we have to live with it and get on with lives.
I suspect it will be a long time before the media - and they are important - accept this as a choice. The good (if you can call it that) news is that for the moment most of the world is in the same boat. That should give us some room for managing the economic problems without the pound completely tanking. But it is going to be painful either way.
We are living with it now. We have no choice in the matter. We are already suffering not just its health consequences but now the economic ones, as the rising number of redundancies and jobs lost in recent weeks and days show.
Having Ruth back until the next election would be a massive step forward for the Scottish Tories. Carlaw was just never up to the job. To be effective as opposition leader you need wit.
Ruth did an interview with the ST last weekend. What a remarkable coincidence.
The last outing for the Ruth Davidson No to Indy Ref II party couldn't be called an unalloyed success.
European Election 2019: Scotland
Conservative 11.6% (-5.6)
A lot of Tories boycotted that election because they were pissed off that we hadn’t left yet. Not sure it tells us much.
What will the excuse be for the upcoming May massacre
Comments
He was making a valid point about the cost of war and its impact on families. McMillin chose to make it about politics
Oh F***.
Good to whackamole an outbreak before it gets much more serious.
New restrictions from midnight for Greater Manchester agreed between Hancock and Andy Burnham
But Ashley tries to make money. Which is not what modern football is about.
As for Everton.
Don't ask
Ultimately there is only one Kevin De Bruyne, and even if all 20 PL clubs had the riches of Man City, three would be relegated at the end of the season. And then there are irritating clubs like Sheff Utd who manage to gatecrash the Top 10 without spending huge amounts.
So 4000 by July.
Perhaps Sumption is right and we have to live with it and get on with lives.
Even lockdowns are getting softer and softer.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1288931539326316545
https://twitter.com/JonAshworth/status/1288943671849684992?s=09
You do realise that not everybody in the Wehrmacht was a Nazi? And that many if not most of them were conscripts and therefore by any reasonable definition, victims of Nazism?
On the other hand - I had a delivery from Sainsbury this evening at 930pm. I said I hoped I wass his last customer - he said no, he had three more still to do, and Sainsbury was pushing drivers to keep going after 10 now. "It's OK for now but I'm dreading tthe winter and having to do this in the dark".
Hancock's barking mad. The default for all consultations should be video?
The virus has done his head in. Time for a new Health Sec in the reshuffle.
And incidentally, someone tell the BMA that this opens the door to the person doing the consultation over video being anywhere in the world where they have a recognised qualification.
There should be a difference between how we view the atrocities of the Nazis, and how we view the tragedy of graveyards. Mass graves are tragic, no matter who is buried in them.
Mostly still seems to be people split by what they thought four years ago. Has anyone changed their mind yet?
It may work for some issues, but for some symptoms is pointless, and others dangerous.
The GPs practice is the last place anyone should be going for "socialising". If bloody hypochondriacs are going there to socialise then getting rid of that is fantastic news.
Getting rid of cramming old and vulnerable sick people into the same room to catch each other's contagions is a very good idea.
Nobody is mourning Nazis, but remembering the war dead and saying we want to avoid the horrors of war going forwards . . . how has that become a political issue?
A brutal regime and peer pressure normalises a lot of atrocities, and most went along with it. Whether conscript or fanatic volunteer matters little.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befehlsnotstand
I’m sure simple stuff can be sorted via phone but as someone with a history of complicated conditions, which were only discovered by extensive in person tests and, in one case, a sharp-eyed experienced GP who realised that 3 bouts of pneumonia in 6 months was not normal in a 23 year old, I worry about changes which might make it harder for these sorts of conditions to be seen early enough.
This should not be used as a way of limiting access to GPs even more. But if it frees them up to do the important stuff so much the better.
If.
https://www.deseret.com/1995/3/9/19163367/holocaust-those-who-defied-orders-to-kill-jews-did-not-die-researcher-says-at-byu
No they haven't.
That'll help the economy. Thanks Telegraph.
Do you think all 30,000 of those buried dead soldiers are in their grave because they executed civilians?
I do not want it to fail. I just think that it will fail.
I thought it was a cemetery for dead soldiers killed by the war, not a cemetery dedicated to only those who killed prisoners or civilians?
Named GPs are a waste of time and money.
From a Google search, I would have been two years old then. So yeah, I don't recall it.
I agree 100% with what the great man said here:
These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.
Atrocities - especially on the Eastern front - were not seen as crimes but were intended by the German leadership and the German army went along with it willingly. There was a notorious Order to this effect before the 1941 invasion of Russia.
Atrocities by Allied soldiers have always been seen as crimes not as the purpose of war, even if - though I don’t know about this aspect - they may not always have been punished.
My brother married a German woman who had two uncles die on the Eastern front, but as my father pointed out (out of earshot!) they shouldn't have been there in the first place. I agree.
Did you work for the NHS at the same time as Harold Shipman?
Sensible.
This is a one-term thread, a bit like The Donald