politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the 40 year since the Tories selected a woman LAB has ha
Comments
-
Jezbollah also does not come across as very convincing when a man is arrested, Corbyn says it's wrong as he's "an honoured citizen", and now he's claiming he was just using "diplomatic language" as an "aid to dialogue". Please.0
-
What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/0 -
And thats the problem with Corbyns excuse.. would he ever use the 'friends' statement when he was entertaining Israelis?TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?0 -
@ Richard Nabavi
"What was the line of questioning on WATO that made Comrade Jeremy angry?"
Initially it was very similar to the K G-M interview on C4 News a while back. Martha tried cutting across him and his voice rose a few octaves. From then on whenever he was interrupted or contradicted, the contempt in his voice was palpable.
Actually I think this is quite illuminating. It's not the questions themselves that irk him as in his mind he has a perfectly reasonable response to any query. It's the refusal of the questioner to accept his answer as being satisfactory that clearly gets to him. It's almost as if he thinks his world view is the only one with any merit.
Who'd a thunk it?0 -
Yes but - forgive me - they are specifically excluded from statutes of limitations, as are cases of murder. For common assault, which is what this would be, my understanding is a complaint has to be lodged within six months of the event. 1987 was 28 years ago. I also pointed out why, even if I am wrong on that point, I don't think it would get very far. Whether that is morally right or wrong is a different question. Clearly, hitting people, especially children, is not a good thing to do. But the law is involved with realpolitik.justin124 said:
But prosecutions have been launched for sexual offences dating back a good deal earlier than 1987. I accept that what I am referring to is a much less serious offence but that would surely be reflected in any sentence imposed.ydoethur said:
Yes - sorry - those were two separate points. I appreciate that could have been clearer. The first paragraph was on the Head you mentioned - I fully agree you are right, that is clearly criminal behaviour, but I doubt if a prosecution could be launched after this lapse of time.justin124 said:
With respect a Headmaster could hardly claim that he was unaware that the law had changed in Autumn 1987! I rather suspect that if confronted with the accusation - which he openly admitted to his staff - that he would confess his guilt and so avoid any need for a drawn out trial.The evidence is pretty overwhelming and I cannot believe that former members of staff would be likely to lie under oath to protect him should he deny it.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
To sum up, I believe the original material you quoted to be wrong on several key points regarding the likely possibility of successful prosecution and I have explained my reasons for so thinking. I hope you found them interesting even if you disagree with them.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.0 -
Corbyn didn't just say Raed Salah was an "honoured citizen". He complained about the denigration of this upstanding man by the British media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJDPV7hEsdc
"He is far from a dangerous man. He is a very honoured citizen. He represents his people extremely well. His is a voice that must be heard... I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it."0 -
''I've never felt that I was in a situation that would be improved by the use of violence.''
You make some excellent points very lucidly, but corporal punishment wasn't for the benefit of teachers. It was for ordinary law abiding pupils who wanted to get on with their lives. They almost never got whacked. And, arguably, disruptive kids who f8cked up their sh8t, did. (though I concede many on here experienced otherwise so maybe I'm wrong).
0 -
Jezbollah wasn't even answering their questions himself - 'Jeremy has no recollection', 'Jeremy is deeply moved'. Some earnest Spad giving wishy washy answers.ydoethur said:
It looks pretty evasive to me. 'Has no recollection'; 'In the late 1990s/in the past'; 'is not speaking [when the question was, 'accepted an invitation']' and talking of the use of the word 'friends' as a diplomatic gambit when he is (A) not a diplomat and (B) was not doing anything useful to promote peace. I think this doesn't really put the problems to bed, although no doubt it will be enough for his followers to once again start their ravings about his brilliance and media bias against him.TheScreamingEagles said:Jezbollah responds to the Jewish Chronicle's questions, on a cursory reading, looks solid enough
http://bit.ly/1WEs8Gh0 -
I'd have said the same ifPlato said:Well, there's hair-splitting and...
Pulpstar said:
Q7 Why did you describe Raed Salah, a man convicted of the blood libel, as an ‘honoured citizen’?TheScreamingEagles said:Jezbollah responds to the Jewish Chronicle's questions, on a cursory reading, looks solid enough
http://bit.ly/1WEs8Gh
I don't get this question. He hasn't been convicted 'of the blood libel', he has been convicted of inciting violence...
Q7 Why did you describe David Irving, a man convicted of the holocaust, as an ‘honoured citizen’?
had been used ^_~0 -
And another one
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/6339858867582894080 -
"It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where my friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invite my friends from Hamas to speak as well."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ
If this is just diplomatic language, rather than genuine affection, I look forward to someone linking clips of him describing Israeli politicians and American Republicans as friends.0 -
I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
0 -
"To become Prime Minister, the next leader needs to consistently advocate the kind of vision and policy agenda that rehabilitates the Labour brand, creates enthusiasm amongvoters and shows personal readiness to lead the country. The party should pick the leader that can most naturally play that role, not pick a leader they like and hope will make an electorally adroit ideological adjustment in office."TheScreamingEagles said:This is a must read, from Ed Miliband's private pollster
http://bit.ly/1Jiboi8
Hmmm. Alan Johnson it is.0 -
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
0 -
I think with children the statue of limitation clock doesn't start ticking until you reach your majority, and in certain limited circumstances might extend for two years, but essentially if you are over 20 you are wasting your time.ydoethur said:
Yes but - forgive me - they are specifically excluded from statutes of limitations, as are cases of murder. For common assault, which is what this would be, my understanding is a complaint has to be lodged within six months of the event. 1987 was 28 years ago. I also pointed out why, even if I am wrong on that point, I don't think it would get very far. Whether that is morally right or wrong is a different question. Clearly, hitting people, especially children, is not a good thing to do. But the law is involved with realpolitik.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
0 -
flightpath01 said:I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.0 -
The kind of idiot who gets married and then proceeds to cheat. If you're thinking with down there, then common sense tends to go out the window.JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/
0 -
More importantly, has he described them as his friends? After all, it's diplomatic language used to make everyone play nice, rather than a term of sympathy.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?0 -
@Kinga - Thanks0
-
Indeed, in the piece I've written for the weekend, I've pointed out Corbyn's always been very open and honest about meeting up with Sinn Fein.NickPalmer said:
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Whereas John Major misled* the House of Commons about talking to the IRA when he said 'It would turn my stomach [talking to the IRA]'
*Depends on your definition of misled0 -
Two issues arise from this.NickPalmer said:
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Firstly, is that really what he was doing (or thought he was doing)? His reported words appear rather at odds with that.
Secondly, the government may well have its own contacts and dialogue with such people and groups (and, in fact probably does). Having a wildcard going in and giving contrary views might be far from helpful.0 -
My favourite all time example of that is the Obama compilation. It never fails to make me LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Ur5E61sKYJEO said:
More importantly, has he described them as his friends? After all, it's diplomatic language used to make everyone play nice, rather than a term of sympathy.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?0 -
To be fair, you can see that it might seem like a better idea than using the home email...JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/0 -
They weren't being used to justify the policy. They were being used to explain how the system works to people using it.isam said:
Photos of actors alongside made up quotes used by the state to justify a controversial policy... Ah lovelyPlato said:Ditto - I imagine that a real cheat would be complaining of having their privacy violated. It's just sensible use of actors to illustrate the point.
BannedInParis said:"Stupid, but I'm not actually outraged for some reason. Marking the things as illustrative would have made it not matter at all."
Likewise.0 -
FerFuxSake, the New Statesman have nicked the Star Wars reference I was planning to use this weekend.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/6339910560953344000 -
Not a bad analysis at all but I see no sign that any of the potential leaders are anywhere near this in their thinking.TheScreamingEagles said:This is a must read, from Ed Miliband's private pollster
http://bit.ly/1Jiboi80 -
I have no knowledge of this particular website, but the number of commercial websites with simply shocking security is ridiculous. One wonders how many more respectable computer dating agencies are looking more nervously at their subscription counts. Largely the problem is that flashy bullshit on your website tends to introduce lots of bugs and vulnerabilities, where as a more plain functional website is much easier to secure, but tough to get past the marketing department - maybe a few more high visibility cases might start to change peoples minds... probably not.The_Apocalypse said:
The kind of idiot who gets married and then proceeds to cheat. If you're thinking with down there, then common sense tends to go out the window.JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/0 -
It's easy enough to create a throw-away, short-term and one-purpose email account.Richard_Nabavi said:
To be fair, you can see that it might seem like a better idea than using the home email...JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/
And it's easier than losing your job for inappropriate use of work computers.
I'd expect a much bigger risk is the spouse discovering the credit card statement. I wonder how the payment appears ...0 -
Thatcher in her own words:
The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.
As quoted by Paul Johnson in "Failure of the Feminists", The Spectator, 12 March, 2011.
0 -
Dear me, quite cringePlato said:My favourite all time example of that is the Obama compilation. It never fails to make me LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Ur5E61sKYJEO said:
More importantly, has he described them as his friends? After all, it's diplomatic language used to make everyone play nice, rather than a term of sympathy.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?0 -
I'm reminded of David Miliband's disastrous trip to India.JosiasJessop said:
Having a wildcard going in and giving contrary views might be far from helpful.NickPalmer said:
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.0 -
Thought provoking. What is even stranger is that I don't think it is right to download films or music from illegal "free" sites (so I don't) but I really don't have too much of a problem reading more than my entitlement of the Telegraph or the FT. Hmm...the etiquette of the internet. I will need to think some more about this.HurstLlama said:
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.ydoethur said:
Well - I walk round and read the headlines. Does that count?HurstLlama said:
Would you walk into your local newsagent and steal something from the shelves?ydoethur said:
Thank you Plato. In fact, I found it even easier in the end by following your advice - I don't use Firefox much, so I open it and away I go!Plato said:To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
Eh voila!ydoethur said:
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.Plato said:I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.0 -
Oh dear me. A bit Mr McBride here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11811285/Leadership-battle-Party-begins-voting-today-live.html
13.54 Dyab Abou Jahjah: "I support Jeremy Corbyn"
Dyab Abou Jahjah, the man Mr Corbyn claims not to know and who has condoned the killing of British soliders in Iraq, has written a 1,017-word blog about his links to the North Islington MP.
In it he explains how they met, declares himself a supporter of Mr Corbyn and again repeats that British soliders in Iraq are a "legitimate target for resistance".
Key quotes are below. He also challenges the claim he is anti-Semitic, responding in detail that can be read over in the full post here.
ON HOW HE MET CORBYN
Quote I have briefly met and collaborated with Jeremy Corbyn in 2009. We organised a debate at the British parliament where Corbyn, myself, and Hezbullah MP, and current Lebanese government minister, Hussein Haj Hassan spoke. A day before, we had also spoken together at a rally of the British anti-war movement. Corbyn’s openness to dialogue is what made the visit possible. The pro-Israel lobby then woke up and started a smear campaign against me resulting in a hasty and unjustified decision by the interior minister to deny me re-entry to the UK. That campaign had almost the same content of the current campaign that is spearheaded by the pro-Israel lobby and the conservatives. The claims are that I am anti-Semitic, that I am a bigot, and that I rejoice the death of British soldiers.
ON WHY BRITISH SOLDIERS ARE 'LEGITIMATE TARGETS'
Quote As for rejoicing the death of British occupation soldiers in Iraq, this is a misrepresentation of a position that I still uphold until this day. The occupation and destruction of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful, criminal and a crime against humanity. We still witness the repercussions of that terrible crime until this day. The criminals responsible for it, including Tony Blair, are still at large enjoying impunity. Every soldier taking part in an illegal occupation is a legitimate target for resistance. This is a guaranteed right to occupied people under international law. But rejoicing the death of people, even enemy soldiers, is not something that I would do. Rejoicing the victory of peoples resistance against occupation, is another matter.
ON WHY HE SUPPORTS CORBYN
Quote Yes, I do support Jeremy Corbyn, and I am hopeful he will win the leadership of Labour and help build a better future for the British people. I am like Mr Corbyn a socialist, and we do share similar values. This does not mean that I agree with him on everything and I am sure that he also disagrees with me on some things. He was not my cheerleader then and I am not his cheerleader now, serious people do not reason in these terms.0 -
Interesting, but is it true that "Greens just think homeopathy is sensible" Any Greens on here that could enlighten us?TheScreamingEagles said:This is a must read, from Ed Miliband's private pollster
http://bit.ly/1Jiboi8
Last time I looked it was Owen Patterson, Tory MP who believed in homeopathy and didn't believe in Climate Change.
http://www.quora.com/What-do-climate-skepticism-Holocaust-denial-homeopathy-and-intelligent-design-have-in-common0 -
Jeremy is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy-field created by all living things. He surrounds us, he penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.TheScreamingEagles said:FerFuxSake, the New Statesman have nicked the Star Wars reference I was planning to use this weekend.
twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/6339910560953344000 -
With whom?Plato said:flightpath01 said:I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.0 -
Completely disagree with your point of view. Dredging up the past is usually a mistake unless serious crimes are involved IMO. I think there ought to be a statue of limitations for minor crimes like there is in almost every other country in the world.justin124 said:
Let me first make it clear that I do not personally have an axe to grind here in that I never suffered anything beyond being hit over the head with a text book! Nevertheless I have always felt strongly about people in power and authority who abuse their positions - whether politicians - judges- clergymen - policemen - or schoolteachers and believe they should be held to account. The various sexual abuse cases relating to celebrities - many dating back decades - has brought to my mind the fact that many teachers DID abuse their positions by punishing pupils in unauthorised ways. I am not being retrospective here - but seeking to apply the law as it then stood. It particularly offends my sense of justice that boys - sometimes girls too - were punished for often minor misdemeanours or breaches of school rules by teachers who then proceeded to break the law of the land and to commit a criminal offence It raises the question as to who was most in need of correction!ydoethur said:@justin124
One way of seeking redress against a particularly sadistic teacher might be to launch a publicity campaign - but it's not difficult to imagine that could start a libel action.
So all in all, I would advise you that whatever grievance you have against your former teachers, it doesn't seem likely that you would get very far with it, and it might lead to a lot more mud being thrown at you which would be unpleasant for you.
Out of curiosity, what was the source of your earlier quotation?
EDIT - Some of the other comments rather go to prove my point!
I was not aware that a six month limit applies to criminal offences. Most people to this day remain totally unaware that when such things happened to them they were actually victims of criminal behaviour.
I have a sister-in-law who taught at a Primary School. She has referred on a number of occasions to what happened at her school following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools in Autumn 1987. Her Headmaster continued to plimsoll 10 and 11 year old boys until the early 1990s and justified so doing on the basis that 'the parents agreed with him.' Those lads would now be in their mid to late 30s, and I would be surprised if they did not have a cause of action should they wish to press the matter.0 -
Obi-Wan Corbyn
Dyab Abou Jahjah Binks ?0 -
PaypalJosiasJessop said:
It's easy enough to create a throw-away, short-term and one-purpose email account.Richard_Nabavi said:
To be fair, you can see that it might seem like a better idea than using the home email...JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/
And it's easier than losing your job for inappropriate use of work computers.
I'd expect a much bigger risk is the spouse discovering the credit card statement. I wonder how the payment appears ...
As an aside, the Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset has resigned, after her stored, received and sent "intimate emails and text messages" on his phone, misconduct report reveals0 -
Way back when in the late 90s, it was pornographers and bookmakers who led the way with internet security and e-commerce in the UK. It ended up including online players too - so was termed Girls, Games and Gaming.Indigo said:
I have no knowledge of this particular website, but the number of commercial websites with simply shocking security is ridiculous. One wonders how many more respectable computer dating agencies are looking more nervously at their subscription counts. Largely the problem is that flashy bullshit on your website tends to introduce lots of bugs and vulnerabilities, where as a more plain functional website is much easier to secure, but tough to get past the marketing department - maybe a few more high visibility cases might start to change peoples minds... probably not.The_Apocalypse said:
The kind of idiot who gets married and then proceeds to cheat. If you're thinking with down there, then common sense tends to go out the window.JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/0 -
But Nick, do you think Corbyn in his wildest imagination could ever have imagined he would be a serious candidate for Labour leader.
Jezza's walked through his entire political career as a serial protestor, which is fine- it enriches the political debate- but realistically he has never seen himself as a potential leader. He only went into this one because it was his turn- not quite that burning ambition that the likes of Brown had.NickPalmer said:
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.0 -
Seems to me they gave the impression of being genuine claimants who had benefitted from the change in policy rather than merely explainingJEO said:
They weren't being used to justify the policy. They were being used to explain how the system works to people using it.isam said:
Photos of actors alongside made up quotes used by the state to justify a controversial policy... Ah lovelyPlato said:Ditto - I imagine that a real cheat would be complaining of having their privacy violated. It's just sensible use of actors to illustrate the point.
BannedInParis said:"Stupid, but I'm not actually outraged for some reason. Marking the things as illustrative would have made it not matter at all."
Likewise.
If you like it, fine. Not for me0 -
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” - ConfuciusAndyJS said:
Completely disagree with your point of view. Dredging up the past is usually a mistake unless serious crimes are involved IMO. I think there ought to be a statue of limitations for minor crimes like there is in almost every other country in the world.
0 -
Ah. That'd do it.TheScreamingEagles said:
PaypalJosiasJessop said:
It's easy enough to create a throw-away, short-term and one-purpose email account.Richard_Nabavi said:
To be fair, you can see that it might seem like a better idea than using the home email...JosiasJessop said:What sort of idiot signs up for a cheating website using a work email?
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/
And it's easier than losing your job for inappropriate use of work computers.
I'd expect a much bigger risk is the spouse discovering the credit card statement. I wonder how the payment appears ...
0 -
''Jeremy is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy-field created by all living things. He surrounds us, he penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.''
Always two, there are....0 -
When I was at school the names of those to be beaten were read out in morning assembly and then we would form an orderly queue outside the Headmaster's study. Beatings usually six strokes of the cane across the bent over bottom, were a regular but not too frequent occurrence. Mainly they were given for the offence of under age smoking or, more rarely, a sixth former smoking other than in the sixth form common room.Pulpstar said:
Honestly, it really wasn't anything to fear - unless you were an unruly sort. I think the majority of 'canings' when I was at school were a swift tap on the back of the hand. It was the shame and worry involved of getting your name read out in assembly that was the real detterent. My name was never read out in assembly, thankfully !The_Apocalypse said:
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.Pulpstar said:
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.The_Apocalypse said:
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.Sean_F said:
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.The_Apocalypse said:Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
Very seldom were beatings administered for actual indiscipline in the classroom, probably because there wasn't any such behaviour that warranted it, and only once that I can remember for for acts indiscipline elsewhere (an incident involving the creative use of a fire extinguisher). However, it was perfectly possible to receive a thick ear or a kick up the arse if one didn't behave as per spec during sports afternoons. Indeed I can remember being made to capsize my canoe in the River Thames in mid-February for the offence of "acting the goat with malice aforethought".
All of that was perfectly normal in those days, mild in comparison to some schools. The idea now that I should trace down some teacher and sue him for assault or whatever is laughable.
0 -
WATO in full with Jezza http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b066f91x0
-
Oh what a lovely race the Juddmonte would be today but for another runner.
Bookie's benefit as is, though.0 -
Are you seriously saying that because political correctness just might have gone a little too far, that means it's OK for strangers to call Liz kendall "c**t", "witch" etc?Dair said:
And that's why people such as Liz Kendall act in a disgraceful manner. The consequences of such action has been made socially unacceptable. You aren't allowed to call a despicable scumbag a despicable scumbag despite that being a factually accurate description.NickPalmer said:
No, abuse is never justified, especially of colleagues. Full stop.Dair said:
Any abuse that Kendall receives is utterly justified, the individual is the worst type of politician and a pretty poor excuse for a human being.
The best example of this is with the bulk of people in social deprivation. The reason they are poor is because they are thick and/or lazy. Societally this description is completely unacceptable. They are "vulnerable" and need "support". It's a ridiculous state of affairs.
It seems bizarre but in general, people don't actually observe the way that Newspeak of 1984 is now thoroughly extant in the United Kingdom.
I would not have a problem with some labour supporters vehemently disagreeing with Liz Kendall, saying that they think she should not be in the party even, but personal abuse on that level is surely in a another category, and has to be unacceptable?
She wants to drag Labour to the centre, she's not Le Pen!0 -
TSE-POPulpstar said:Obi-Wan Corbyn
Dyab Abou Jahjah Binks ?
Liz Skywalker
Harriet Solo
Chewburnham
Darth Miliband
Grand Moff Cameron
0 -
Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate:
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/caroline-pidgeon-named-as-sole-liberal-democrat-mayoral-hopeful/0 -
Is there a betting market?Tissue_Price said:Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate:
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/caroline-pidgeon-named-as-sole-liberal-democrat-mayoral-hopeful/0 -
Darth Abbott?taffys said:''Jeremy is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy-field created by all living things. He surrounds us, he penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.''
Always two, there are....0 -
One of my favourite quotesIndigo said:
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” - ConfuciusAndyJS said:
Completely disagree with your point of view. Dredging up the past is usually a mistake unless serious crimes are involved IMO. I think there ought to be a statue of limitations for minor crimes like there is in almost every other country in the world.0 -
The Shapps controversy from the last election rumbles on. It's starting to smell like a Wiki cover-up:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/19/wikipedia_shapps_those_emails_wanted_we_deleted_them/0 -
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.Luckyguy1983 said:
A slightly creepy analogy, but to continue it and be more accurate, you would be saying:
-'Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped their next door neighbour, and Person B hasn't raped their next door neighbour for a long time'
And me replying:
-'Firstly, the location of the rape is totally irrelevant because Person B has been raping and pillaging everyone else with impunity ever since they came of age, to a far greater extent than Person A could even dream of, and secondly, their next door neighbour is their slave, so absolutely no need to risk breaking the law to get what they want.'
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
0 -
100-1 for the mayoralty top price Ladbrokes.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is there a betting market?Tissue_Price said:Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate:
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/caroline-pidgeon-named-as-sole-liberal-democrat-mayoral-hopeful/
I think 10,000-1 wouldn't be that generous.0 -
Tissue_Price
Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate
Duwayne Brooks didn't want the wooden spoon & who can blame him :0 -
...Causing trouble!!!??NickPalmer said:
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.0 -
He got scratchy when the second or third charge of anti-semitism was levelled against him. His fluency and passion made it easy to believe that he was a peacemaker without a vituperative bone in his body.
His problem is that in the dark (heady) days of protest, he aligned himself with anyone who sought to challenge the Western free market capitalist liberal orthodoxy; a strategy of my enemy's enemy is my friend which put him into bed with Hamas, PIRA, Hezbollah, Greenham Women, you name it, etc.
As potential leader of the Labour Party, however, he is now part of that hated establishment. But he has to live with those previous associations and cannot unmake that bed.
In one way it is analagous to Cam's Bullingdon days but far far less forgiveable given that Corbyn was an actual MP and not a drunken student at the time.0 -
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.JEO said:
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.Luckyguy1983 said:
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
0 -
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.JEO said:
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.Luckyguy1983 said:
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
Neither did it annex Siam - Siam was independent throughout the Colonial period, Japanese occupation notwithstanding.
0 -
It became a protectorate, with no say over its foreign affairs. That counts as annexation in my book.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.JEO said:
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.Luckyguy1983 said:
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.0 -
I think Richard may have been after a price on Caroline Pidgeon losing to RON. As she is a Lib Dem, you couldn't rule it out...Pulpstar said:
100-1 for the mayoralty top price Ladbrokes.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is there a betting market?Tissue_Price said:Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate:
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/caroline-pidgeon-named-as-sole-liberal-democrat-mayoral-hopeful/
I think 10,000-1 wouldn't be that generous.0 -
No, annexation means annexation. How was Afghanistan able to declare war on Britain in 1919 if it was annexed?JEO said:
It became a protectorate, with no say over its foreign affairs. That counts as annexation in my book.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.JEO said:
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.Luckyguy1983 said:
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War0 -
What's the naughtiest thing you've ever done?flightpath01 said:
...Causing trouble!!!??NickPalmer said:
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.TheScreamingEagles said:That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
https://twitter.com/vizcomic/status/4681233120200212480 -
This election is being conducted under AV?Tissue_Price said:
I think Richard may have been after a price on Caroline Pidgeon losing to RON. As she is a Lib Dem, you couldn't rule it out...Pulpstar said:
100-1 for the mayoralty top price Ladbrokes.Richard_Nabavi said:
Is there a betting market?Tissue_Price said:Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate:
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/caroline-pidgeon-named-as-sole-liberal-democrat-mayoral-hopeful/
I think 10,000-1 wouldn't be that generous.0 -
I found this on a website relating to Statutes of :imitation.ydoethur said:
Yes but - forgive me - they are specifically excluded from statutes of limitations, as are cases of murder. For common assault, which is what this would be, my understanding is a complaint has to be lodged within six months of the event. 1987 was 28 years ago. I also pointed out why, even if I am wrong on that point, I don't think it would get very far. Whether that is morally right or wrong is a different question. Clearly, hitting people, especially children, is not a good thing to do. But the law is involved with realpolitik.justin124 said:
But prosecutions have been launched for sexual offences dating back a good deal earlier than 1987. I accept that what I am referring to is a much less serious offence but that would surely be reflected in any sentence imposed.ydoethur said:
Yes - sorry - those were two separate points. I appreciate that could have been clearer. The first paragraph was on the Head you mentioned - I fully agree you are right, that is clearly criminal behaviour, but I doubt if a prosecution could be launched after this lapse of time.justin124 said:
.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
To sum up, I believe the original material you quoted to be wrong on several key points regarding the likely possibility of successful prosecution and I have explained my reasons for so thinking. I hope you found them interesting even if you disagree with them.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
'In the UK most crimes can be prosecuted regardless of the length of time that has elapsed since they were committed. This includes, for example, serious violence, robbery, burglary, theft, sexual offences, murder and many other offences.
However, minor crimes cannot be prosecuted after six months. This includes, for example, violence that does not cause an injury, driving offences, among others. If the crime is racially motivated then the six month limit may be extended to twelve months.'
Perhaps the key phrase here re-minor crimes would be 'did not cause an injury.' Such an injury could, I imagine, be mental or psychological and the mere fact that he felt the need to bring the action might provide some prima facie evidence of that!0 -
Is this not the most misleading headline ever?
Fearless koala chases South Australian woman on quad bike
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-16/koala-chases-south-australian-woman-on-quad-bike/6701210
Turns out it was the woman on the quad bike and not the koala bear.0 -
Who was he speaking to? There was a black '...G20...' poster in the background - so presumably it was the great unwashed anti G20/ G8/7 mob.JEO said:"It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where my friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invite my friends from Hamas to speak as well."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ
If this is just diplomatic language, rather than genuine affection, I look forward to someone linking clips of him describing Israeli politicians and American Republicans as friends.
This surely is the point - not Corbyn, not even Hamas - but the people he represents and who will select the next bunch of Labour candidates..0 -
I remember at primary school in the late 80s / early 90s there was a teacher who used to push children in the back pretty hard so that they almost fell over if they'd done something wrong. Even at the time I thought it was probably against the law but no-one ever complained about it and I think the parents probably would have supported the teacher at that time.0
-
No, silly!TheScreamingEagles said:Is this not the most misleading headline ever?
Fearless koala chases South Australian woman on quad bike
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-16/koala-chases-south-australian-woman-on-quad-bike/6701210
Turns out it was the woman on the quad bike and not the koala bear.
It should have said "Fearless koala on quad bike chases South Australian woman"
0 -
Interesting. It's been rejected twice before, over efficacy, safety and questions about whether FHSD (female hypoactive sexual disorder) as actually a disease or just marketing bullsh*t.Plato said:flightpath01 said:I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".0 -
I think Q7 to JC was more misleading still...TheScreamingEagles said:Is this not the most misleading headline ever?
Fearless koala chases South Australian woman on quad bike
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-16/koala-chases-south-australian-woman-on-quad-bike/6701210
Turns out it was the woman on the quad bike and not the koala bear.
*ducks* from @Plato's board rubber.0 -
It was an illegal declaration of war, because foreign policy was in the hands of the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, annexation means annexation. How was Afghanistan able to declare war on Britain in 1919 if it was annexed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War
My dictionary states annexing is to "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation"
It also says appropriation is to "take (something) for one's own use".
The UK took Afghanistan for its own use in foreign policy. And it was coloured red on British maps.0 -
Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership0 -
Which maps are these?JEO said:
It was an illegal declaration of war, because foreign policy was in the hands of the UK.Sunil_Prasannan said:
No, annexation means annexation. How was Afghanistan able to declare war on Britain in 1919 if it was annexed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War
My dictionary states annexing is to "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation"
It also says appropriation is to "take (something) for one's own use".
The UK took Afghanistan for its own use in foreign policy. And it was coloured red on British maps.
"Ostensibly, the country remained independent, however under the Treaty of Gandamak (1879) it accepted that in external matters it would "...have no windows looking on the outside world, except towards India".[9]
"Despite considerable resentment over not being consulted over the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 (Convention of St. Petersburg), Afghanistan remained neutral during the First World War (1914–18), resisting considerable pressure from the Ottoman Empire when it entered the conflict on the side of Imperial Germany and the Sultan (as titular leader of Islam) called for a holy war against the Allies.[12]"0 -
@JEO When did Britain annex Thailand in 1909?
My reading is only the southernmost areas now forming the northern-most Malaysian states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Siamese_Treaty_of_19090 -
The pendulum has swung to far the other way now but in the past parents were far too deferential to teachers and authority in general. There was a naïve view that teachers, policemen and many professional people were almost always right and could be relied upon to act correctly. We now appreciate what nonsense that was.AndyJS said:I remember at primary school in the late 80s / early 90s there was a teacher who used to push children in the back pretty hard so that they almost fell over if they'd done something wrong. Even at the time I thought it was probably against the law but no-one ever complained about it and I think the parents probably would have supported the teacher at that time.
0 -
Does the pill have physical or psychological effects?Charles said:
Interesting. It's been rejected twice before, over efficacy, safety and questions about whether FHSD (female hypoactive sexual disorder) as actually a disease or just marketing bullsh*t.Plato said:flightpath01 said:I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".0 -
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).TheScreamingEagles said:Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership0 -
Labour: Burnham, Cooper, Kendall: these are not the droids you're looking for....TheScreamingEagles said:FerFuxSake, the New Statesman have nicked the Star Wars reference I was planning to use this weekend.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/6339910560953344000 -
As opposed to what?AndyJS said:
Does the pill have physical or psychological effects?Charles said:
Interesting. It's been rejected twice before, over efficacy, safety and questions about whether FHSD (female hypoactive sexual disorder) as actually a disease or just marketing bullsh*t.Plato said:flightpath01 said:I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".
:-)0 -
Off topic:
Clear diversion from a straight line causing interference, result should be given to O'Brien.0 -
Sunil,
I started my list with "parts of", so some of them were not annexations of the entire country.
On Afghanistan, I accept the annexation was never that successful!0 -
@JEO
I shall not get involved in the inaccuracies in your list, The Cap'n Comrade Doc, is already doing that. However, in presenting the list that you do to support your argument that GB as the "Top Dog" went around annex countries I fear you are being too simplistic. Many places that became colonies or parts of colonies were annexed despite the wishes of the government in London.
Two of the most obvious and biggest examples are the annexations in India in the late 18th century by the Wellesley Brothers (for which the elder was nearly impeached) and Zululand in 1879 the Zulu war being engineered and by local officials in direct contravention of the expressed wishes of London. There were lots of other examples too. All told the British Empire grew in the 19th century less from policy and design and more from accident, local events, people exceeding their instructions in an age when communications with Whitehall took months, oh, and a need to keep the Frogs out.0 -
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PMTissue_Price said:
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).TheScreamingEagles said:Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership0 -
I think that's right, but although I like Gordon and think he did a decent job in impossible circumstances, I'm not sure that it did him or anyone else any good to be consumed by ambition: it messed up an initially sound relationship with Tony and made governing substantially harder.tyson said:But Nick, do you think Corbyn in his wildest imagination could ever have imagined he would be a serious candidate for Labour leader.
Jezza's walked through his entire political career as a serial protestor, which is fine- it enriches the political debate- but realistically he has never seen himself as a potential leader. He only went into this one because it was his turn- not quite that burning ambition that the likes of Brown had.
Corbyn sees his candidacy as representing a broad progressive movement, and the latter as much more important than his personal position. I'm sure he'd agree that if he dropped dead tomorrow, people should have a 1-minute silence and then resume work on the project. I think that's quite attractive.0 -
the Tories took 300 years to have their first female leader, so labour still have a couple of centuries before they're behind. Also the Cons have to be fair only had one, hardly a huge leap from none. Labour of course has a much higher percentage of female MPs, so I don't think we can accuse the party of being sexist. Still I'd like to see a female leader one day, shame the current candidates were so absolutely dreadful.
On which note I just voted -
Leader - just Corbyn
Deputy - Creasy, Watson, Eagle
Mayor - Khan, Abbott, Lammy, then the other two I can't even remember, Jowell gets nothing
I might join the Labour Party proper at this rate!0 -
That requires:TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PMTissue_Price said:
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).TheScreamingEagles said:Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election
(b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest
(c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election
(d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.0 -
That looks to me (as per isam) like a true trading bet. The next Prime Minister will almost certainly be a Conservative. If David Cameron steps down in this term, he will probably do so before the end of the term to allow his successor some time to get his or her feet under the table. Given that he has averred again recently that he is not going to stand again, I don't see any true value in any Labour politician's price in this market.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PMTissue_Price said:
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).TheScreamingEagles said:Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership
But the 8/1 on Jeremy Corbyn looks likely to shorten.0 -
Protectorates are protectorates! They are NOT annexed territories. Afghanistan still had an Emir and was never administered by the Viceroy in Calcutta (later Delhi)!JEO said:Sunil,
I started my list with "parts of", so some of them were not annexations of the entire country.
On Afghanistan, I accept the annexation was never that successful!
The relationship was more akin to the Gulf States (eg. Bahrain), which were likewise never formally annexed to the Empire.
Here is a 1915 map of the Empire showing present day Pakistan as the northwestern frontier:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/uk-1915-co1047-1098.jpg
0 -
I know, I was comparing it to the 2/1 on Labour winning most seats at the next GE,Richard_Nabavi said:
That requires:TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PMTissue_Price said:
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).TheScreamingEagles said:Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election
(b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest
(c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election
(d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.
Edit: Also what Antifrank said
0 -
If Labour is doing well and look like they might win, all the more reason for someone to knife Corbyn. If they're doing badly, half the PLP will knife him. His happy zone, such as it is, is standing still.Richard_Nabavi said:
That requires:TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PMTissue_Price said:
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).TheScreamingEagles said:Well what do you expect from a Tory rag
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election
(b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest
(c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election
(d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.0 -
-
I know I shouldn't, but every time I see Yvette in bob cut and serious face, I think of ET.0
-
Five more years of Cameron, please!Plato said:0 -
The final news organisation to move out of Fleet Street will be gone soon. Reuters started moving out in June and will finish the process by the end of this month:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jun/15/rupertmurdoch.pressandpublishing
It's a bit confusing because according to this article they moved out 12 years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3132716.stm0 -
So THAT explains why Labour's attitude to women is from the early 1800's....JWisemann said:the Tories took 300 years to have their first female leader, so labour still have a couple of centuries before they're behind.
0 -
Is that story a decade old?AndyJS said:The final news organisation to move out of Fleet Street will be gone soon. Reuters started moving out in June and will finish the process by the end of this month:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jun/15/rupertmurdoch.pressandpublishing0
