And we’re back to safeguarding. And probably OFSTED.
OFSTED inspectors aren't usually naked. They might be less of a risk to children if they were as any child would run a mile screaming if they saw such a horrible sight.
He refused to comply with a direction to disperse under Section 35 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.
'Section 35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act provides police officers with discretionary powers to disperse individuals or groups causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to others. It enables officers to issue a dispersal order, which can cover a specific area for up to 48 hours, allowing them to instruct individuals to leave the area and not return for a designated period. Failure to comply with such an order can result in arrest.'
The question is, if an organiser of the pro-Palestine march walked along with the police and picked out people with racist placards and said "we don't want them here", could the police issue a Section 35 order there and then?
Tommy Robinson is a known individual so it's a bit easier to single him out, but the police should be able to react on the day to people not welcome at a march.
Also from previous thread: In the US there are many "charter schools". "Charter schools in the United States are primary or secondary education institutions that are public schools which are publicly funded and operate independently, rather than being overseen by local school districts. Charter schools have a contract with local school districts or other authorizing bodies that allow them to operate. These contracts, or charters, are how charter schools bear their name. They are funded with public tax dollars, though they also fundraise independently. Charter schools are subject to fewer rules than traditional state schools in exchange for greater accountability. Proponents argue that they are meant to serve underserved communities that wish to have alternatives to their neighborhood school." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States
They currently enroll about 3 million pupils.
You can better understand the demand for them from this example: The head of the Chicago teachers union (to which I once belonged) has enrolled her son in a private school.
(More recently, there has also been a surge in home schooling in the US.)
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
One of the reasons the Chinese agreed to the Korean Armistice was that then President Eisenhower moved tactical nuclear weapons to Korea, and quietly let the Chinese know about that he had done so. (I think he used India to pass that on, secretly.)
Unfortunately, we can't do the same in Ukraine, today. And, in my opinion, much of the caution shown by the Biden administration can be explained by the desire to avoid nuclear war.
(It is worth remembering that even Obama, as incompetent as he is, was able to sign an arms reduction agreement with Putin, but the Loser didn't even try -- and I think the world is more dangerous because of his failure.)
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
Don't mention the trans woman! I mentioned her once but I think I got away with it. A tremendous romp but as often with RTD, the end did not make a great deal of sense. Uncle Walt's budget was well-spent on CGI. David Tennant is the greatest actor to play the Doctor and quite possibly our greatest television actor; certainly our most charismatic. Catherine Tate as Donna is good too, but some of the other acting was decidedly ropey in comparison.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I didn’t say I agreed with the article. Indeed, I barely read it
My point was: this is where American politics and policy-making is pointed. So we’d better get used to it
Without 100% US support Ukraine must fold. I think it’s now at about 87% and falling fast
By the way it’s one of those late Autumn Sunday evenings where a bit of pub with Baker Street playing would be ideal, but there was no consensus for pub in the household so it’s roastmaking with music playing instead. And I’m doing Attenborough’s favourite band Sigur Ros.
By the way it’s one of those late Autumn Sunday evenings where a bit of pub with Baker Street playing would be ideal, but there was no consensus for pub in the household so it’s roastmaking with music playing instead. And I’m doing Attenborough’s favourite band Sigur Ros.
I challenge you to play Hoppipola and not think “nature is fragile, we must do something before it’s too late”.
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
Unfortunately, Tennant/Tate are only back for three episodes (The Star Beast, The Wild Blue Yonder, The Giggle) and Tennant regenerates into Ncuti Gatwa on Xmas Day 2023.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Our dress code claims that you should wear the same for WFH as you would for the office. But hardly anyone does.
T shirt and casual bottoms, not pyjama bottoms, is my norm. Hoodie or jumper at this time of year.
Pyjamas are the new underpants?
I rather worry that he means birthday suit bottoms. Winnie the Pooh mode and all that.
Well the traditional recipe is:
1 - Blogging 2 - In his mum's house 3 - In the basement 4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I don’t want to imagine what @TSE’s basement looks like. And as for his underpants ….
What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.
Did they give extremists Graham Linehan, Douglas Murray and Alison Pearson the cold shoulder as well?
What do we think of Tommy Robinson being arrested at the request of the march organisers (if, as Dan Hodges suggests, that's what happened)? Obviously, completely understand why the organisers didn't want him there, but can they just have people they don't like arrested?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges Tommy Robinson’s arrest is not an example of “two-tier policing”. It’s an example of how organisers of today’s march reject the presence of extremists, whilst the organisers of the pro-Palestinian marches are perfectly comfortable with the presence of extremists.
Did they give extremists Graham Linehan, Douglas Murray and Alison Pearson the cold shoulder as well?
I think it was just the Nationalist flavour of extremist that wasn't welcome.
Historically, they've tended to cause the most trouble in public.
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
I thought it was very good. A bit predictable the Meep would be a baddie and there was some tick box stuff, wheelchair/trans etc but not overdone and did not detract from the story.
My only criticism would be a coming soon trailer would have been nice
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
I thought it was very good. A bit predictable the Meep would be a baddie and there was some tick box stuff, wheelchair/trans etc but not overdone and did not detract from the story.
My only criticism would be a coming soon trailer would have been nice
The trailer for the next episode was in the Doctor Who Unleashed episode.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
By the way it’s one of those late Autumn Sunday evenings where a bit of pub with Baker Street playing would be ideal, but there was no consensus for pub in the household so it’s roastmaking with music playing instead. And I’m doing Attenborough’s favourite band Sigur Ros.
I challenge you to play Hoppipola and not think “nature is fragile, we must do something before it’s too late”.
I’ve now moved on to Green Day and am thinking “it probably wasn’t a good idea to invade Iraq”.
Actually perhaps that’s a good analogue for Ukraine. Former colony.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
Don't mention the trans woman! I mentioned her once but I think I got away with it. A tremendous romp but as often with RTD, the end did not make a great deal of sense. Uncle Walt's budget was well-spent on CGI. David Tennant is the greatest actor to play the Doctor and quite possibly our greatest television actor; certainly our most charismatic. Catherine Tate as Donna is good too, but some of the other acting was decidedly ropey in comparison.
While I'm moaning, the very long information dumps to remind viewers what happened more than ten years ago were a PITA.
Noted this in The Guardian's report on Israeli hostages being released:
The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, spoke of the end of a “cruel torture” for Emily’s family. “An innocent girl who was lost has now been found and returned, and our country breathes a massive sigh of relief,” he said.
Varadkar’s comments drew an angry response from Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, who wrote on social media: “Mr Prime Minister. It seems you have lost your moral compass and need a reality check! Emily Hand was not ‘lost’, she was kidnapped by a terror organisation worse than Isis that murdered her stepmother.”
Israel said it was summoning Ireland’s ambassador to the foreign ministry in Jerusalem for a “reprimand”.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
The only Who I ever particularly enjoyed watching was Christopher Eccleston.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
He is a fantastic actor, agreed. Always been a bit surprised he wasn't an immense success as a villain in Hollywood films with his versatility and presence, but I gather he just happens to prefer stage work with a bit of TV on the side.
So, I got round to watching the first of the Doctor Who specials today. I imagine some of the 'woke' elements will bother some 'culture war people', but this is night and day from the Chibnall era and I felt like I was actually watching Doctor Who again. I preferred Moffat's vision of Who to RTD's (at least when Moffat could be arsed), but there's no denying he knows how to write Doctor Who and Tennant's Doctor. Great performance by Margoyles as the Meep as well. I'm actually optimistic about the show again.
Don't mention the trans woman! I mentioned her once but I think I got away with it. A tremendous romp but as often with RTD, the end did not make a great deal of sense. Uncle Walt's budget was well-spent on CGI. David Tennant is the greatest actor to play the Doctor and quite possibly our greatest television actor; certainly our most charismatic. Catherine Tate as Donna is good too, but some of the other acting was decidedly ropey in comparison.
While I'm moaning, the very long information dumps to remind viewers what happened more than ten years ago were a PITA.
Quite useful for me as I never watched the episodes 10 years ago. Nor, I suspect did most of the programme's current youth audience.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Which just illustrates how loopy Putin is.
The Egyptians should have given up some land to give Eden an Exit Strategy? We’ve been told that nuclear powers should always be given an out..
Noted this in The Guardian's report on Israeli hostages being released:
The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, spoke of the end of a “cruel torture” for Emily’s family. “An innocent girl who was lost has now been found and returned, and our country breathes a massive sigh of relief,” he said.
Varadkar’s comments drew an angry response from Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, who wrote on social media: “Mr Prime Minister. It seems you have lost your moral compass and need a reality check! Emily Hand was not ‘lost’, she was kidnapped by a terror organisation worse than Isis that murdered her stepmother.”
Israel said it was summoning Ireland’s ambassador to the foreign ministry in Jerusalem for a “reprimand”.
One of the casualties of the war is the relationship between Ireland and Israel. The loathing felt by the Israelis for the Irish Govt is visceral.
Both sides will need to watch that lest they piss off the United States which has strong bonds to both countries. It does seem a rather confected overreaction to the Taoiseach's lyrical statement, perhaps owing more to Ireland's previous support for Palestinians, and of course Ireland will focus on Irish victims.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
Eccleston was a much underrated Doctor. Liked the dark stuff that period brought.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics [edit] be3fore the Great War, presumably, of course - though it could just possibly have been a bit later.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics between the wars, of course.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics between the wars, of course.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
Did they end up in the Courts of the Morning?
I need to reread the grandparental collection of Buchan ...
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
I think Vanilla glitched when you were posting that. It put Capaldi third.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
Surprised at the lack of love for Sylvester McCoy in these lists. He got the short end of the shitty stick with a lot of the stories he was given, but he played the Doctor very well. The modern interpretations, the idea of him having a great weight on his shoulders, the loneliness that comes with being effectively immortal - plus the chess-like way in which he'd play his enemies, stems from the McCoy interpretation.
Plus, he was a good egg for playing along with this:
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics [edit] be3fore the Great War, presumably, of course - though it could just possibly have been a bit later.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
It was just after. Sandy didn't appear in the one pre-war Hannay. According to Greenmantle, they met when Sandy was a junior officer in Hannay's regiment at Loos.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
I remember hiding behind the sofa - literally - when Patrick Troughton was the Doctor. (Impressionable child.).
Quite liked Jon Pertwee but Tom Baker was the ONE. He was great fun in the role.
Later, recall thinking Davison was insipid and McCoy execrable. Didn't watch it after that.
Didn't Peter Cushing play the Doctor in a film version? He'd rank quite high, surely?
He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly
“Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.
It’s concern-trolling.
Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.
Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.
The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense
No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm
They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour
Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
That you can see!
I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.
You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.
Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
I used simple words that you might understand.
'Booger' is a deeply unwelcome American word for bogey. If you're going to refer to things picked out of your nose at least use a British word, especially when appeasement is the topic.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
I remember hiding behind the sofa - literally - when Patrick Troughton was the Doctor. (Impressionable child.).
Quite liked Jon Pertwee but Tom Baker was the ONE. He was great fun in the role.
Later, recall thinking Davison was insipid and McCoy execrable. Didn't watch it after that.
Didn't Peter Cushing play the Doctor in a film version? He'd rank quite high, surely?
He did, in two films indeed, but it wasn't one of his better performances even if he did play it twice.
The second film was, interestingly, the first time Bernard Cribbins appeared in a Dr Who, returning in the series itself literally decades later.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
He is a fantastic actor, agreed. Always been a bit surprised he wasn't an immense success as a villain in Hollywood films with his versatility and presence, but I gather he just happens to prefer stage work with a bit of TV on the side.
He did do a Netflix series where he was an exceedingly creepy serial killer with supernatural powers (Jessica Jones ?).
Saw his Hamlet which I thought good, but not brilliant, FWIW.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
I remember hiding behind the sofa - literally - when Patrick Troughton was the Doctor. (Impressionable child.).
Quite liked Jon Pertwee but Tom Baker was the ONE. He was great fun in the role.
Later, recall thinking Davison was insipid and McCoy execrable. Didn't watch it after that.
Didn't Peter Cushing play the Doctor in a film version? He'd rank quite high, surely?
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
I remember hiding behind the sofa - literally - when Patrick Troughton was the Doctor. (Impressionable child.).
Quite liked Jon Pertwee but Tom Baker was the ONE. He was great fun in the role.
Later, recall thinking Davison was insipid and McCoy execrable. Didn't watch it after that.
Didn't Peter Cushing play the Doctor in a film version? He'd rank quite high, surely?
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly
“Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.
It’s concern-trolling.
Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.
Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.
The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense
No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm
They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour
Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
That you can see!
I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.
You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.
Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
I used simple words that you might understand.
'Booger' is a deeply unwelcome American word for bogey. If you're going to refer to things picked out of your nose at least use a British word, especially when appeasement is the topic.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics between the wars, of course.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
Did they end up in the Courts of the Morning?
I need to reread the grandparental collection of Buchan ...
I keep thinking that you could make a brilliant film of The Power House.
He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly
“Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.
It’s concern-trolling.
Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.
Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.
The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense
No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm
They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour
Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
That you can see!
I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.
You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.
Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
I used simple words that you might understand.
'Booger' is a deeply unwelcome American word for bogey. If you're going to refer to things picked out of your nose at least use a British word, especially when appeasement is the topic.
Molten lava through the cracks in the streets of London reminds me that sort-of used to be a thing near gas works, where underground fires (not lava, obviously) would be visible through cracks in the pavement. I'm too young to have seen it myself but my parents' generation talked about it. (ETA sorry, Doctor Who again.)
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
I have an encyclopaedia of science fiction somewhere, which comments drily that 'the calculatedly annoying Nicola Bryant was replaced by Bonnie Langford, whose irritating qualities were entirely uncalculated.'
But yes, Adric was worse. Whether he was worse than Neelix is open to debate...
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
He is a fantastic actor, agreed. Always been a bit surprised he wasn't an immense success as a villain in Hollywood films with his versatility and presence, but I gather he just happens to prefer stage work with a bit of TV on the side.
He did do a Netflix series where he was an exceedingly creepy serial killer with supernatural powers (Jessica Jones ?).
Saw his Hamlet which I thought good, but not brilliant, FWIW.
Yes it was Jessica Jones. The show seemed to think his villain name 'Kilgrave' was amusing, which was weird to me as it seems like a perfectly possible surname to me.
He was rather entertaining as John Knox in that Mary Queen of Scots film a few years ago, though basically every other word out of the character's mouth was 'harlot' so it was not a complex role.
The Scottish Boundary Commission has decided to change the name of the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath seat to Cowdenbeath & Kirkcaldy for no particular reason, despite the fact that Kirkcaldy has a much larger population.
They really missed an opportunity there to include Raith and annoy the BBC whose local reputation has never recovered from thinking it is a town.
They’ll be voting in the streets of Raith tonight!
For some reason….
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
Mind, it was about anti-RC anti-Irish Presbyterian/nativist politics between the wars, of course.
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
Did they end up in the Courts of the Morning?
I need to reread the grandparental collection of Buchan ...
I keep thinking that you could make a brilliant film of The Power House.
John Macnab might make an excellent comedy TV series.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
He is a fantastic actor, agreed. Always been a bit surprised he wasn't an immense success as a villain in Hollywood films with his versatility and presence, but I gather he just happens to prefer stage work with a bit of TV on the side.
He did do a Netflix series where he was an exceedingly creepy serial killer with supernatural powers (Jessica Jones ?).
Saw his Hamlet which I thought good, but not brilliant, FWIW.
Yes it was Jessica Jones.
He was rather entertaining as John Knox in that Mary Queen of Scots film a few years ago, though basically every other word out of the character's mouth was 'harlot' so it was not a complex role.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly
“Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.
It’s concern-trolling.
Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.
Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.
The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense
No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm
They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour
Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
That you can see!
I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.
You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.
Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
I used simple words that you might understand.
'Booger' is a deeply unwelcome American word for bogey. If you're going to refer to things picked out of your nose at least use a British word, especially when appeasement is the topic.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
Would he deserve to have his benefits removed though?
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
Don't even get me started on Tuvix.
Season 2 produced some real stinkers, yes I'm looking at you Threshold but Janeway murdering Tuvix was the biggest disgrace which is some achievement when Threshold vies with Spock's Brain for the worst ever episode of Trek.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
The one I feel for is Harry Kim.
Consistently performed pretty well but never got a promotion from Ensign in 7 years.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
I quite like shows that put one annoying character in them; such as Wesley Crusher in the early series of TNG (though he seems to have been rehabilitated recently). It adds realism and a good dynamic to a show, as most of us will have worked with irritating and annoying people, who we have to get along with. It's more annoying when they have Really Useful Skills (tm).
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
David Tennant is head and shoulders above the others as an actor (even better than John Hurt who played the Doctor for five minutes, and Tom Baker who stole every scene but was basically playing himself).
Eccleston was a much underrated Doctor. Liked the dark stuff that period brought.
I agree, the menace that he brought to the role was a new twist.
Tennant also very good, but didn't like Smith or Capaldi. I did quite like Jodie Whitaker.
Of the older ones I only remember Pertwee and Baker, who set the benchmark for the role in my youth.
The only companion that I don't like is Catherine Tate. Too shouty and not a good actor.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
I remember hiding behind the sofa - literally - when Patrick Troughton was the Doctor. (Impressionable child.).
Quite liked Jon Pertwee but Tom Baker was the ONE. He was great fun in the role.
Later, recall thinking Davison was insipid and McCoy execrable. Didn't watch it after that.
Didn't Peter Cushing play the Doctor in a film version? He'd rank quite high, surely?
No, he played 'Doctor Who' and not the Doctor.
IIRC according to Moffat, in-universe the Peter Cushing films are canon as films in the Doctor Who universe. Although also according to Moffat, the concept of canonicity in Doctor Who is gibberish, and I have to agree. Bear in mind that in canon Boris Johnson is an Auton.
The theme music is good, and the daleks a good scary nemesis, but I don't think I've ever seen a Doctor Who that wasn't shit.
Is that part of the appeal?
Don't worry - there'll be a new one for you to complain about at Christmas followed not too long after by a Labour Government.
I was thinking about that. Assuming Labour are in power by this time next year, it's going to be an interesting change of dynamic on PB.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Back in late 1994 I was using the Usenet message boards, Voyager was going to debut a few weeks later and somebody posted from what they had heard/read Neelix was going to be Voyager's Garak, I think my annoyance about Neelix stems from that.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
I quite like shows that put one annoying character in them; such as Wesley Crusher in the early series of TNG (though he seems to have been rehabilitated recently). It adds realism and a good dynamic to a show, as most of us will have worked with irritating and annoying people, who we have to get along with. It's more annoying when they have Really Useful Skills (tm).
He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly
“Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.
It’s concern-trolling.
Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.
Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.
The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense
No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm
They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour
Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
That you can see!
I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.
You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.
Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
I used simple words that you might understand.
'Booger' is a deeply unwelcome American word for bogey. If you're going to refer to things picked out of your nose at least use a British word, especially when appeasement is the topic.
Yes, you are right.
But the kids these days call them boogers.
I blame the DoE for not allowing teachers to give children that use Americanisms a jolly good thrashing!
“Read Carter Malkasian on how Washington and its partners can improve the odds of an armistice in Ukraine—one that brings the kind of stable, durable peace the Korean armistice produced 70 years ago.”
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
I’m not sure there is a good analogue for the current Ukraine situation. It’s a former colonial power wanting to reassert its power over an independent state.
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
The War of 1812, perhaps? Although the British weren't really trying to reconquer America, per se.
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
Suez?
Yes, arguably.
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Thinking more of former super power, with nuclear weapons, failing to re-invade its “Near Abroad”.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
Churchill of course ordered Montgomery to draw up plans to seize Queenstown and possibly the other Treaty Ports in the 1940s, not counting Craigavon's suggestion of a full scale invasion.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Britain’s relationship with Ireland is surely the closest match for Russia’s geographical and historical relationship with Ukraine. Including of course a famine, contested identity in the heavy industrial region of the colony, and joint endeavour in wider colonial exploits. Whilst we’ve not covered ourselves in glory on that front we’ve certainly taken a different path to Russia.
Recently, we may have taken a different path to Russia, but given past atrocities, it’s no wonder that Ireland has sympathy with Palestine.
It’s a pity they have so little for Israel.
That’s the problem with trying to match another country’s politics to one’s own.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
The one I feel for is Harry Kim.
Consistently performed pretty well but never got a promotion from Ensign in 7 years.
Never ever done that and I don't know any colleague who has or does. To be fair, no one wears a suit or tie either. There may be an argument for greater formality whern dealing with external parties but for internal meetings I don't think it matters very much.Professionalism isn't just a matter of attire, it's more about attitude and competence.
Some times, usually for work calls before 5am, I will wear a polo shirt with PJ bottoms. Can’t take a shower without waking my wife and don’t like to get dressed dirty
He agrees with me. It is time for this war to end, and for us to advise Ukraine that sacrificing another 200,000 young people. - this time often women - is just a really really bad idea. Sure, they can do it, but it’s not going to get them very far. Sadly
“Fighting to the last Ukrainian” is one of the most dishonest expressions that Putin’s shills, like Cummings, Hitchens and Douglas Macgegor come up with.
It’s concern-trolling.
Exactly. It also takes away all Ukrainian agency, as if they are children who we in the west send out to battle like innocents to the slaughter.
Reality is, as ever, more complicated. The Ukrainians chose to fight & have continued to make that choice in the face of Russian attacks. And having seen what the Russians did in the regions of Ukraine they briefly held, who could blame them? The Russians came into Ukraine with extensive kill lists & planned to eliminate the flower of the Ukranian population so they could grab it’s resources to shore up the parlous Russian state.
The idea that they should meekly submit to Russian aggression so that we in the west can sleep soundly in our beds seems profoundly insulting to me. Who are we to assert that we should make that choice on their behalf?
God what embarrassing, splenetic nonsense
No one is advising the Ukrainians to meekly submit. We are suggesting that an armistice now might save 100,000 Ukrainian lives and give them a chance to rebuild their shattered country - and rearm
They have fought nobly. They resisted the Russian bear and gave Putin a bloody nose. Much worse than he expected. A truce now would be a ceasefire with honour
Or they can fight on, but with no realistic path to victory - that I can see
That you can see!
I mean I've picked boogers with more intelligence than you.
You're a fucking appeaser, that clouds your judgment.
Now go watch Threads again you ludicrous soaked up popinjay.
Apart from anything else, this is embarrassingly bad prose with no rhythm or verbal invention
I used simple words that you might understand.
'Booger' is a deeply unwelcome American word for bogey. If you're going to refer to things picked out of your nose at least use a British word, especially when appeasement is the topic.
Yes, you are right.
But the kids these days call them boogers.
Satellite television has a lot to answer for, changing both accents and the language itself.
Back in late 1994 I was using the Usenet message boards, Voyager was going to debut a few weeks later and somebody posted from what they had heard/read Neelix was going to be Voyager's Garak, I think my annoyance about Neelix stems from that.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
Don't even get me started on Tuvix.
Season 2 produced some real stinkers, yes I'm looking at you Threshold but Janeway murdering Tuvix was the biggest disgrace which is some achievement when Threshold vies with Spock's Brain for the worst ever episode of Trek.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
Don't even get me started on Tuvix.
Season 2 produced some real stinkers, yes I'm looking at you Threshold but Janeway murdering Tuvix was the biggest disgrace which is some achievement when Threshold vies with Spock's Brain for the worst ever episode of Trek.
At least Badger, from Breaking Bad, never got to produce his intended script for Star Trek.
Perhaps we could combine the two and do a ranking of all the Doctors?
I would go something like: 1) Tom Baker 2) Tennant 3) Hartnell 4) Pertwee 5) Troughton 6) Eccleston 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McGann 10) McCoy 11) Capaldi 11) Colin Baker 12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
1) Tom Baker 2) Troughton 3) Capaldi 4) Pertwee 5) Hartnell 6) Tennant 7) Davison 8) Smith 9) McCoy 10) Eccleston 11) McGann 12) Colin Baker 13) Whittaker
Of course, what these rankings miss is that Doctor Who has from its first episode been as much about the companions as the Doctor. (Though frankly I could live without them falling in love all the time in recent years.)
If we're going to create a list of favourite companions we'll be here all bloody night.
Adric and Mel Bush.
How did I guess that you would go straight for Bush?
I recently rewatched the story Adric died in, my God, he was more annoying than Neelix.
Neelix was clearly struggling with PTSD. The happy-go-lucky labrador-puppy demeanor was effectively down to him wanting to do anything to please the people who rescued him from a hand-to-mouth existence trying to exist in Kazon space. Not to mention his war guilt over being a deserter.
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
The one I feel for is Harry Kim.
Consistently performed pretty well but never got a promotion from Ensign in 7 years.
The actor was not liked by the producers.
But, was that his fault?
Robert Beltran was renowned for being difficult to work with.
Back in late 1994 I was using the Usenet message boards, Voyager was going to debut a few weeks later and somebody posted from what they had heard/read Neelix was going to be Voyager's Garak, I think my annoyance about Neelix stems from that.
Comments
Tommy Robinson is a known individual so it's a bit easier to single him out, but the police should be able to react on the day to people not welcome at a march.
"Charter schools in the United States are primary or secondary education institutions that are public schools which are publicly funded and operate independently, rather than being overseen by local school districts. Charter schools have a contract with local school districts or other authorizing bodies that allow them to operate. These contracts, or charters, are how charter schools bear their name. They are funded with public tax dollars, though they also fundraise independently. Charter schools are subject to fewer rules than traditional state schools in exchange for greater accountability. Proponents argue that they are meant to serve underserved communities that wish to have alternatives to their neighborhood school."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States
They currently enroll about 3 million pupils.
You can better understand the demand for them from this example: The head of the Chicago teachers union (to which I once belonged) has enrolled her son in a private school.
(More recently, there has also been a surge in home schooling in the US.)
...The war ravaging Ukraine today bears more than a passing resemblance to the Korean War. And for anyone wondering about how it might end, the durability of the Korean armistice—and the high human cost of the delay in reaching it—deserves close study. The parallels are clear. In Ukraine, as in Korea seven decades ago, a static battlefront and intractable political differences call for a cease-fire that would pause the violence while putting off thorny political issues for another day. ..
Korea was a civil war in which the great powers took sides. Quite how that bears more than a passing resemblance to an invasion designed to wipe out an independent state, I'm sure you'll elucidate, as the article doesn't.
An armistice suited China just fine. They had modernised their previously primitive armed forces with Russian equipment and technology, and had lost quite enough men, with no prospect of making further gains.
It also suited the allies, as although S Korea's armed forces had improved considerably during the course of the war, the considerable bulk of the fighting was done by US soldiers - with some notable (and at times heroic) participation by the UK and other allies.
That also doesn't bear much of a resemblance to the situation in Ukraine.
There might be arguments for forcing an unwilling Ukraine to the negotiating table with the promise of the permanent loss of a large lump of its territory, but it they exist, the article doesn't make them.
The Panmunjon settlement was durable because the US was vastly superior in military force, and stationed tens of thousands of troops in country for over six decades - to defend of border an order of magnitude smaller than Russia/Ukraine, in mountainous territory which doesn't lend itself to rapid force movements.
There is, again, no useful suggestion in the article how that might be done in the current situation.
Unfortunately, we can't do the same in Ukraine, today. And, in my opinion, much of the caution shown by the Biden administration can be explained by the desire to avoid nuclear war.
(It is worth remembering that even Obama, as incompetent as he is, was able to sign an arms reduction agreement with Putin, but the Loser didn't even try -- and I think the world is more dangerous because of his failure.)
1 - Blogging
2 - In his mum's house
3 - In the basement
4 - In his underpants
I make @TSE at least 2 (1&2) out of 4, which is above a traditional pass mark.
Does anyone where @TSE has his computer? Or his underpants?
I’m sure historians will find a suitable example. I just can’t think of one. You have suzerainty over a nation, then you let them be independent, then you try to get control back.
My point was: this is where American politics and policy-making is pointed. So we’d better get used to it
Without 100% US support Ukraine must fold. I think it’s now at about 87% and falling fast
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(2023_specials)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_14)
The Russian invasion of Finland in 1939 might also be a possible parallel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67518323
Historically, they've tended to cause the most trouble in public.
My only criticism would be a coming soon trailer would have been nice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001sx3r/doctor-who-unleashed
“So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
China and Tibet in 1950 might be another example.
Can't we do AV?
Actually perhaps that’s a good analogue for Ukraine. Former colony.
What-If Eden channels Lex Luthor and starts talking about nukes and existential crises?
I would go something like:
1) Tom Baker
2) Tennant
3) Hartnell
4) Pertwee
5) Troughton
6) Eccleston
7) Davison
8) Smith
9) McGann
10) McCoy
11) Capaldi
11) Colin Baker
12) I've never actually seen an episode with Jodie Whitaker right through so I'll put her last.
Not counting John Hurt.
The Irish taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, spoke of the end of a “cruel torture” for Emily’s family. “An innocent girl who was lost has now been found and returned, and our country breathes a massive sigh of relief,” he said.
Varadkar’s comments drew an angry response from Israel’s foreign minister, Eli Cohen, who wrote on social media: “Mr Prime Minister. It seems you have lost your moral compass and need a reality check! Emily Hand was not ‘lost’, she was kidnapped by a terror organisation worse than Isis that murdered her stepmother.”
Israel said it was summoning Ireland’s ambassador to the foreign ministry in Jerusalem for a “reprimand”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/26/overjoyed-nine-year-old-hostage-emily-hand-returns-to-family-in-israel
One of the casualties of the war is the relationship between Ireland and Israel. The loathing felt by the Israelis for the Irish Govt is visceral.
He was, however, talked out of it.
Maybe Gaza?
The bit in front was:
"I might be bored in Parliament," he reflected, "but I should love the rough-and-tumble of an election. I only once took part in one, and I discovered surprising gifts as a demagogue and made a speech in our little town which is still talked about. The chief row was about Irish Home Rule, and I thought I'd better have a whack at the Pope. Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. [...]"
2) Troughton
3) Capaldi
4) Pertwee
5) Hartnell
6) Tennant
7) Davison
8) Smith
9) McCoy
10) Eccleston
11) McGann
12) Colin Baker
13) Whittaker
Plus, he was a good egg for playing along with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEGaHn8NIg4
"Tom, have you been in the pub?"
Is that part of the appeal?
Quite liked Jon Pertwee but Tom Baker was the ONE. He was great fun in the role.
Later, recall thinking Davison was insipid and McCoy execrable. Didn't watch it after that.
Didn't Peter Cushing play the Doctor in a film version? He'd rank quite high, surely?
The second film was, interestingly, the first time Bernard Cribbins appeared in a Dr Who, returning in the series itself literally decades later.
Saw his Hamlet which I thought good, but not brilliant, FWIW.
Baker of course had Adams writing.
But the kids these days call them boogers.
But yes, Adric was worse. Whether he was worse than Neelix is open to debate...
He was rather entertaining as John Knox in that Mary Queen of Scots film a few years ago, though basically every other word out of the character's mouth was 'harlot' so it was not a complex role.
https://www.itv.com/watch/des/2a7844
Having said that, he was still annoying as f***.
This does not change the fact that Janeway murdered Tuvix, who was a far more interesting character than Tuvok or Neelix, er, put together.
Season 2 produced some real stinkers, yes I'm looking at you Threshold but Janeway murdering Tuvix was the biggest disgrace which is some achievement when Threshold vies with Spock's Brain for the worst ever episode of Trek.
Consistently performed pretty well but never got a promotion from Ensign in 7 years.
Tennant also very good, but didn't like Smith or Capaldi. I did quite like Jodie Whitaker.
Of the older ones I only remember Pertwee and Baker, who set the benchmark for the role in my youth.
The only companion that I don't like is Catherine Tate. Too shouty and not a good actor.
All those years of PBers on the right, defending the Tories at first and gradually giving up on them in despair - they'll no doubt enjoy being on the attack from day one.
Will those us of on the left find a Labour government delivering things we want to defend? I hope so.
Pause
1. Amy Pond
2...
(ducks)
That’s the problem with trying to match another country’s politics to one’s own.
Robert Beltran was renowned for being difficult to work with.