Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
International law is clear on territorial waters around the landmass of the sovereign state.
That said, it seems a deal on bilateral UK-Irish deal on fishing rights here would be sensible.
Fishing rights is a preserve of the EU, Ireland is unable to negotiate with the UK on a bilateral basis. Any change would need to be negotiated via the EU and the treaty would need to be amended. I'm almost certain that neither the UK not EU wants to open up the treaty for at least 10 or so years so Ireland will just have to live with it.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Isn't that something that sounds true, but is a bit too cute for its own good - like with the idea that people only want taxes to go up on people richer than them.
I'm personally abiding very strictly to the lockdown restrictions (from my flat, note, not a smug person comfortable with a garden to use) and I know that the stricter the lockdown is stuck to, the faster infection rates will come down, and so the better everything will generally be.
Not that I like the idea of a curfew, etc, but I don't see that it has to be hypocrisy.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up this utterly bonkers picture
Why are they guarding a very tall dog kennel ?
It's where the King of the Gannets lives. Changing of the Guard is a bit of a faff though....
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
International law is clear on territorial waters around the landmass of the sovereign state.
That said, it seems a deal on bilateral UK-Irish deal on fishing rights here would be sensible.
As Rockall is uninhabited and uninhabitable it only generates a territorial claim not an economic exclusionary claim.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
And why does being part or Britain = colonialism (evil obvs) whereas being part of Argentina = perfectly fine.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
From the few mugs who respond I suppose.
OKC are you enrolled in the telephone preference service?
Doesn't seem to make a lot of difference, TBH. Fits and starts, really.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
Quite aside from the size issue and the obvious retort already mentioned that that would be invasion, that's not the situation that is really in issue here. If that happened it's not like anyone but the invader would accept it, and probably Russia out of sympathy. But the situation of settled populations present for hundreds of years not wanting to change their status because some UN Committee or whoever insists they should negotiate it, is quite different.
The claims of countries like Argentina and similar issues around the world are typically more complex or nuanced than they generally present, and certainly more complex and nuanced than the cavalier 'just let them have it, it's close to them' types make out.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
Imagine using the argument that Ireland should be part of the UK because it is "just off the coast"!
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
From the few mugs who respond I suppose.
OKC are you enrolled in the telephone preference service?
Doesn't seem to make a lot of difference, TBH. Fits and starts, really.
We are in the telephone preference service and ex-directory obviously and we never get these calls. Maybe there is some other factor, but I`m at a loss as to what it could be.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
I don`t think it feels odds - it`s just a fart from history. Who cares?
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
Imagine using the argument that Ireland should be part of the UK because it is "just off the coast"!
I'm currently drawing 900 mile diameter circles from Rockall. Hmmmm.......
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up this utterly bonkers picture
"Sentries report haddock to the north-west, Sir. Thousands of 'em."
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
'Feels odd in 2021' sounds like a good example of the 'It's The Present Year' fallacy. The passage of time alone doesn't guarantee that world affairs have to move in a 'progressive' direction.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
Or they have temporarily gone insane.
So all the traffic and bustle and constant comings and goings in my surrounding local streets is all down to the roughly 30% who don't think we should be locked down in our houses and under curfew?
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up this utterly bonkers picture
"Sentries report haddock to the north-west, Sir. Thousands of 'em."
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Why? Why is it odd?
The sovereignty of the islands doesn't rest with Britain, it rests with the people who live there. Why is that odd to you?
That they choose to pool some of their sovereignty with Britain is no different to European Union countries choosing to pool some of their sovereignty with each other.
They keep the unilateral right to become independent if they ever want to do so too.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
FFS, they've been invaded in recent history! That's not odd, that's self-preservation. They want to stay close to people of similar culture, regardless of the physical distance.
Are people who call the Falklands the Malvinas just trying to show that they support Argentina ahead of the UK? It's not the original name; it was first named by the French as Îles Malouines (after St Malo where their ship sailed from), a year before a Brit called them the Falklands. Why use the Spanish corruption instead of the original French?
At least nine infected people, including a tennis player, are in quarantine in Melbourne after arriving in thecity for the Australian Open tournament.
It’s turning into a total farce in Melbourne, there’s a good chance of the tournament being abandoned or boycotted by the players who can’t train in quarantine. Glad that F1 made the call to stay away.
Zero sympathy, I'm not sure how its a farce. If nine people have tested positive then it seems the Aussies were right to have strict quarantine rules in place, considering their situation with the pandemic that could have been at least 9 people to reseed the virus back into the community.
It isn't as if they didn't know they'd have to quarantine upon arrival. They could have arrived two weeks earlier if they were that bothered about training afterwards, or skipped it, its not a shock imposed upon them.
Of course the Aussies are free to impose their own rules on incomers, who are all there to earn money after all. Australia has done very well to date at containing outbreaks with strict rules.
The complaint of the players is that they were incorrectly briefed by the tournament organisers about the extent of the quarantine arrangements in place, were not expected to have a whole plane (charter flight put on by the tournament) quarantined on the basis of one positive test, and that they would be allowed to use the hotel’s facilities rather than confined to their rooms for the quarantine period.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Am assuming there is quite an overlap between the 29% who think police shouldn't enforce mask use in shops - and those who don't want to mask up in shops?
I hardly ever seen anyone without a mask on inside a shop.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up this utterly bonkers picture
"Sentries report haddock to the north-west, Sir. Thousands of 'em."
Very, very good.
Is it just me, or does everyone look at that picture and think "Monty Python"?
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
< Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
There's nothing particularly unusual about states having ownership of land some way from main territory. You might as well ask if it is unusual that any state is the shape it is, since they have certainly not always been fixed and as we know many modern states have rather peculiar borders that have caused much difficulty over the years. Turkey is predominantly Asia Minor, should the land over the Bosphorous be removed from it? What, don't you think it odd that 95% of the country is on one continent and 5% on another?
You seem fixated on it being 'odd' to have some islands a long way away under the aegis of the British state, but it really isn't that odd to have far flung territories.
What does how it looks or feels matter? What matters in the modern age is what people think, especially settled, historical populations.
He's been shot down at once by the main Government spokesman, who said it was out of the question unless there was proof that vaccinated people cannot carry the infection to others.
That remains the trillion dollar question. We are overdue an answer.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
I think, ironically, that the feeling you describe is part of the colonial problem. The way to deal with the legacy of colonialism is to let the people living in a place decide what to next.
After all, telling them what to do, with the threat of force (behind all government actions) from X thousand miles away - what is that, but more colonialism?
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Its not odd at all. People look at what they believe is in their best interests. In the case of the Falklands the islanders clearly believe that presently their security and economic well being is best served by being attached to the UK rather than to Argentina.
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
I see it as pragmatic and fair rather than odd.
Operating a simple rule of geographic proximity seems far more odd to me, as it's dogmatic.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
Imagine using the argument that Ireland should be part of the UK because it is "just off the coast"!
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
International law is clear on territorial waters around the landmass of the sovereign state.
That said, it seems a deal on bilateral UK-Irish deal on fishing rights here would be sensible.
Fishing rights is a preserve of the EU, Ireland is unable to negotiate with the UK on a bilateral basis. Any change would need to be negotiated via the EU and the treaty would need to be amended. I'm almost certain that neither the UK not EU wants to open up the treaty for at least 10 or so years so Ireland will just have to live with it.
Are you sure?
We have bilateral agreements in various directions.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
They also want 'the rich' to pay more taxes unless they are then classified as rich.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
Would you suggest the British had stopped being freedom loving people in WW2 when we had far more onerous restrictions on our lives? Or was it they had just recognised the necessity of limiting their actions for a while.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
But you get my drift.
Yes, you're so bitter and twisted against your own nation that you uniquely don't accept the free right of people who descended from this nation on an island to have self-determination?
There is no "dispute". People have the right to self-determination and conquest is wrong. No ifs, no buts.
I have merely said it feels odd and offered an explanation as to why to some people it doesn't - being the normalizing in the minds of Brits, even here in 2021, and especially in those of a BritNat disposition, of the notion of British sovereignty over far flung places.
Hardly a reason for you to go all UJ underpants. That you have rather demonstrates the acuity of my insight.
With the exception of curfews (which I would oppose), all those measures are about no more than properly enforcing the restrictions that are there at the moment, not about extending restrictions.
I support that principle. If you're going to have restrictions, enforce them properly. Doing so is long overdue. We would not have the onerous restrictions we have at the moment had there been proper enforcement from Autumn onwards. We need the public to be encouraged and facilitated to report breaches and a will on the part of the authorities to act to enforce sanctions toughed up enough to act as a proper deterrent. Even Tier 3 plus school closure might conceivably have been enough to at least contain the new variant in those circumstances.
Instead, in the absence of enforcement of moderate restrictions, we're back to the situation of tightening restrictions to absurdity in some cases e.g. a renewed ban on socially distanced outdoor recreation such as tennis and golf. I can go for a walk in close to proximity to one other person (as opposed to five others, which is fine and necessary) except when I'm carting around golf clubs (in which case I'd for the most part be 50 yards away from them on the other side of the fairway on a near deserted open space, and failing to add further to the overcrowding in the public park).
Are people who call the Falklands the Malvinas just trying to show that they support Argentina ahead of the UK? It's not the original name; it was first named by the French as Îles Malouines (after St Malo where their ship sailed from), a year before a Brit called them the Falklands. Why use the Spanish corruption instead of the original French?
There's a certain sort of Briton who thinks others derive some form of pleasure from knowing the UK still has a handful of overseas territories and they they must all be divested as a result in order for us all to move on.
Like much of our politics it's about us and what we think of each other rather than the real interests of others beyond our shores.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
But you get my drift.
Yes, you're so bitter and twisted against your own nation that you uniquely don't accept the free right of people who descended from this nation on an island to have self-determination?
There is no "dispute". People have the right to self-determination and conquest is wrong. No ifs, no buts.
I have merely said it feels odd and offered an explanation as to why to some people it doesn't - being the normalizing in the minds of Brits, even here in 2021, and especially in those of a BritNat disposition, of the notion of British sovereignty over far flung places.
Hardly a reason for you to go all UJ underpants. That you have rather demonstrates the acuity of my insight.
No because you are being an imperialist.
You are trying to apportion who should be in control of an inhabited island against the wishes of the local population, whether it be a thousand miles away in Buenos Aires, or thousands of miles away in London.
I - and almost everyone else here - is saying it is the free choice of the people who live there. Not Britain's, not the Argentinians, the Falkland Islanders themselves. They have the sovereignty over their own land.
Wanting it to be decided against their wishes? That is the worst form of imperialism and shame on you for indulging in it.
You keep calling it "British sovereignty" but it isn't "British sovereignty". It is the islanders sovereignty. They are the one determining it democratically, they are the people that are sovereign.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
But you're not offering any insight. You are declaring the present sitaution feels odd to you based on nothing but your own preconceptions of how states and territories should be formed or goverened, when the history of the world shows it is a lot more complicated on what makes a viable, reasonable territory or dependent than 'IDK, it just feels weird, you know?'.
You are hunting for some insidious underlying problem here and it is quite frankly bizarre.
There's nothing new or unusual about states squabbling over hunks of rock, even useless ones which have nobody on them, and there's no colonial or neo colonial or pseudo colonial deeper message to ponder over.
There are no universal rules on who has claim to what, so there's nothing odd when people disagree on who claims what, but 'it's near to X' is ridiculous thing to try to turn into some imperialist, colonialist diatribe.
But as moralities come up a lot on the Scottish question, that is where the importance lies - morally it would be wrong to unsettle established populations because of a technical legal argument based on inheriting a disputed imperial claim.
But no no, you're right, it looks weird. Yeah, right.
A lot depends on what breaking the regulations being worthy of informing the authorities means, though.
Most would accept that for a huge party or rave. A child visiting a terminally ill parent contrary to guidelines would be rather less acceptable for most as a cause for informing authorities.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
Jacinda Arden is far more of a Nanny than Boris is
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.
I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.
The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.
Labour are toast for the next election.
with your track we should back Starmer for next PM...
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
Or they have temporarily gone insane.
So all the traffic and bustle and constant comings and goings in my surrounding local streets is all down to the roughly 30% who don't think we should be locked down in our houses and under curfew?
Or are people lying to the polling companies?
How representative is the polling? Anecdotally, it doesn`t match with what I`m hearing from family and friends from where I live in the Midlands. Who are they asking? Having said that, if you heard the last two episodes of R4 Any Answers call after call came in from people wanting the country locked down much harder.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
I'm anonymous, pretty much, in my village because we keep ourselves to ourselves.
I think my neighbours prob just think I'm an anti-social bastard, but at least my "brand" means I don't have to trouble myself with village politics.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
They also want 'the rich' to pay more taxes unless they are then classified as rich.
Like the media and closing the border...now they have all had their winter get-away, they seem to have had a road to Damascus conversion.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
Or maybe we have enough freedom lovers who aren't also fecking morons and realise that sticking to the rules gets us "freedom" back somewhat quicker?
Curfews? Snitching? No thanks. Please tell me how these get us back to normality more quickly.
These figures are scary.
I can put up with a few months of that kind of "scary" if it reduces the over all death toll and gets us back to normality more quickly. I'd be far more scared if that poll showed the opposite.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
Would you suggest the British had stopped being freedom loving people in WW2 when we had far more onerous restrictions on our lives? Or was it they had just recognised the necessity of limiting their actions for a while.
I don’t know. Not a historian. It’s not the imposition of controls, but the cultural sympathies around them.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Interesting; obliged. I wait to see what happens. What is the state of the Venezuelan reserves? Is there anywhere else which supplies the S American market?
Venezuela has some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Unfortunately much of the oil is very heavy and requires specialist extraction techniques (a colleague and friend of mine was one of the leading experts on heavy oil extraction in Venezuela) involving drilling three wells simultaneously parallel to each other and using steam to drive the oil out.
Sadly when Chavez took over he not only kicked out all the international companies but also banned anyone who had worked for them from having any job in oil extraction in Venezuela and started a campaign of harassment against them. As a result most left the country and Venezuelan oil production collapsed. They just don't have the expertise to be able to exploit their resource.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
Have the Channel Islands been mentioned in this context? Ever since they colonised us in 1066 they've clung to us like limpets.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
And why does being part or Britain = colonialism (evil obvs) whereas being part of Argentina = perfectly fine.
Because kinabalu thinks it looks weird because...because, actually I'm still not sure. It's been pointed out the problems with the 'It's close by' argument (welcome back to the UK Ireland, goodbye independent Malta), and take away having an issue looking at a map and going 'Huh, that's a long way from Britain' and what arguments remain to think it looks odd?
How did Russia ever get to be a state? It sure looks odd to be that big, most nations are nowhere near that big, and since most states are around size X, no one should be able to be bigger than that.
Are people who call the Falklands the Malvinas just trying to show that they support Argentina ahead of the UK? It's not the original name; it was first named by the French as Îles Malouines (after St Malo where their ship sailed from), a year before a Brit called them the Falklands. Why use the Spanish corruption instead of the original French?
Calling the Falklands the Malvinas just makes you look immensely stupid. It's very SWP.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
Jacinda Arden is far more of a Nanny than Boris is
That’s true. No doubt NZ is also going to the dogs, liberty-wise.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
And that worked for a few months, then everyone saw the border was still open and we were letting in hundreds of thousands of people with no checks on whether they were infected or not so young people, not being complete idiots, realised that the government clearly gives no fucks.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
Jacinda Arden is far more of a Nanny than Boris is
That’s true. No doubt NZ is also going to the dogs, liberty-wise.
Kowtowing to China as well I think which is hugely disappointing. St Jacinda can so no wrong though. 🤷♂️
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
And that worked for a few months, then everyone saw the border was still open and we were letting in hundreds of thousands of people with no checks on whether they were infected or not so young people, not being complete idiots, realised that the government clearly gives no fucks.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
I agree. But also, Dom Cummings and Barbara Castle. He did make a difference.
Edit: I obvs meant Barnard Castle, but the auto-correct is amusing.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
Small towns are interesting - both good and bad. The one where people address you by name, having never previously met you, can startle.
I reckon that if the Germans had invaded, 1/3rd would have taken to the hills to fight them. 1/3rd wouldn't have noticed, unless the football was interrupted. The other 1/3rd would have been queuing round the block to sign up with the Germans, get an armband and be in charge.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
I lived there for 6 years.
It is definitely Scottish but I encountered many prous Scots there who also described themselves as British and were comfortable with both identities.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
Would you suggest the British had stopped being freedom loving people in WW2 when we had far more onerous restrictions on our lives? Or was it they had just recognised the necessity of limiting their actions for a while.
I don’t know. Not a historian. It’s not the imposition of controls, but the cultural sympathies around them.
How popular were ARP wardens?
Generally very well regarded. Not least because they were also usually part of the organisation that dealt with firewatching and dealing with incendiary bombs. It was a very dangerous job and they were considered very brave and putting their lives on the line.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
No, odd does not mean bad. Course not. Tons of examples of benign oddities. Greta Green? Say no more. But it doesn't mean good either and here we're talking about a long running dispute over the sovereignty of a territory in the South Pacific. A war over it too. So it's not like some endearingly eccentric state of affairs. I'm not overly agitated about it, not at all, but I would not set my face against a compromise being found to resolve the matter.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
Have the Channel Islands been mentioned in this context? Ever since they colonised us in 1066 they've clung to us like limpets.
They were part of the Duchy of Normandy.
They then did a reverse takeover of England and, once the Normans had been "normalised", the proto-French state then booted us in turn out of Normandy. Not without a couple of sequels, I hasten to add - Henry V getting closest to laying the smack down.
They couldn't, or didn't care enough, with the Channel Islands. So it's simply a fascinating historical legacy stretching back nearly 1,000 years.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
And on the cultural mileometer they’re both closer to Glasgow than London, apart from that not a totally shite point at all.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
No, odd does not mean bad. Course not. Tons of examples of benign oddities. Greta Green? Say no more. But it doesn't mean good either and here we're talking about a long running dispute over the sovereignty of a territory in the South Pacific. A war over it too. So it's not like some endearingly eccentric state of affairs. I'm not overly agitated about it, not at all, but I would not set my face against a compromise being found to resolve the matter.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
And why does being part or Britain = colonialism (evil obvs) whereas being part of Argentina = perfectly fine.
Because kinabalu thinks it looks weird because...because, actually I'm still not sure. It's been pointed out the problems with the 'It's close by' argument (welcome back to the UK Ireland, goodbye independent Malta), and take away having an issue looking at a map and going 'Huh, that's a long way from Britain' and what arguments remain to think it looks odd?
How did Russia ever get to be a state? It sure looks odd to be that big, most nations are nowhere near that big, and since most states are around size X, no one should be able to be bigger than that.
On the subject of Russian history, I would recommend "The Great" on ITV on Sunday nights if you like satirical comedy.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
And why does being part or Britain = colonialism (evil obvs) whereas being part of Argentina = perfectly fine.
Because kinabalu thinks it looks weird because...because, actually I'm still not sure. It's been pointed out the problems with the 'It's close by' argument (welcome back to the UK Ireland, goodbye independent Malta), and take away having an issue looking at a map and going 'Huh, that's a long way from Britain' and what arguments remain to think it looks odd?
How did Russia ever get to be a state? It sure looks odd to be that big, most nations are nowhere near that big, and since most states are around size X, no one should be able to be bigger than that.
Russia got to be the size it is by very aggressive colonialism.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
And on the cultural mileometer they’re both closer to Glasgow than London, apart from that not a totally shite point at all.
Arguably Glasgow is closer to London actually than it is to either the Borders or Cumbria as a big city which does not vote Tory.
The main divide in the UK is between the big cities and rural areas, much as it is in the USA and most of the western world with the towns and suburbs in between, not so much between the home nations.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
And that worked for a few months, then everyone saw the border was still open and we were letting in hundreds of thousands of people with no checks on whether they were infected or not so young people, not being complete idiots, realised that the government clearly gives no fucks.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
I agree. But also, Dom Cummings and Barbara Castle. He did make a difference.
Edit: I obvs meant Barnard Castle, but the auto-correct is amusing.
Nah, this is happening across all of Europe and North America, unless the young people there all read about a SpAd in the UK.
It's the border, governments failed to close the border and that's when young people realised that this obviously wasn't that serious if flights were allowed to land with no checks on who was and wasn't positive.
Honestly, I speak to some and they all say the same thing "why are we being asked to sacrifice our lifestyle when people from Spain/Brazil/America are still allowed to come here and infect everyone" it's difficult to argue with that logic because I feel the same way.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
Small towns are interesting - both good and bad. The one where people address you by name, having never previously met you, can startle.
I reckon that if the Germans had invaded, 1/3rd would have taken to the hills to fight them. 1/3rd wouldn't have noticed, unless the football was interrupted. The other 1/3rd would have been queuing round the block to sign up with the Germans, get an armband and be in charge.
Jersey is an interesting case study in this. They have an excellent museum that puts you in the shoes of being occupied, and it's very very difficult.
Most people sullenly accept it and just get on with it. Others actively collaborate to get perks or to settle old scores.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Isn't that something that sounds true, but is a bit too cute for its own good - like with the idea that people only want taxes to go up on people richer than them.
I'm personally abiding very strictly to the lockdown restrictions (from my flat, note, not a smug person comfortable with a garden to use) and I know that the stricter the lockdown is stuck to, the faster infection rates will come down, and so the better everything will generally be.
Not that I like the idea of a curfew, etc, but I don't see that it has to be hypocrisy.
I suspect very few people have stuck to the rules of lockdown, although in some cases it will be because they don't know what they are. Casino is quite right, I think, people favour stronger lockdown for everyone else but apply the rules rather liberally to their own families.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
These contingent polls are not particularly meaningful, though.
A month before the Watergate hearings commenced (and just before the Kent State shootings) Gallup conducted a poll which showed that 76% of respondents supported the suspension of the First Amendment.
I don't think we can therefore conclude that the US did not value freedom of speech.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
They'll be really f****d if the Shetlands decide to secede in order to reclaim their Viking cultural heritage by rejoining Normay rather than the EU.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
Have the Channel Islands been mentioned in this context? Ever since they colonised us in 1066 they've clung to us like limpets.
They were part of the Duchy of Normandy.
They then did a reverse takeover of England and, once the Normans had been "normalised", the proto-French state then booted us in turn out of Normandy. Not without a couple of sequels, I hasten to add - Henry V getting closest to laying the smack down.
They couldn't, or didn't care enough, with the Channel Islands. So it's simply a fascinating historical legacy stretching back nearly 1,000 years.
It is fascinating for well over a thousand years, before they were Normans they were Vikings. The Viking portion of the story regarding the Viking invasions of Jorvik, Normandy and elsewhere and how that then led on to eventually to 1066 is every bit as fascinating.
It is a shame that we tend to view 1066 as a start point when the 200-300 years before then were just as relevant and just as interesting.
A case could certainly be made that 1066 Normans were far more Scandinavian than French.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
No, odd does not mean bad. Course not. Tons of examples of benign oddities. Greta Green? Say no more. But it doesn't mean good either and here we're talking about a long running dispute over the sovereignty of a territory in the South Pacific. A war over it too. So it's not like some endearingly eccentric state of affairs. I'm not overly agitated about it, not at all, but I would not set my face against a compromise being found to resolve the matter.
South Atlantic.
Maybe he's confused with the Pitcairns, which were actually discovered by Spain (well, a Portuguese explorer working for Spain) 160 years before a Brit found them
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
As a young consultant I worked with a bunch of Brits and a few Europeans in an office in Mayfair.
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
It's one of the reasons I love London so much, it's still the most free part of the country. One of my friends from up north said she loves it here because she can be anonymous in London but never could where she's from.
Small towns are interesting - both good and bad. The one where people address you by name, having never previously met you, can startle.
I reckon that if the Germans had invaded, 1/3rd would have taken to the hills to fight them. 1/3rd wouldn't have noticed, unless the football was interrupted. The other 1/3rd would have been queuing round the block to sign up with the Germans, get an armband and be in charge.
Compare Jersey and Guernsey. Collaboration and, so far as possible, resistance
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
It is postulated frequently by PB Scotch experts who don't have a clue about the Scottish Borders and what their high No vote means.
Every Scottish Borders seat is currently Tory held and the Borders had the biggest No vote in 2014. Culturally it is closer to Cumbria than it is to Glasgow.
They'll be really f****d if the Shetlands decide to secede in order to reclaim their Viking cultural heritage by rejoining Normay rather than the EU.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
And that worked for a few months, then everyone saw the border was still open and we were letting in hundreds of thousands of people with no checks on whether they were infected or not so young people, not being complete idiots, realised that the government clearly gives no fucks.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
If the government had taken a leaf out of the NZ (or Taiwan) book and closed the borders at the first signs of infection in February last year we could well be looking at only a few hundred deaths and Brexit Britain lauded as the Covid success story of the Western World. As it however, the vaccine rollout notwithstanding, we are going to be one of the worst affected in both human and economic terms. And much of the misery was avoidable.
The youngest person convicted of terrorism in Britain - who plotted to murder police officers in Australia on Anzac Day aged 14 - can be freed from jail, the Parole Board has ruled.
The 20-year-old, who can only be identified as RXG, sent encrypted messages instructing an Australian jihadist to launch attacks in 2015.
He was jailed for life that year after admitting inciting terrorism overseas.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
I see it as pragmatic and fair rather than odd.
Operating a simple rule of geographic proximity seems far more odd to me, as it's dogmatic.
Why can't you see it as pragmatic and fair and odd? It's the latter that is the key here. Whether it's pragmatic and fair is a judgement call, but whether you find it odd or not speaks to your authentic feelings about colonialism.
As to the suggested alternative "proximity" rule, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not putting up any hard and fast rules. Way beyond my pay-grade. I really am only saying what I'm saying. Yet it has caused some disquiet. And I think the fact that it has serves to illustrate my point.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Isn't that something that sounds true, but is a bit too cute for its own good - like with the idea that people only want taxes to go up on people richer than them.
I'm personally abiding very strictly to the lockdown restrictions (from my flat, note, not a smug person comfortable with a garden to use) and I know that the stricter the lockdown is stuck to, the faster infection rates will come down, and so the better everything will generally be.
Not that I like the idea of a curfew, etc, but I don't see that it has to be hypocrisy.
I suspect very few people have stuck to the rules of lockdown, although in some cases it will be because they don't know what they are. Casino is quite right, I think, people favour stronger lockdown for everyone else but apply the rules rather liberally to their own families.
I'm going to put it out there, my wife and I have formed an extended family bubble with my parents and my sister's family. We've all taken the decision together, none of us use public transport (my dad loaned us his old car so we can drive back) and all of us are now home delivery only while my niece has been withdrawn from nursery.
That's breaking the rules for sure as it's household mixing but we all work from home and no one even goes to the shops as it's all home delivery.
People can judge me as much as they want, but I have no doubt that extending our bubble has helped all of our mental states, being able to see my niece on a regular basis has been great as she's brings so much joy into our lives and the sacrifice has been to not go to Waitrose or use public transport.
But then again, I'm all for people making reasonable decisions for themselves.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
And that worked for a few months, then everyone saw the border was still open and we were letting in hundreds of thousands of people with no checks on whether they were infected or not so young people, not being complete idiots, realised that the government clearly gives no fucks.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
I agree. But also, Dom Cummings and Barbara Castle. He did make a difference.
Edit: I obvs meant Barnard Castle, but the auto-correct is amusing.
Nah, this is happening across all of Europe and North America, unless the young people there all read about a SpAd in the UK.
It's the border, governments failed to close the border and that's when young people realised that this obviously wasn't that serious if flights were allowed to land with no checks on who was and wasn't positive.
Honestly, I speak to some and they all say the same thing "why are we being asked to sacrifice our lifestyle when people from Spain/Brazil/America are still allowed to come here and infect everyone" it's difficult to argue with that logic because I feel the same way.
I think it is broader. People know that they should be in favour of restrictions.
Should
So in polls etc, they say "Restrictions are great. We should have more"
But then they want to have a drink with their mates on Friday.
It occurs across all age groups. My Aunt, who lives in sheltered accommodation, sees over 85s breaking the rules....
"When you've finished killing Kruger with your mouth, Will you kindly...." comes to mind.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
We never have been mate, it's a nation of daily mail reading curtain twitching c***s, now the whole country has realised they are the majority.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
The furore over that bike ride was a new low for the press and the morons in the public who lapped it up. It put even the tea-drinking Derbyshire blondes in the shade.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
How many of these kids live with their parents, and how many of them have contact with their grandparents?
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
And that worked for a few months, then everyone saw the border was still open and we were letting in hundreds of thousands of people with no checks on whether they were infected or not so young people, not being complete idiots, realised that the government clearly gives no fucks.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
If the government had taken a leaf out of the NZ (or Taiwan) book and closed the borders at the first signs of infection in February last year we could well be looking at only a few hundred deaths and Brexit Britain lauded as the Covid success story of the Western World. As it however, the vaccine rollout notwithstanding, we are going to be one of the worst affected in both human and economic terms. And much of the misery was avoidable.
I don't think it's possible to compare UK to NZ. The latter is far more remote.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Isn't that something that sounds true, but is a bit too cute for its own good - like with the idea that people only want taxes to go up on people richer than them.
I'm personally abiding very strictly to the lockdown restrictions (from my flat, note, not a smug person comfortable with a garden to use) and I know that the stricter the lockdown is stuck to, the faster infection rates will come down, and so the better everything will generally be.
Not that I like the idea of a curfew, etc, but I don't see that it has to be hypocrisy.
I suspect very few people have stuck to the rules of lockdown, although in some cases it will be because they don't know what they are. Casino is quite right, I think, people favour stronger lockdown for everyone else but apply the rules rather liberally to their own families.
I'm going to put it out there, my wife and I have formed an extended family bubble with my parents and my sister's family. We've all taken the decision together, none of us use public transport (my dad loaned us his old car so we can drive back) and all of us are now home delivery only while my niece has been withdrawn from nursery.
That's breaking the rules for sure as it's household mixing but we all work from home and no one even goes to the shops as it's all home delivery.
People can judge me as much as they want, but I have no doubt that extending our bubble has helped all of our mental states, being able to see my niece on a regular basis has been great as she's brings so much joy into our lives and the sacrifice has been to not go to Waitrose or use public transport.
But then again, I'm all for people making reasonable decisions for themselves.
Your regime is far lower risk than mine, which does not involve family bubbles but does involve visiting supermarkets, groceries and DIY stores fairly regularly.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
But it's odd. It feels odd. And if it doesn't feel odd, that is odd, and just shows how insidious the effect of colonialism is, not just on those colonized but also on the citizens of the colonial power here in 2021. This is the insight I am offering.
Is odd bad?
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
Have the Channel Islands been mentioned in this context? Ever since they colonised us in 1066 they've clung to us like limpets.
They were part of the Duchy of Normandy.
They then did a reverse takeover of England and, once the Normans had been "normalised", the proto-French state then booted us in turn out of Normandy. Not without a couple of sequels, I hasten to add - Henry V getting closest to laying the smack down.
They couldn't, or didn't care enough, with the Channel Islands. So it's simply a fascinating historical legacy stretching back nearly 1,000 years.
I love this map which shows how the Channel Islands are right in the middle of the Angevin Empire...and then it goes a bit wonky.
Comments
https://twitter.com/rockallisland/status/1350761705081622528?s=21
I'm personally abiding very strictly to the lockdown restrictions (from my flat, note, not a smug person comfortable with a garden to use) and I know that the stricter the lockdown is stuck to, the faster infection rates will come down, and so the better everything will generally be.
Not that I like the idea of a curfew, etc, but I don't see that it has to be hypocrisy.
I guess the British are no longer a “freedom-loving” people. Perhaps they never were.
The claims of countries like Argentina and similar issues around the world are typically more complex or nuanced than they generally present, and certainly more complex and nuanced than the cavalier 'just let them have it, it's close to them' types make out.
Look at the idiotic reporting of Boris' 7 mile bike ride. The media couldn't wait to stick the boot in over what, to anyone who cycles, is a pretty short bike ride.
Dopeford Watch
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-55704017
Public Health Wales said 151,737 people have been vaccinated, after at least 327,000 doses were delivered.
Mark Drakeford said one of the reasons more of the supply had not been used at once was to prevent "vaccinators standing around with nothing to do" 😀
The Welsh Giant Sloth may end up with the worst results in the UK -- he is currently only just behind Boris in the COVID death rate table.
A sluggard vaccine role out could see him ahead of Boris.
Or are people lying to the polling companies?
The sovereignty of the islands doesn't rest with Britain, it rests with the people who live there. Why is that odd to you?
That they choose to pool some of their sovereignty with Britain is no different to European Union countries choosing to pool some of their sovereignty with each other.
They keep the unilateral right to become independent if they ever want to do so too.
The complaint of the players is that they were incorrectly briefed by the tournament organisers about the extent of the quarantine arrangements in place, were not expected to have a whole plane (charter flight put on by the tournament) quarantined on the basis of one positive test, and that they would be allowed to use the hotel’s facilities rather than confined to their rooms for the quarantine period.
Is it just me, or does everyone look at that picture and think "Monty Python"?
The Polish guy used to say that Britain was a complete nanny state and the Brits used to scoff and tell him he was an idiot.
But he was right.
I loathe curtain-twitching. We are less curtain-twitchy in NZ, perhaps because we are much less densely populated.
You seem fixated on it being 'odd' to have some islands a long way away under the aegis of the British state, but it really isn't that odd to have far flung territories.
What does how it looks or feels matter? What matters in the modern age is what people think, especially settled, historical populations.
After all, telling them what to do, with the threat of force (behind all government actions) from X thousand miles away - what is that, but more colonialism?
Put it this way. If the Falkland Islanders decided at some point they wanted full independence I would suggest they have far more chance of achieving that by detaching themselves from British rule than they would be trying to detach themselves from Argentine rule.
Operating a simple rule of geographic proximity seems far more odd to me, as it's dogmatic.
https://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/19012091.look-stunning-photograph-snow-capped-snowdon-taken-dublin/
We have bilateral agreements in various directions.
They don’t need to party, they want to party - but sadly for them, here’s an invisible disease being passed around those who party, that is killing a thousand people a day.
The longer these idiots keep partying, the longer the ban on officially parting will be, the more old and vulnerable people will die, and the more screwed the economy will be for these kids in the future.
I'd always thought it was a positive British trait to be comfortable with things that were a bit odd, but were not worth the bother of rationalizing. I looked forward to making the world better by creating more odd anomalies that somehow worked for people better than the alternative.
Being upset with things that are a bit odd is a one-way route to lots of unnecessary aggro. And it diverts attention from things that are wrong and need to change.
Who benefits from the Falklands becoming part of Argentina? Who suffers?
Better to let the odd times continue.
Hardly a reason for you to go all UJ underpants. That you have rather demonstrates the acuity of my insight.
I support that principle. If you're going to have restrictions, enforce them properly. Doing so is long overdue. We would not have the onerous restrictions we have at the moment had there been proper enforcement from Autumn onwards. We need the public to be encouraged and facilitated to report breaches and a will on the part of the authorities to act to enforce sanctions toughed up enough to act as a proper deterrent. Even Tier 3 plus school closure might conceivably have been enough to at least contain the new variant in those circumstances.
Instead, in the absence of enforcement of moderate restrictions, we're back to the situation of tightening restrictions to absurdity in some cases e.g. a renewed ban on socially distanced outdoor recreation such as tennis and golf. I can go for a walk in close to proximity to one other person (as opposed to five others, which is fine and necessary) except when I'm carting around golf clubs (in which case I'd for the most part be 50 yards away from them on the other side of the fairway on a near deserted open space, and failing to add further to the overcrowding in the public park).
Like much of our politics it's about us and what we think of each other rather than the real interests of others beyond our shores.
You are trying to apportion who should be in control of an inhabited island against the wishes of the local population, whether it be a thousand miles away in Buenos Aires, or thousands of miles away in London.
I - and almost everyone else here - is saying it is the free choice of the people who live there. Not Britain's, not the Argentinians, the Falkland Islanders themselves. They have the sovereignty over their own land.
Wanting it to be decided against their wishes? That is the worst form of imperialism and shame on you for indulging in it.
You keep calling it "British sovereignty" but it isn't "British sovereignty". It is the islanders sovereignty. They are the one determining it democratically, they are the people that are sovereign.
Please tell me how these get us back to normality more quickly.
These figures are scary.
You are hunting for some insidious underlying problem here and it is quite frankly bizarre.
There's nothing new or unusual about states squabbling over hunks of rock, even useless ones which have nobody on them, and there's no colonial or neo colonial or pseudo colonial deeper message to ponder over.
There are no universal rules on who has claim to what, so there's nothing odd when people disagree on who claims what, but 'it's near to X' is ridiculous thing to try to turn into some imperialist, colonialist diatribe.
But as moralities come up a lot on the Scottish question, that is where the importance lies - morally it would be wrong to unsettle established populations because of a technical legal argument based on inheriting a disputed imperial claim.
But no no, you're right, it looks weird. Yeah, right.
Most would accept that for a huge party or rave. A child visiting a terminally ill parent contrary to guidelines would be rather less acceptable for most as a cause for informing authorities.
I think my neighbours prob just think I'm an anti-social bastard, but at least my "brand" means I don't have to trouble myself with village politics.
Not a historian.
It’s not the imposition of controls, but the cultural sympathies around them.
How popular were ARP wardens?
Sadly when Chavez took over he not only kicked out all the international companies but also banned anyone who had worked for them from having any job in oil extraction in Venezuela and started a campaign of harassment against them. As a result most left the country and Venezuelan oil production collapsed. They just don't have the expertise to be able to exploit their resource.
How did Russia ever get to be a state? It sure looks odd to be that big, most nations are nowhere near that big, and since most states are around size X, no one should be able to be bigger than that.
No doubt NZ is also going to the dogs, liberty-wise.
Honestly, the people I speak to from that age group (juniors through work) are all clued up and all say the same thing, if they aren't going to stop people from coming here with the virus then what's the point in stopping people from living their normal lives.
It's been the single biggest error in our response to this, the whole second wave is because of insufficient border protections from July onwards.
What also hasn't helped is headlines of "old people begin to book cruises as they get vaccinated", again young people aren't stupid, they're being asked to make these big sacrifices to their personal, process and social development to save the oldies and yet those same oldies are planning holidays and cruises while everyone under 50 simply has to wait their turn. Well fuck that noise, the government fucked it up and now they are paying the price.
This should have been over after lockdown one, the border should have been secured with hotel based quarantine measures and prior appointment to enter the UK. They let this happen, these are the consequences.
But also, Dom Cummings and Barbara Castle.
He did make a difference.
Edit: I obvs meant Barnard Castle, but the auto-correct is amusing.
I reckon that if the Germans had invaded, 1/3rd would have taken to the hills to fight them. 1/3rd wouldn't have noticed, unless the football was interrupted. The other 1/3rd would have been queuing round the block to sign up with the Germans, get an armband and be in charge.
It is definitely Scottish but I encountered many prous Scots there who also described themselves as British and were comfortable with both identities.
They then did a reverse takeover of England and, once the Normans had been "normalised", the proto-French state then booted us in turn out of Normandy. Not without a couple of sequels, I hasten to add - Henry V getting closest to laying the smack down.
They couldn't, or didn't care enough, with the Channel Islands. So it's simply a fascinating historical legacy stretching back nearly 1,000 years.
The main divide in the UK is between the big cities and rural areas, much as it is in the USA and most of the western world with the towns and suburbs in between, not so much between the home nations.
It's the border, governments failed to close the border and that's when young people realised that this obviously wasn't that serious if flights were allowed to land with no checks on who was and wasn't positive.
Honestly, I speak to some and they all say the same thing "why are we being asked to sacrifice our lifestyle when people from Spain/Brazil/America are still allowed to come here and infect everyone" it's difficult to argue with that logic because I feel the same way.
Most people sullenly accept it and just get on with it. Others actively collaborate to get perks or to settle old scores.
Only a very small number actively resist.
A month before the Watergate hearings commenced (and just before the Kent State shootings) Gallup conducted a poll which showed that 76% of respondents supported the suspension of the First Amendment.
I don't think we can therefore conclude that the US did not value freedom of speech.
It is a shame that we tend to view 1066 as a start point when the 200-300 years before then were just as relevant and just as interesting.
A case could certainly be made that 1066 Normans were far more Scandinavian than French.
The 20-year-old, who can only be identified as RXG, sent encrypted messages instructing an Australian jihadist to launch attacks in 2015.
He was jailed for life that year after admitting inciting terrorism overseas.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55707342
As to the suggested alternative "proximity" rule, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not putting up any hard and fast rules. Way beyond my pay-grade. I really am only saying what I'm saying. Yet it has caused some disquiet. And I think the fact that it has serves to illustrate my point.
That's breaking the rules for sure as it's household mixing but we all work from home and no one even goes to the shops as it's all home delivery.
People can judge me as much as they want, but I have no doubt that extending our bubble has helped all of our mental states, being able to see my niece on a regular basis has been great as she's brings so much joy into our lives and the sacrifice has been to not go to Waitrose or use public transport.
But then again, I'm all for people making reasonable decisions for themselves.
Should
So in polls etc, they say "Restrictions are great. We should have more"
But then they want to have a drink with their mates on Friday.
It occurs across all age groups. My Aunt, who lives in sheltered accommodation, sees over 85s breaking the rules....
"When you've finished killing Kruger with your mouth, Will you kindly...." comes to mind.
The furore over that bike ride was a new low for the press and the morons in the public who lapped it up. It put even the tea-drinking Derbyshire blondes in the shade.
I wonder when the French will get there?
https://rexfactor.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/angevins.jpg