Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This will go down as one of the classic Andrew Neil intervi

SystemSystem Posts: 11,703
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This will go down as one of the classic Andrew Neil interviews

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    First, glorious first!
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    and my god did she look uncomfortable!
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,292
    edited September 2016
    3rd like Labour in Scotland...

    Louis Theroux is back with a new Jimmy Savile show this Sunday. Sounds like interesting viewing.

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/29/when-louis-theroux-met-jimmy-savile-again-gullible-bbc
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,292
    edited September 2016
    Jezza says they won't tolerate antisemintism in the Labour Party....

    This photo appears to show Jeremy Corbyn dining with Jackie Walker’s partner Graham Bash in Liverpool this week. Jackie uploaded the picture to her own Facebook page on Saturday. Corbyn and Bash have been close friends for over 30 years, Bash edited the hard-left Labour Briefing publication of which Corbyn sat on the editorial board, and is treasurer of John McDonnell’s Labour Representation Committee. The only reason Jackie hasn’t been kicked out of the Labour Party for anti-Semitism is that she and her boyfriend are best mates with the leader…

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/29/jackie-walkers-friends-high-places/
  • Options
    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.
  • Options
    That cricket lark starting to paying quite well...

    Batsman Joe Root is set to earn about £1m a year as part of a revamp of England's central contract system.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/37504417
  • Options
    Evening all.

    Shifty Chakrabarti looking very uncomfortable, those eyes darting about speak volumes.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,292
    edited September 2016

    Evening all.

    Shifty Chakrabarti looking very uncomfortable, those eyes darting about speak volumes.

    I hope you aren't doubting her story....
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,005
    edited September 2016
    Never liked the self-righteous, smug, holier-than-thou Chakrabarti.

    Edited extra bit: apparently Labour did all the equality legislation. Except for broadening the franchise of the electorate and gay marriage, obviously.
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.

    And conversely, the new business and investment we will get as we slowly rid ourselves of the most onerous and ridiculous EU laws.

    An example: droit de suite on auction houses

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/the-uk-art-market-can-soar-after-brexit/

    The irony is that in the end, ten years after Brexit, it will likely be unquantifiable: whether we were better off in or out of the EU.

    What is indisputable is that our democracy will benefit from Brexit: laws will be made by us for us. No government will be able to blame Brussels for its failures, no government will be able to smuggle laws into the statute book, via Strasbourg - laws they would not dare push directly through the Commons. The ECJ and the Commission and the two parliaments and all the rest of this wretched and fraudulent project: gone


    I am a hobby beekeeper. Most laws regarding fertilisers, chemicals, insecticides are decided by Brussels. The UK Government no longer has the technical expertise , personnel or facilities to do the R&D work needed to assess these and pass laws. Given that and the length of time to develop it, I fully expect thee UK in this - and many other fields - to just pass EC legislation as UK legislation. See car legislation safety and emissions.

    We cannot afford to reinvent the wheel.

    If you expect otherwise, prepare to be disappointed. It's pure practical politics..

    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Never liked the self-righteous, smug, holier-than-thou Chakrabarti.

    Chakrabati has had a far bigger influence on British political life than someone who has never been subject to the scrutiny of democratic elections should ever be allowed.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387
    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.

    And conversely, the new business and investment we will get as we slowly rid ourselves of the most onerous and ridiculous EU laws.

    An example: droit de suite on auction houses

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/the-uk-art-market-can-soar-after-brexit/

    The irony is that in the end, ten years after Brexit, it will likely be unquantifiable: whether we were better off in or out of the EU.

    What is indisputable is that our democracy will benefit from Brexit: laws will be made by us for us. No government will be able to blame Brussels for its failures, no government will be able to smuggle laws into the statute book, via Strasbourg - laws they would not dare push directly through the Commons. The ECJ and the Commission and the two parliaments and all the rest of this wretched and fraudulent project: gone



    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
    Good luck on trying to export products which you tell other countries it meets our own safety legislation but does not meet that of the EU and/or US legislation .
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    RobD said:

    and my god did she look uncomfortable!

    And so she should
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.

    And conversely, the new business and investment we will get as we slowly rid ourselves of the most onerous and ridiculous EU laws.

    An example: droit de suite on auction houses

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/the-uk-art-market-can-soar-after-brexit/

    The irony is that in the end, ten years after Brexit, it will likely be unquantifiable: whether we were better off in or out of the EU.

    What is indisputable is that our democracy will benefit from Brexit: laws will be made by us for us. No government will be able to blame Brussels for its failures, no government will be able to smuggle laws into the statute book, via Strasbourg - laws they would not dare push directly through the Commons. The ECJ and the Commission and the two parliaments and all the rest of this wretched and fraudulent project: gone



    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
    Good luck on trying to export products which you tell other countries it meets our own safety legislation but does not meet that of the EU and/or US legislation .
    If we export to China does that have to comply with US regs?
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3) The unspeakable cruelty to inmates who were not slaughtered within hours of arriving.

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387
    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047
    edited September 2016
    Never had a problem with Chakrabarti, and I cannot critique her report because I have not personally read it, but she's a party hack now, her media performances make that quite clear - the partisan defensiveness and evasiveness on tough questioning, limited responses on broad questions, that sort of thing.

    Pretty ballsy of her to imply Neil had not read the report though.

    What did strike me as odd was her response to why she joined Labour in order to do the report, as she talked about believing you need to change things from within in order to tackle them properly, to paraphrase. But she had earlier said this wasn't just a Labour matter, anti-semitism exists elsewhere too. So is she saying she only wants to fight anti-semitism as it exists in Labour rather than, as she has done for many years on civil liberties, tried to fight the problems in society at large?

    That said, she seemed to hold up perfectly well until the question about the peerage, when either she struggled to find a clear answer, or she was pissed off and not doing a good job of pretending otherwise even, doing the sarcastic response thing even though Neil didn't seem particularly hostile.

    Many a politician seems to get sarcastic and bitter at any sort of rigorous questioning, always seeming offended by it. Now, they may well have to answer the same question to different people many times, they may face what truly is undue focus on quite innocent issues on occasion, but that is surely part of the price of having a stake in running of this country, and of a free press, and while I do not deny it must be bloody hard, I wish they would stop acting like its unfair they keep getting asked things, or to clarify matters repeatedly. It looks shifty and petulant.

    Journalists have it a lot easier, as we expect them to be a little pugnacious, and you have to push it quite far to be unreasonably rude.

    Incidentally, I misspelled Chakrabarti by one letter and the suggested alternate was 'charismatic'. Not that she is bad by any means, but that amuses me.
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.

    And conversely, the new business and investment we will get as we slowly rid ourselves of the most onerous and ridiculous EU laws.

    An example: droit de suite on auction houses

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/the-uk-art-market-can-soar-after-brexit/




    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
    Good luck on trying to export products which you tell other countries it meets our own safety legislation but does not meet that of the EU and/or US legislation .
    Who said anything about (a) exports from the UK and (b) about the UK having inferior rules

    It may be EU countries struggling to meet new British standards, particularly in things like animal welfare and losing out wheras we would still meet their requirements

    Also things the landfill tax. This was imposed EU wide because places like Denmark were running out of landfill space and didnt want themselves put at a disadvantage by unilaterally adopting very expensive alternatives. So they got the EU to force the expensive alternatives on everyone including the UK where our aggregates industry means holes in the ground to dump landfill are plentiful. So post Brexit we can repeal the landfill tax making industry more competitive and Council Tax lower.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    Evening all.

    Shifty Chakrabarti looking very uncomfortable, those eyes darting about speak volumes.

    I mentioned that the other night, her eyes tell all. A body language expert would have a field day..
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047
    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.
    .
    Looked to me like she got into a bit of a flap at a short rising ball on the Peerage stuff, but she got back in position for the next delivery and though the ball went in the air it landed safe.
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited September 2016
    Floater said:

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.




    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
    Good luck on trying to export products which you tell other countries it meets our own safety legislation but does not meet that of the EU and/or US legislation .
    If we export to China does that have to comply with US regs?
    It may or may not . We may be competing with the same or similar product from a US or German firm who can argue that their product is better as it meets globally recognised safety legislation rather than 1 recognised by 1 small island
  • Options

    Shameless Shami


    Shifty Chakrabarti

    :lol::lol::lol:
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    .
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047
    Neil is a good interviewer though. Good follow ups, didn't let her avoid the specific questions by answering what she had preferred the question be on, but didn't interrupt her too egregiously, treated her with respect and, while his leanings are perhaps not the norm for many at the BBC, he didn't seem out to get her.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.
    .
    Looked to me like she got into a bit of a flap at a short rising ball on the Peerage stuff, but she got back in position for the next delivery and though the ball went in the air it landed safe.
    Cricket is just the greatest sport. Ever.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387
    SeanT said:

    Re Brexit.

    All will be well, and all manner of things shall be well. There. That's the final END of the Debate.

    Now can we talk about something else, and never mention it again? FFS.

    My guess is that is a tad optimistic.

    But we shall see.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    With apologies to SeanT for bringing up Brexit already...

    She shamelessly (Shamilessly?) shoehorns in the referendum at the start from a very Remain perspective, even bringing up poor Jo Cox for no real reason.

    Later on, she's accused of not being able to name a major organisation supporting her point of view, saying she's doing this for people not organisations.

    Anyone else see the irony?
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.
    .
    Looked to me like she got into a bit of a flap at a short rising ball on the Peerage stuff, but she got back in position for the next delivery and though the ball went in the air it landed safe.
    Cricket is just the most boring sport. Ever. Invented, watched and played by people with FAR too much time on their hands
    :innocent:
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.
    .
    Looked to me like she got into a bit of a flap at a short rising ball on the Peerage stuff, but she got back in position for the next delivery and though the ball went in the air it landed safe.
    Cricket is just the greatest sport. Ever.
    How many other sports can contrive scenarios where after 5 days of back and forth play it still comes down to nail biting tension of the last few deliveries, allows such individual testing and heroics while still very much being a team sport, have forms long and short for all tastes and such shifting momentum. Truly, it is a wonder.

    I appreciate Sunil for one is not a fan however, for shame.
  • Options
    MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    SeanT said:

    Re Brexit.

    All will be well, and all manner of things shall be well. There. That's the final END of the Debate.

    Now can we talk about something else, and never mention it again? FFS.

    No we can't . You can stand at the edge of the cliff shouting at us all to jump off and we will be all right when we hit the rocks at the bottom . A few months ago you were saying it would be a nice soft landing . Now you are saying a Hard landing will be ok . Presumably you will be the last to jump hoping your landing will be softened by the bodies of those who encouraged to jump .
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,429
    edited September 2016
    DavidL said:

    SeanT said:

    Re Brexit.

    All will be well, and all manner of things shall be well. There. That's the final END of the Debate.

    Now can we talk about something else, and never mention it again? FFS.

    My guess is that is a tad optimistic.

    But we shall see.
    Our not talking again about the biggest (and still completely uncertain - of both intention and outcome) UK political story in town for the next x (pick a number between two and five) years is a ridiculous suggestion, even coming from this site's champion of the ridiculous.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
    I read a book by an American author who explained his propositions in terms of baseball all the way through. Being wholly ignorant of baseball, I found his arguments extremely hard to follow.

    (Good evening, everyone)
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.
    .
    Looked to me like she got into a bit of a flap at a short rising ball on the Peerage stuff, but she got back in position for the next delivery and though the ball went in the air it landed safe.
    Cricket is just the most boring sport. Ever. Invented, watched and played by people with FAR too much time on their hands
    :innocent:
    Naughty.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    kle4 said:

    Neil is a good interviewer though. Good follow ups, didn't let her avoid the specific questions by answering what she had preferred the question be on, but didn't interrupt her too egregiously, treated her with respect and, while his leanings are perhaps not the norm for many at the BBC, he didn't seem out to get her.

    Although she said little, an unbiased observer would think she was being economical with some of her answers, or as a de minimus , extremely careful.. That sort of answering just leads people to believe that what they are hearing is a not exactly 100% straight.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    SeanT said:

    Re Brexit.

    All will be well, and all manner of things shall be well. There. That's the final END of the Debate.

    Now can we talk about something else, and never mention it again? FFS.

    Don't mentiin the Brexit! I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

    Now howabout a silly walk...
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    kle4 said:

    Neil is a good interviewer though. Good follow ups, didn't let her avoid the specific questions by answering what she had preferred the question be on, but didn't interrupt her too egregiously, treated her with respect and, while his leanings are perhaps not the norm for many at the BBC, he didn't seem out to get her.

    Although she said little, an unbiased observer would think she was being economical with some of her answers, or as a de minimus , extremely careful.. That sort of answering just leads people to believe that what they are hearing is a not exactly 100% straight.
    and lets not forget when she was the peoples champion for rights etc, she had no trouble being voluble and very verbal... Who believes her is a more important question.
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
    I read a book by an American author who explained his propositions in terms of baseball all the way through. Being wholly ignorant of baseball, I found his arguments extremely hard to follow.

    (Good evening, everyone)
    You sure threw a curveball there.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    Oh dear, it seems Philip Collins at The Times has come down with a case of Stockholm syndrome.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited September 2016
    FPT,

    We can argue which is the most heinous crime in the whole world (and the holocaust is probably in the top five) but that wasn't the point I was making.

    There are deluded people who choose to believe that certain things never happened. You can find people who choose to believe that Kim Jong-Un is a great leader and went round an 18 hole golf course in 18 shots, that Stalin was a kind uncle and Genghis Khan was a social worker. Their bonkers ideas kill no one unless you think it's contagious.

    Or is it a safe space you're after?


  • Options

    SeanT said:

    Re Brexit.

    All will be well, and all manner of things shall be well. There. That's the final END of the Debate.

    Now can we talk about something else, and never mention it again? FFS.

    Don't mentiin the Brexit! I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

    Now howabout a silly walk...
    Lets not go back to Crosby.....
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    CD13 said:

    FPT,

    We can argue which is the most heinous crime in the whole world (and the holocaust is probably in the top five) but that wasn't the point I was making.

    There are deluded people who choose to believe that certain things never happened. You can find people who choose to believe that Kim Jong-Un is a great leader and went round an 18 hole golf course in 18 shots, that Stalin was a kind uncle and Genghis Khan was a social worker. Their bonkers ideas kill no one unless you think it's contagious.

    Or is it a safe space you're after?


    Bonkers holocaust denial may be but when the protocols of the elders of zion and Mein Kampf are bestsellers across the middle east its not surprising people get jumpy.

    But criminalising it, as several EU countries have done, unless spouting it in away that causes a breach of the peace is equally bonkers (and just makes martyrs ofthem)

    As is calling people who disagree with a weather theory deniers in an attempt to make out they are as unhinged and unpleasant as the godwins revisionists.

  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    "Lets not go back to Crosby....."

    Sorry, Paul, you were too late. Anyway, it's not about Crosby, it's about people being offended by deluded people.

    Pity, yes. Offence, no.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,006
    edited September 2016

    kle4 said:

    Neil is a good interviewer though. Good follow ups, didn't let her avoid the specific questions by answering what she had preferred the question be on, but didn't interrupt her too egregiously, treated her with respect and, while his leanings are perhaps not the norm for many at the BBC, he didn't seem out to get her.

    Although she said little, an unbiased observer would think she was being economical with some of her answers, or as a de minimus , extremely careful.. That sort of answering just leads people to believe that what they are hearing is a not exactly 100% straight.
    I think her eye movements were those of someone who is racking their brains about dates and correspondence. When you try to remember something your eyes move like that. I think she was being extremely careful to tell the truth. I didn't think it was one of the classic Neil interviews - more of a typical effective Neil interview. Not particularly revealing.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/american-behind-tube-chat-badges-reveals-why-he-wants-to-get-com/

    Bloody yanks. Nothing worse than a stranger talking to you on the train to work.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,967
    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3) The unspeakable cruelty to inmates who were not slaughtered within hours of arriving.

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
    If anything, I think the IJA were worse than the SS. I once tried reading a book about the sack of Nanking, but had to give up, it was so nauseating.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ishmael_X said:

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
    I read a book by an American author who explained his propositions in terms of baseball all the way through. Being wholly ignorant of baseball, I found his arguments extremely hard to follow.

    (Good evening, everyone)
    You sure threw a curveball there.
    That was out of left field...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Neil is a good interviewer though. Good follow ups, didn't let her avoid the specific questions by answering what she had preferred the question be on, but didn't interrupt her too egregiously, treated her with respect and, while his leanings are perhaps not the norm for many at the BBC, he didn't seem out to get her.

    Although she said little, an unbiased observer would think she was being economical with some of her answers, or as a de minimus , extremely careful.. That sort of answering just leads people to believe that what they are hearing is a not exactly 100% straight.
    I think her eye movements were those of someone who is racking their brains about dates and correspondence. When you try to remember something your eyes move like that. I think she was being extremely careful to tell the truth. I didn't think it was one of the classic Neil interviews - more of a typical effective Neil interview. Not particularly revealing.
    That's about my take. It seemed clear she was being very careful with how she phrased things, and did stop to think how she presented what she said. That does come across as a little suspicious, why did she clearly feel the need to be quite so precise in everything she said, but not overly so, and frankly it is better than blundering in and saying something stupid or openly losing her cool (she got a bit snippy, but again not overly so).
  • Options
    Shami wasn't really swinging for the fences.
  • Options

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,967
    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3) The unspeakable cruelty to inmates who were not slaughtered within hours of arriving.

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
    If anything, I think the IJA were worse than the SS. I once tried reading a book about the sack of Nanking, but had to give up, it was so nauseating.
    One would like to think that the Holocaust was unique, but depressingly, it wasn't.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3) The unspeakable cruelty to inmates who were not slaughtered within hours of arriving.

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
    If anything, I think the IJA were worse than the SS. I once tried reading a book about the sack of Nanking, but had to give up, it was so nauseating.
    Certainly in the same league. Ironically it was a German Nazi who protected a lot of Chinese in the grounds of the German embassy in the Rape of Nanking.

    This is the classic and rigorously factual book of the War Crimes Trials of Tokyo:

    A gruelling read, as is his book of the Nurenberg trials:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Knights-Bushido-History-Japanese-Crimes/dp/1853676519
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047
    edited September 2016

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


  • Options
    RobD said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/american-behind-tube-chat-badges-reveals-why-he-wants-to-get-com/

    Bloody yanks. Nothing worse than a stranger talking to you on the train to work.

    How about I am a looney badges?

    Farting silently on a very crowded tube train the hot summers morning after consuming some particularly fruity real ale then watching everyone looking at each other accusingly while unable to move is far more entertaining than talking to strangers though.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    Ishmael_X said:

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
    I read a book by an American author who explained his propositions in terms of baseball all the way through. Being wholly ignorant of baseball, I found his arguments extremely hard to follow.

    (Good evening, everyone)
    You sure threw a curveball there.
    That was out of left field...
    Nowadays we have Google ...

    curveball
    ˈkəːvbɔːl/
    noun
    BASEBALL
    a delivery in which the pitcher causes the ball to deviate from a straight path by imparting spin.
    "his three-speed curveball enabled him to win 20 games in two different seasons"
    NORTH AMERICANinformal
    something which is unexpected, surprising, or disruptive.
    "there's always a curveball on every mission"

    "Out of left field" is American slang meaning "unexpectedly", "odd" or "strange". The phrase came from baseball terminology referring to the area covered by the left fielder who has the farthest throw to first base.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2016
    kle4 said:

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


    More interestingly, can a non RC be made a saint?

    The C of E seems to recognise pre-Reformation saints, but has no mechanism for recognising new ones. Not that I have ambitions in that direction...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047

    kle4 said:

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


    More interestingly, can a non RC be made a saint?

    The C of E seems to recognise pre-Reformation saints, but has no mechanism for recognising new ones. Not that I have ambitions in that direction...
    They have at least one: St Charles the Martyr.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    RobD said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/american-behind-tube-chat-badges-reveals-why-he-wants-to-get-com/

    Bloody yanks. Nothing worse than a stranger talking to you on the train to work.

    How about I am a looney badges?

    Farting silently on a very crowded tube train the hot summers morning after consuming some particularly fruity real ale then watching everyone looking at each other accusingly while unable to move is far more entertaining than talking to strangers though.
    Does that make you a shy Trumper?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,790
    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3) The unspeakable cruelty to inmates who were not slaughtered within hours of arriving.

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
    If anything, I think the IJA were worse than the SS. I once tried reading a book about the sack of Nanking, but had to give up, it was so nauseating.
    A difference is that the Germans tried to keep their murder somewhat hidden. The Japanese didn't care.
  • Options
    I want to see Cyclefree interviewing Chakrabarti.
  • Options
    FF43 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3) The unspeakable cruelty to inmates who were not slaughtered within hours of arriving.

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
    If anything, I think the IJA were worse than the SS. I once tried reading a book about the sack of Nanking, but had to give up, it was so nauseating.
    A difference is that the Germans tried to keep their murder somewhat hidden. The Japanese didn't care.
    That is because they were only doing it in places they invaded, not rounding up and systematically liquidating people in Japan too.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,967

    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    FPT:

    Indigo said:

    Imperial Japanese Army killed substantially more, so did the Mongols, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin's Purges, and arguably the Conquistadors.

    To some extent you could avoid the ones you mention by keeping your head down.

    What the Godwins lot did was so ghastly and even if not the worst ever in numbers was the worst ever in evilness because:

    (1) there was absolutely no escape, your birth marked you out.

    (2) The cold, calculating and criminal way they went about setting up and running a network of abbatoirs for humans.

    (3)

    Historical inquiry into e.g. the logistics is legitimate, to get the historical record straight and not leave any errors for deniers and reductionists to exploit, but it would not be a very pleasant task.

    There is no need for this to be considered a contest for the most heinous, but the IJA gets a rather lenient hearing in the history books seen in the west. Memories are rather less charitable on this side of the world.

    An inspection of the history of atrocities by the IJA shows that all of the above is basically true of them as well. For example they slaughtered around 4 million ethnic Chinese in Manchuria, at least 1 in 20 Filipino civilians was killed by the Japanese, including 100,000 killed when they massacred the population of the capital Manila. An estimated 5 million were worked and starved to death by the Japanese on their construction projects in Malaysia, Burma etc, well over 100,000 died just on the single Burma Railway project. Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731. An estimated 400,000 Chinese died on wide area tests of Bubonic Plague, Anthrax, Cholera etc. Any airmen, or persons captured at sea were executed out of hand. 400,000 Comfort women in forced brothels, cannibalism, widespread torture...
    If anything, I think the IJA were worse than the SS. I once tried reading a book about the sack of Nanking, but had to give up, it was so nauseating.
    Certainly in the same league. Ironically it was a German Nazi who protected a lot of Chinese in the grounds of the German embassy in the Rape of Nanking.

    This is the classic and rigorously factual book of the War Crimes Trials of Tokyo:

    A gruelling read, as is his book of the Nurenberg trials:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Knights-Bushido-History-Japanese-Crimes/dp/1853676519
    The IJA seem to have been enthusiastic rapists, especially rapists of children. Max Hastings' Nemesis is a harrowing read in places, e.g. The Battle of Manila.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/american-behind-tube-chat-badges-reveals-why-he-wants-to-get-com/

    Bloody yanks. Nothing worse than a stranger talking to you on the train to work.

    He's lucky he wasn't lynched.
  • Options
    FPT
    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That's the difference between, private enterprise and a Government bureaucracy! especially an entrepreneur as successful as Elon Musk, and government agency, as bad as the Department for Transport!

    Imagine what the Railways would be like if the government has never interfered with them!

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
    They would have looked much like this and would look much like this in the future if the government stopped 'interfering' by subsidising it.

    Railways are still very labour intensive and labour costs have risen rather faster than both inflation and fares since 1914. Better alternatives to short diatance rail freight than horses and carts have also been invented.


    https://www.railnews.co.uk/img/medium/news00333.jpg
  • Options
    On Topic: She's a good woman and head and shoulders above most modern appointments to the upper house. I sleep easier in my bed knowing a staunch liberal has been added to the revising chamber. She's good and talented enough to ride out this particular storm. Clearly the timing and choreography of her appointment and her report stink to high heaven. Whether she's been used, been extraordinarily naive or perhaps both I don't know. It's an excellent interview by Neil and entirely legitimate questioning. However if she'd simply donated a million quid to the Labour Party her appointment wouldn't even have been noticed.
  • Options
    Essexit said:

    RobD said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/american-behind-tube-chat-badges-reveals-why-he-wants-to-get-com/

    Bloody yanks. Nothing worse than a stranger talking to you on the train to work.

    How about I am a looney badges?

    Farting silently on a very crowded tube train the hot summers morning after consuming some particularly fruity real ale then watching everyone looking at each other accusingly while unable to move is far more entertaining than talking to strangers though.
    Does that make you a shy Trumper?
    :)
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,403
    AnneJGP said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
    I read a book by an American author who explained his propositions in terms of baseball all the way through. Being wholly ignorant of baseball, I found his arguments extremely hard to follow.

    (Good evening, everyone)
    You sure threw a curveball there.
    That was out of left field...
    Nowadays we have Google ...

    curveball
    ˈkəːvbɔːl/
    noun
    BASEBALL
    a delivery in which the pitcher causes the ball to deviate from a straight path by imparting spin.
    "his three-speed curveball enabled him to win 20 games in two different seasons"
    NORTH AMERICANinformal
    something which is unexpected, surprising, or disruptive.
    "there's always a curveball on every mission"

    "Out of left field" is American slang meaning "unexpectedly", "odd" or "strange". The phrase came from baseball terminology referring to the area covered by the left fielder who has the farthest throw to first base.
    Can I please take a rain check on this topic.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    However if she'd simply donated a million quid to the Labour Party her appointment wouldn't even have been noticed.

    How much is a whitewash report worth?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


    More interestingly, can a non RC be made a saint?

    The C of E seems to recognise pre-Reformation saints, but has no mechanism for recognising new ones. Not that I have ambitions in that direction...
    They have at least one: St Charles the Martyr.
    The Reformation was not complete until 1688 in my interpretation, but he was cannonised in 1662 by the Anglicans.

    One of my ancestors signed his death warrant.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618

    On Topic: She's a good woman and head and shoulders above most modern appointments to the upper house. I sleep easier in my bed knowing a staunch liberal has been added to the revising chamber. She's good and talented enough to ride out this particular storm. Clearly the timing and choreography of her appointment and her report stink to high heaven. Whether she's been used, been extraordinarily naive or perhaps both I don't know. It's an excellent interview by Neil and entirely legitimate questioning. However if she'd simply donated a million quid to the Labour Party her appointment wouldn't even have been noticed.

    Staunch liberal. :D

    I think you've gone a bit mad since Brexit.
  • Options

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.

    And conversely, the new business and investment we will get as we slowly rid ourselves of the most onerous and ridiculous EU laws.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/the-uk-art-market-can-soar-after-brexit/




    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
    Good luck on trying to export products which you tell other countries it meets our own safety legislation but does not meet that of the EU and/or US legislation .
    Who said anything about (a) exports from the UK and (b) about the UK having inferior rules

    It may be EU countries struggling to meet new British standards, particularly in things like animal welfare and losing out wheras we would still meet their requirements

    Also things the landfill tax. This was imposed EU wide because places like Denmark were running out of landfill space and didnt want themselves put at a disadvantage by unilaterally adopting very expensive alternatives. So they got the EU to force the expensive alternatives on everyone including the UK where our aggregates industry means holes in the ground to dump landfill are plentiful. So post Brexit we can repeal the landfill tax making industry more competitive and Council Tax lower.
    Landfill Tax was imposed by Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor. Taxing a polluting negative externality like waste as opposed to say earned income should appeal to any proper conservative.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,403

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


    More interestingly, can a non RC be made a saint?

    The C of E seems to recognise pre-Reformation saints, but has no mechanism for recognising new ones. Not that I have ambitions in that direction...
    They have at least one: St Charles the Martyr.
    The Reformation was not complete until 1688 in my interpretation, but he was cannonised in 1662 by the Anglicans.

    One of my ancestors signed his death warrant.
    ...your Majesty!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


    More interestingly, can a non RC be made a saint?

    The C of E seems to recognise pre-Reformation saints, but has no mechanism for recognising new ones. Not that I have ambitions in that direction...
    They have at least one: St Charles the Martyr.
    The Reformation was not complete until 1688 in my interpretation, but he was cannonised in 1662 by the Anglicans.

    One of my ancestors signed his death warrant.
    Ooh, a fascinating piece of family history indeed. Not Thomas Grey, MP for Leicester by any chance?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Following the North Carolina postal ballot returns. Initially ballot returns were running above 2012 rates for Dem, Pubs and Indies. However in the last two days Republican return have now fallen beneath their 2012 return rate.

    Dem and Indies rates are above 2012 rates.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    RobD said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/29/american-behind-tube-chat-badges-reveals-why-he-wants-to-get-com/

    Bloody yanks. Nothing worse than a stranger talking to you on the train to work.

    I once was on a train where a very drunk lady tried to engage all around her in onversation

    She was finding it hard work and then a harassed, tired commuter turned to her and politely pointed out that after a day at work people might be tired, might want to read or sleep and she was making that very difficult.

    She didn't take it well........
  • Options
    @MaxPB @Scott_P Here record at Liberty was exemplary. Whether she self identifies as a liberal I don't know but she clearly is one. As for the peerage she could have had one at any point in the last 10 years from any of the three big parties ( as was ).She didn't need to produce a whitewash report to get one. Which doesn't mean she didn't just that she didn't need to if she did.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Floater said:

    SeanT said:

    FF43 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    Business man looking for a deal shock.



    I
    Yep - I think that will be the main Brexit story: the loss of investments that would have been made and of jobs that would have been created had we stayed in the sgingle market.




    On day one this will obviously the case. However parliament will be free to amend such legislation as it sees fit, where it is in our interests to do so and it will be much easier tp get sensible changes as trying to get the EU to agree changes is virtually impossible.

    Also we will be under no obligation to implement future directives. We may choose to do so in full or part if it makes sense but that importantly will be parliaments choice, not the EUs.

    Indeed the EU wishing to avoid the situation where the UK dosent align with future directives could, perversely, give us more soft influence over them than we have hard influence now.
    Good luck on trying to export products which you tell other countries it meets our own safety legislation but does not meet that of the EU and/or US legislation .
    If we export to China does that have to comply with US regs?
    It may or may not . We may be competing with the same or similar product from a US or German firm who can argue that their product is better as it meets globally recognised safety legislation rather than 1 recognised by 1 small island
    thats a no then
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,047

    @MaxPB @Scott_P Here record at Liberty was exemplary. Whether she self identifies as a liberal I don't know but she clearly is one. As for the peerage she could have had one at any point in the last 10 years from any of the three big parties ( as was ).She didn't need to produce a whitewash report to get one. Which doesn't mean she didn't just that she didn't need to if she did.

    I quite believe her when she says she has been offered such things before. Which does make her defending taking one at this particular moment pretty weak sauce.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    nunu said:

    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

    Absolutely, but the Pub GOTV operation is threadbare amd doesn't have the level of quality analytics behind it that the Dem operation does.

    Put it this way, the Dems will have a far better idea who the Republicans can and should try and turn out than the Republicans do.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    nunu said:

    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

    CO, DC, ID, IA, ME, MN, MT, NH, RI, WI, WY.

    Not much fertile ground there for Trump, apart from perhaps CO?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    edited September 2016

    @MaxPB @Scott_P Here record at Liberty was exemplary. Whether she self identifies as a liberal I don't know but she clearly is one. As for the peerage she could have had one at any point in the last 10 years from any of the three big parties ( as was ).She didn't need to produce a whitewash report to get one. Which doesn't mean she didn't just that she didn't need to if she did.

    YS, her record at Liberty is spotty at best. Where was she when the government introduced hate speech laws, where was she when the press shied away from printing Mohammed cartoons? Where was she when Majeed Nawaz was being persecuted for wearing an inoffensive T-shirt. The answer to all of them is a big resounding nowhere. That she could have received a peerage at any time was the same as the Batman lady and Kids Company getting so much air time among the top political circles despite everything that was wrong there.

    You're judgement has gone completely mad in the last few months, not everything is Brexit or Bremain. Shami was a poor head of Liberty and we should be thankful that she's out, her report into anti-Semitism within the Labour party is just the latest in a long line of failures and Corbyn has rewarded that failure (or success depending on one's point of view) with a peerage. It proves that he is the same as any other politician, nothing more and nothing less.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Alistair said:

    nunu said:

    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

    Absolutely, but the Pub GOTV operation is threadbare amd doesn't have the level of quality analytics behind it that the Dem operation does.

    Put it this way, the Dems will have a far better idea who the Republicans can and should try and turn out than the Republicans do.
    Off topic, has anyone heard from IOS recently? :D
  • Options
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    nunu said:

    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

    Absolutely, but the Pub GOTV operation is threadbare amd doesn't have the level of quality analytics behind it that the Dem operation does.

    Put it this way, the Dems will have a far better idea who the Republicans can and should try and turn out than the Republicans do.
    Off topic, has anyone heard from IOS recently? :D
    Poor lad, still waiting for the team bus to pick him up.
  • Options
    The Church of England doesn't canonise anyone. However it commemorates many global Saints of the pre Reformation and pre Schism Roman and Eastern churches. It's also added names to it's own liturgical calendar for commemoration of post Reformation figures ( who are not all Anglicans or English ). Finally varying provinces of the Anglican Communion have local variations of who is commemorated.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    nunu said:

    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

    Absolutely, but the Pub GOTV operation is threadbare amd doesn't have the level of quality analytics behind it that the Dem operation does.

    Put it this way, the Dems will have a far better idea who the Republicans can and should try and turn out than the Republicans do.
    Off topic, has anyone heard from IOS recently? :D
    The Dems will be spending 9 figures on polling, 5 to 10 thousand sample per battleground state per week.

    Every person (actual individual person) in the country with metrics attached he'd to them about how likely they will vote and how likely they will vote Dem.

    The Dem GOTV operation is machine - the software backing it has been commercialised and used in business.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Alistair said:

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    nunu said:

    This is dangerous for Clinton. Some states you canregister on the day, right?

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/missing-white-voters-could-elect-trump-but-first-they-need-to-register/

    Absolutely, but the Pub GOTV operation is threadbare amd doesn't have the level of quality analytics behind it that the Dem operation does.

    Put it this way, the Dems will have a far better idea who the Republicans can and should try and turn out than the Republicans do.
    Off topic, has anyone heard from IOS recently? :D
    The Dems will be spending 9 figures on polling, 5 to 10 thousand sample per battleground state per week.

    Every person (actual individual person) in the country with metrics attached he'd to them about how likely they will vote and how likely they will vote Dem.

    The Dem GOTV operation is machine - the software backing it has been commercialised and used in business.
    I don't doubt it's good, but I couldn't exactly miss an opportunity like that, could I? :D

    (Oh, I caught up on the old thread.. a fair point about cookies on the poll thing. I wonder why they don't just block multiple IPs anyway, the number of people who would complain is probably near zero)
  • Options
    Topical for @SeanT to invoke Saint Julian of Norwich in his Brexit injunction not to worry. Though her sublime vision of the unity of all things referred to the end of time. Perhaps that's how long we'll wait to find out what Brexit means ?!
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    FPT

    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That's the difference between, private enterprise and a Government bureaucracy! especially an entrepreneur as successful as Elon Musk, and government agency, as bad as the Department for Transport!

    Imagine what the Railways would be like if the government has never interfered with them!

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
    They would have looked much like this and would look much like this in the future if the government stopped 'interfering' by subsidising it.

    Railways are still very labour intensive and labour costs have risen rather faster than both inflation and fares since 1914. Better alternatives to short diatance rail freight than horses and carts have also been invented.


    https://www.railnews.co.uk/img/medium/news00333.jpg
    The 'Subsidies' just attract subsidy junkies and crony capitalists, Not the men of ambition and talent, wanting to push the limits of engineering to make things that customers want, or would want if only they existed. like Elon Musk!
  • Options
    BigRich said:

    FPT

    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That's the difference between, private enterprise and a Government bureaucracy! especially an entrepreneur as successful as Elon Musk, and government agency, as bad as the Department for Transport!

    Imagine what the Railways would be like if the government has never interfered with them!

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
    They would have looked much like this and would look much like this in the future if the government stopped 'interfering' by subsidising it.

    Railways are still very labour intensive and labour costs have risen rather faster than both inflation and fares since 1914. Better alternatives to short diatance rail freight than horses and carts have also been invented.


    https://www.railnews.co.uk/img/medium/news00333.jpg
    The 'Subsidies' just attract subsidy junkies and crony capitalists, Not the men of ambition and talent, wanting to push the limits of engineering to make things that customers want, or would want if only they existed. like Elon Musk!
    Elon Musk has taken billions of dollars in subsidies.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-subsidy-aggregation-1466638430
  • Options
    538 now giving Clinton between 60% and 70% chance of winning on the 3 forecasting models
    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,061
    edited September 2016
    BigRich said:

    FPT

    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That's the difference between, private enterprise and a Government bureaucracy! especially an entrepreneur as successful as Elon Musk, and government agency, as bad as the Department for Transport!

    Imagine what the Railways would be like if the government has never interfered with them!

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
    They would have looked much like this and would look much like this in the future if the government stopped 'interfering' by subsidising it.

    Railways are still very labour intensive and labour costs have risen rather faster than both inflation and fares since 1914. Better alternatives to short diatance rail freight than horses and carts have also been invented.


    https://www.railnews.co.uk/img/medium/news00333.jpg
    The 'Subsidies' just attract subsidy junkies and crony capitalists, Not the men of ambition and talent, wanting to push the limits of engineering to make things that customers want, or would want if only they existed. like Elon Musk!
    Urrrm, perhaps you should investigate the subsidies Musk's companies have received from the state ...

    NASA is essentially paying for SpaceX.

    E.g.: http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-subsidy-aggregation-1466638430
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    So farewell then Saint Shami of Chakrabati.

    I believe Jackie Walker remains a Labour party member and the unelected vice-chair of Momentum.

    Farewell? Shameless Shami is rumoured to be joining Labour's front bench in the Lords...

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/exclusive-shami-chakrabarti-set-become-shadow-attorney-general

    I know. But her saintliness has now gone, never to return. She is an ex-saint.

    That makes me wonder something that occasionally tests me : Can people be made ex-saints I wonder? I presume when they are declared the assumption is God is the one approving of the process, so how could taking the saintness away be justified - even if man were not aware of something that meant they didn't deserve it, God would have known and stopped
    Indigo said:


    Numerous units were set up for "scientific experiments" including vivisection, testing of chemical and biological weapons, amputations without anaesthetic etc, including up to quarter of a million men, women and children just at Unit 731.

    Ah, yes, the 'Men behind the Sun' - saw some clips from that movie about them, deeply unpleasant.


    More interestingly, can a non RC be made a saint?

    The C of E seems to recognise pre-Reformation saints, but has no mechanism for recognising new ones. Not that I have ambitions in that direction...
    They have at least one: St Charles the Martyr.
    Although he was a secret Catholic - allegedly.
  • Options
    Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016



    Landfill Tax was imposed by Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor. Taxing a polluting negative externality like waste as opposed to say earned income should appeal to any proper conservative.

    "(1) Whereas the Council resolution of 7 May 1990(4) on waste policy welcomes and supports the Community strategy document and invites the Commission to propose criteria and standards for the disposal of waste by landfill;

    (2) Whereas the Council resolution of 9 December 1996 on waste policy considers that, in the future, only safe and controlled landfill activities should be carried out throughout the Community;"

    Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste

    Funny how a rabidly pro EU chancellor introduced this legislation while the directive was being formulated.
  • Options



    Funny how a rabidly pro EU chancellor introduced this legislation while the directive was being formulated.

    Competent minds think alike.
  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489

    BigRich said:

    FPT

    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    That's the difference between, private enterprise and a Government bureaucracy! especially an entrepreneur as successful as Elon Musk, and government agency, as bad as the Department for Transport!

    Imagine what the Railways would be like if the government has never interfered with them!

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
    They would have looked much like this and would look much like this in the future if the government stopped 'interfering' by subsidising it.

    Railways are still very labour intensive and labour costs have risen rather faster than both inflation and fares since 1914. Better alternatives to short diatance rail freight than horses and carts have also been invented.


    https://www.railnews.co.uk/img/medium/news00333.jpg
    The 'Subsidies' just attract subsidy junkies and crony capitalists, Not the men of ambition and talent, wanting to push the limits of engineering to make things that customers want, or would want if only they existed. like Elon Musk!

    Urrrm, perhaps you should investigate the subsidies Musk's companies have received from the state ...

    NASA is essentially paying for SpaceX.

    E.g.: http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-subsidy-aggregation-1466638430
    Its a fair point that both Space X and Tesla, tack money in different ways form the state.

    but nether of his last 2 successes including PayPal, did. SpaceX puts things in to orbit for a number of organisations including NASA, this is because he has developed the new technology to do it that is better than anybody else. TESLA mocks electric cars that are subsidised, but any company could do this its Elon Musk that has worked out how to use technology to make the best cars, in large numbers, relatively cheaply.

    His mission to Mars is basically in competition to NASA, and he has IMHO already shown he is better at space travel with 12 years experience than NASA with 55ish.

    It is complex, I still consider him a Libertarian hero, and I respect your opinion if you disagree with me.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    It would have been more amusing if the sayings of Yogi Berra were what was used to illustrate his main points
    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DavidL said:

    In fairness Chakrabarti handled him as well as any and better than most. He is tenacious and difficult to deal with but she answered the questions in a straightforward way.

    And I am not especially a fan.

    I agree, that looked like a no-wicket maiden to me.
    Excellent analogy. Superb bowling and a reasonably straight bat with a deep reluctance to touch anything outside off stump.

    Makes me wonder how people who don't have cricket really get an understanding of the world.
    I read a book by an American author who explained his propositions in terms of baseball all the way through. Being wholly ignorant of baseball, I found his arguments extremely hard to follow.

    (Good evening, everyone)
This discussion has been closed.