Undefined discussion subject.

Options
135

Comments

  • Luckyguy1983
    Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,093
    flightpath01 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @TelePolitics: Socialist Nicola Sturgeon steps out in £179 Barbour jacket and £130 Hunter wellies https://t.co/Ko5cGkAnL2

    She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
    I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    justin124 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    On topic, Milne is fighting the long war.

    They believe that it is important to draw a line now, in order to lay a marker for the BBC’s coverage over the Labour party over the coming years. The argument over the Doughty affair may have a way yet to run.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/01/why-labour-wont-back-down-its-row-bbc

    Surely the next guy who resigns is going to properly do it live on TV without a word to anyone..? Except this time it will be the lead story on the Ten, not on the DP with no-one watching.
    Has anyone ever 'crossed the floor' during a sitting in parliament? Doing so during PMQ's would certainly make a statement. Stand up, make your way down, cross the DMZ, and sit in a seat kept empty for you.

    Although I daresay there a whole load of conventions against it, and the Speaker will not like it. But it would certainly make an impact.
    Brocklebank - Fowler did it in 1981 when he left the Tories to join the SDP.
    Ah, thanks:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Brocklebank-Fowler
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,729
    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    Don't mean to be funny, but that is a google doc. I don't see it on their website.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :lol:
    dyingswan said:

    The scene: Windsor Castle Spring 2017
    Lord Chamberlain: Mr Seumas Milne, Your Majesty. A knighthood for services to the Conservative Party.
    The Queen:Arise Sir Shameless. Have you come far?
    Sir Shameless: No. From Islington. Via Winchester and Stalingrad.
    The Queen:Remind me what you do.
    Sir Shameless: I am on leave from the Guardian.I wanted to be Peter Mandelson. But I just wasn't up to it.

  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '

    Are you seriously saying that justice is dependant upon whether a country is successful in war? You are certainly implying something rather venal - that the normal rules do not apply to the victors - ie that countries may commit whatever atrocities they see fit as long as they make sure that they win. You clearly have a lot in common with the morality of Adolf Hitler!

    You always bring up Hitler when you're losing the argument. You also keep referring to atrocities and forgetting the important bit about 'alleged'. You fool nobody.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    That press release is from 2013
  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    Theuniondivvie said:

    felix said:

    And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?

    How much judgment did Cameron show when he bought Hunter wellies?
    Exactly the same as Sturgeon.
  • justin124
    justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Sandpit said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '

    Are you seriously saying that justice is dependant upon whether a country is successful in war? You are certainly implying something rather venal - that the normal rules do not apply to the victors - ie that countries may commit whatever atrocities they see fit as long as they make sure that they win. You clearly have a lot in common with the morality of Adolf Hitler!

    No, and your trying to bring Hitler and the SS into the argument is doing yourself no favours.

    The UK allows anyone to claim for "Justice" against it in a number of ways. If someone has been aggrieved by the UK or it's representatives, the government or its SoS for the relevant department will happily see them in court. This is how litigation against the government has worked for centuries in this country, which I remind you again is not Germany in 1945 and has a stable and democratic government which subjects itself to a number of international treaties.

    What's not acceptable is for a bunch of vexatious claims be logged against individual members of the British military in UK courts, paid for by British legal aid, purely for the purpose of generating a bill from the scumbag lawyers involved.
    People are not 'sued' in the civil courts for serious allegations such as murder and rape - they are 'prosecuted' in the criminal courts. The idea that the UK taxpayer should foot the bill for any successful claim against the UK Government for compensation is quite obscene. Your comments give rise to a strong suspicion that some of the accused have something to hide.
  • scotslass
    scotslass Posts: 912
    Except for viewers in Scotland where surveys show that, post-referendum, few people trust the BBC!
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    Stop The War comments on N Korean bomb test found here. [].
  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    flightpath01 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @TelePolitics: Socialist Nicola Sturgeon steps out in £179 Barbour jacket and £130 Hunter wellies https://t.co/Ko5cGkAnL2

    She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
    I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
    Except NPXMP wants a socialist nirvana where everybody can have Barbour coats and fancy wellies - methinks his chums are fibbing when they tell us how much they really want to borrow to fund that kind of largesse.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    “The real problem, surely, is Labour’s poor media operation”

    Evening all.

    Calling it a ‘media operation’ is gilding the lily somewhat, it’s as hopeless and dysfunctional as the amateur running it. #SaveSeamusMilne.

  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    In case you missed it http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/dan-jarvis-jeremy-and-i-are-not-on-each-others-speed-dials
  • another_richard
    another_richard Posts: 27,927
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Bild newspaper has published allegations that police forces around the country are under orders not to report crimes involving refugees to the press.

    But Bild quoted a senior police officer in Frankfurt as saying it was standard policy to keep offences by asylum-seekers from the media.

    “There are strict orders from the chiefs not to report offences by refugees,” the unnamed officer said. “We are only allowed to answer if journalists ask specifically about such incidents.”

    The Frankfurt authorities said police spokesmen had been told to be careful when speaking about asylum-seekers.

    “Press spokesmen were warned the far-Right could exploit cases involving refugees to stoke sentiment against those seeking protection,”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12090750/German-law-should-be-toughened-to-ease-deportation-of-migrants-says-Angela-Merkel.html

    There are also reports that the equivalent on Crime Watch (on ZDF I believe) dropped a case of a serious sex crime, whom the police believe was committed by an migrant. Now it is Bild, which is not exactly known as the Times of Germany, but still....the stink of a cover up just makes things worse.

    ' “There are strict orders from the chiefs not to report offences by refugees,” the unnamed officer said. '

    Doubtless the more closed-minded PBers will accuse that officer of 'Germanophobia' or 'grotesque bigotry' for revealing that.


  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    That press release is from 2013
    So have they since rescinded it?
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,729
    edited January 2016
    felix said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    flightpath01 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @TelePolitics: Socialist Nicola Sturgeon steps out in £179 Barbour jacket and £130 Hunter wellies https://t.co/Ko5cGkAnL2

    She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
    I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
    Except NPXMP wants a socialist nirvana where everybody can have Barbour coats and fancy wellies - methinks his chums are fibbing when they tell us how much they really want to borrow to fund that kind of largesse.
    Free Owls for everyone.....
  • felix
    felix Posts: 15,180
    scotslass said:

    Except for viewers in Scotland where surveys show that, post-referendum, few people trust the BBC!

    A healthy scepticism about all journalists and media outlets is no bad thing. The BBC/NHS 'religion meme' is very unhealthy.
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Justin 124...Class act..
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    OT I loved this CentreParcs advert

    https://youtu.be/zn0QYIinIk0
  • bigjohnowls
    bigjohnowls Posts: 22,951
    edited January 2016
    scotslass said:

    Except for viewers in Sco

  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '

    No, and your trying to bring Hitler and the SS into the argument is doing yourself no favours.

    The UK allows anyone to claim for "Justice" against it in a number of ways. If someone has been aggrieved by the UK or it's representatives, the government or its SoS for the relevant department will happily see them in court. This is how litigation against the government has worked for centuries in this country, which I remind you again is not Germany in 1945 and has a stable and democratic government which subjects itself to a number of international treaties.

    What's not acceptable is for a bunch of vexatious claims be logged against individual members of the British military in UK courts, paid for by British legal aid, purely for the purpose of generating a bill from the scumbag lawyers involved.
    People are not 'sued' in the civil courts for serious allegations such as murder and rape - they are 'prosecuted' in the criminal courts. The idea that the UK taxpayer should foot the bill for any successful claim against the UK Government for compensation is quite obscene. Your comments give rise to a strong suspicion that some of the accused have something to hide.
    Read this:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12083609/Lawyers-face-prospect-of-being-struck-off-over-Iraq-abuse-claims.html
    The lawyers are being taken to a professional tribunal for destroying evidence among other charges. An enquiry into a battle in Iraq concluded that the allegations were the product of "Deliberate and calculated lies".

    The lawyers basically went around Iraq like ambulance chasers, finding people to bad-mouth British soldiers in order to generate work for themselves in acting for these Iraqis making complaints to the military in the UK. If you really think that's "Justice" then why are the lawyers involved subject to a professional tribunal that could see individuals banned from practicing law?

    I'm not going to engage with you any further on this as you're quite clearly trolling and keep bringing the discussion back to Hitler.
  • another_richard
    another_richard Posts: 27,927
    MarqueeMark said:


    Poachers Pie (serves 6)

    Ingredients for the filling:

    0.8kg of venison
    0.8kg of duck breast (skin off)
    (Get the butcher to mince this together for you.)

    I large bulb of fennel
    I small chilli
    2 cloves of garlic
    a large handful of fresh, chopped rosemary
    salt and pepper
    2 medium red onions, chopped fine
    2 large glasses of red wine
    600 ml of chicken stock
    a generous dash of Worcester sauce
    a desert spoon of maple syrup
    a table spoon of tomato puree
    a tin of chopped tomatoes
    olive oil
    3 crushed juniper berries

    for the mash:

    2/3 packs of deluxe mashed potato (or you can be a slave to the kitchen and make you own)
    a couple of handfuls of grated Parmesan
    2 teaspoons of whole-grain mustard

    To make the pie:

    - Take the woody part out of the fennel and finely chop the remaining white flesh

    - Put the fennel, onion, crushed garlic, finely chopped chilli (leave out the seeds if you don't want it hot), juniper berries and rosemary into a casserole dish. Gently sweat the onions in olive oil on the hob until opaque (about 5 mins)

    - in a separate frying pan, add a little olive oil and brown the meat on a very high heat to sear it. When the meat is brown, add to the casserole dish that has the onion and fennel. Turn up the heat on the casserole and add the red wine and the tomato puree. Let it bubble for 3-4 minutes then add the chopped tomatoes, chicken stock, the maple syrup and the generous dash of Worcester sauce. Add salt and pepper. Bring back to a simmer for a minute, put a lid on the casserole dish and place into a slow oven (140 degrees C) for four hours. Give it a stir every hour or so. Make sure it doesn't dry out - it should still have quite a bit of liquid at the end of the four hours.

    - for the mash, bring the mash to room temperature at least an hour before this stage, then put into food mixer and beat the packs of mash together with the Parmesan and the mustard (can do it by hand if needs be).

    - take the casserole from the oven and use a slotted spoon to spoon the mixture into a large shallow baking dish. Important not to have the mixture TOO wet, but spoon a couple of table spoons of the juices over the mince. You can reheat and reduce down these juices nearer to serving to intensify the flavour.

    THIS IS IMPORTANT: let the meat mixture cool completely before spooning the mash on top, or the mash will sink. Fluff up the mash with a fork to make ridges, sprinkle with more grated Parmesan if you like - and a generous dash of salt and pepper.

    Place in the oven at 180 degrees C for 30-40 minutes until the mash is brown on top. Serve with the remainder of the gravy reheated and reduced down.*

    (*This meat mixture is also wonderful as a chilli - add beans in the last 30 minutes and serve with rice or potato wedges...)

    That's a mighty impressive recipe.

    But is it allowed under government guidelines ?

  • Mortimer
    Mortimer Posts: 14,229
    Justin, if the civil claims (not legal aid funded) had validity it would then be perfectly acceptable for the cps to prosecute individuals.

    The first port of call should not be government funded lawsuits against the government or its operatives. Even for a lefty hand wringer, that would be a particularly stupid suggestion. Think how many nurses could have been been employed with the monies claimed by lawyers working on these cases that subsequently collapsed or were thrown out.
  • flightpath01
    flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    felix said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    flightpath01 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @TelePolitics: Socialist Nicola Sturgeon steps out in £179 Barbour jacket and £130 Hunter wellies https://t.co/Ko5cGkAnL2

    She can afford it. Good to see she supports good great British companies.
    I totally agree - I don't see the issue. £179 isn't even expensive for a Barbour.
    Except NPXMP wants a socialist nirvana where everybody can have Barbour coats and fancy wellies - methinks his chums are fibbing when they tell us how much they really want to borrow to fund that kind of largesse.
    Free Owls for everyone.....
    Free Owls? Why should a £175 waxed jacket be considered beyond the pale?
    John Lewis do one for £149
  • dr_spyn
    dr_spyn Posts: 11,312
    Shaun Ley on Yes Minister.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35264042

    I do wonder if he had overlooked Anthony Jay's cunning propaganda for Public Choice Theory.

    http://reviewsindepth.com/2010/03/yes-prime-minister-the-most-cunning-political-propaganda-ever-conceived/
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Plato_Says said:

    OT I loved this CentreParcs advert

    https://youtu.be/zn0QYIinIk0

    We used to go to Center Parcs when it first opened in the late 1980s when not many people had heard of it. It was very relaxing, unlike these days when they over-book the place.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    justin124 said:

    Sandpit said:

    'And when the UK loses a war and our government is overthrown, then maybe our soldiers will be fair game for war crimes trials from our victors. Until that day, no chance. '

    Are you seriously saying that justice is dependant upon whether a country is successful in war? You are certainly implying something rather venal - that the normal rules do not apply to the victors - ie that countries may commit whatever atrocities they see fit as long as they make sure that they win. You clearly have a lot in common with the morality of Adolf Hitler!

    You're very fond of comparing the British government and its officials to the Nazis eg Arbeit Macht Frei. You need to get a grip.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    edited January 2016
    Leigh Day. This Leigh Day, I knew I'd heard of them before somewhere.
    http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/litigation/costs/court-appeal-upholds-decision-cut-leigh-days-trafigura-costs-bill
    They were the lawyers that helped a bunch of poor people get £1000 each, but submitted a bill of over £100m in the process.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Why Germany can't face the truth about migrant sex attacks: Sue Reid finds a nation in denial as a wave of horrific attacks is reported across Europe"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391075/Why-Germany-t-face-truth-migrant-sex-attacks-SUE-REID-finds-nation-denial-wave-horrific-attacks-reported-Europe.html
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    More on Nero and gamergate

    https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/406fiy/more_on_twitters_corrupt_hack_michael_margolis/
  • Plato_Says
    Plato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Matthew Goodwin
    How the Remain vote broke down across Britain in 1975 --> (Butler & Kitzinger) https://t.co/hTlRZv21bQ
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html
  • oxfordsimon
    oxfordsimon Posts: 5,845
    Sandpit said:

    Leigh Day. This Leigh Day, I knew I'd heard of them before somewhere.
    http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/litigation/costs/court-appeal-upholds-decision-cut-leigh-days-trafigura-costs-bill
    They were the lawyers that helped a bunch of poor people get £1000 each, but submitted a bill of over £100m in the process.

    They are clearly such ethical people. No wonder they actively fund people as amazing as Thornberry.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Sandpit said:

    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html

    They were inspired by the legendary firm Messrs, Sue, Grabbit and Run?
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html

    They were inspired by the legendary firm Messrs, Sue, Grabbit and Run?
    I like how in the Trafigura case, Martyn Day personally billed 5,500 hours at £900 an hour in less than three years, then added a 100% uplift success fee - for a total of £10m. And somehow expected that Trafigura would just pay it!
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    edited January 2016
    oxfordsimon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leigh Day. This Leigh Day, I knew I'd heard of them before somewhere.
    http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/litigation/costs/court-appeal-upholds-decision-cut-leigh-days-trafigura-costs-bill
    They were the lawyers that helped a bunch of poor people get £1000 each, but submitted a bill of over £100m in the process.

    They are clearly such ethical people. No wonder they actively fund people as amazing as Thornberry.
    Ah - thank you for making the connection.

    A friend working in a city bank remarked about that Trafigura case that he was astonished that the lawyers on the other side were sleezier than Trafigura. Astonished because Trafigura are legendary.

    Some say that Trafigura were turned down for membership in Spectre because of ethical concerns...
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Is it possible for the Government to request an UQ in the commons or is that just for opposition parties
  • flightpath01
    flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Cyclefree said:

    FPT and in response to @ Blackburn63 who said this:-

    "where have you seen that initial reaction? Everybody I've spoken to has said the polar opposite. Should this happen here I dread to think of the consequences.

    I was referring to the response of the Cologne mayor and the local police which seemed to be placing the burden on women.

    Did the police blame the women?
    The only person I can see who said there should be a code of conduct for women was the newly elected Mayor of Cologne - who hardly speaks for the whole of Germany and was roundly condemned- and is also a woman.
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html

    They were inspired by the legendary firm Messrs, Sue, Grabbit and Run?
    Messrs, Sue, Grabbit & Leggit actually.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    "Fergie Time" returns to Old Trafford tonight.
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,729
    Sandpit said:

    "Fergie Time" returns to Old Trafford tonight.

    Another high quality performance from Man Utd....
  • JBriskin
    JBriskin Posts: 2,380
    That chart's a right laurgh.

    remember the time when you needed a banker or doc to sign your pic for your passport anyone??
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    Sandpit said:

    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html

    My personal favourite was the one regarding allegations of rape etc concerning troops training in Kenya - which all collapsed. Due to things like the soldiers in question being provably on a different continent on the dates alleged etc.

    One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.

    After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
  • JBriskin
    JBriskin Posts: 2,380
    Urghn why does Boy George have a beard????
  • FrancisUrquhart
    FrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,729
    Ambulance Chasers International...
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    richardDodd said:

    Is it possible for the Government to request an UQ in the commons or is that just for opposition parties

    The Government version is a Statement. They can make as many Statements as they like, and sometimes will have three on one day (which tend to cut into the time to debate whatever else is up that day - sometimes it's thought wicked whips do this deliberately). For instance, Cameron will make a statement on returning from a European summit.

    It would be odd to frame it as a Question, which is by definition posed to themselves.
  • Cyclefree
    Cyclefree Posts: 25,709
    flightpath01 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    FPT and in response to @ Blackburn63 who said this:-

    "where have you seen that initial reaction? Everybody I've spoken to has said the polar opposite. Should this happen here I dread to think of the consequences.

    I was referring to the response of the Cologne mayor and the local police which seemed to be placing the burden on women.

    Did the police blame the women?
    The only person I can see who said there should be a code of conduct for women was the newly elected Mayor of Cologne - who hardly speaks for the whole of Germany and was roundly condemned- and is also a woman.
    I wasn't talking about blame. But about the burden of protection being on women eg the police advice to keep men at arms length. And yes that silly female Mayor deserves all the criticism she got.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    edited January 2016
    another_richard said:



    ' “There are strict orders from the chiefs not to report offences by refugees,” the unnamed officer said. '

    Doubtless the more closed-minded PBers will accuse that officer of 'Germanophobia' or 'grotesque bigotry' for revealing that.


    Hang on - I'm surprised that the police see it as part of their job to report offences by anyone to the press, especially as the accused won't have been tried yet. I know it happens, but in Britain it's normally seen as due to some juionr officer leaking it unofficially, and it's frowned on. Obviously if it's a case that's excited public concern they will announce if they've made an arrest, but typically it's something like "A 47-year-old man has been detained and charged with the offence". If they add "And it's a refugee!"" or "And it's a Tory!" or any other extraneous detail, they're breaking the rules.
  • Sean_F
    Sean_F Posts: 39,132
    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html

    My personal favourite was the one regarding allegations of rape etc concerning troops training in Kenya - which all collapsed. Due to things like the soldiers in question being provably on a different continent on the dates alleged etc.

    One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.

    After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
    It seems to me that there's rather a lot for the SRA to investigate.
  • MikeL
    MikeL Posts: 7,809
    Scott_P said:

    @JournoStephen: Struck by the number of Labour friends who say they'll vote Tory for the first time if Labour abandons Trident. https://t.co/kuYlMjCKef

    Unbelievably toxic.

    The general public aren't interested in the detail - they just go for general impression, big picture.

    Having a GE campaign where every single day the message is being banged out loud and clear that "Labour will leave the country defenceless .... in a dangerous world ...." is going to mean carnage for Labour.

    Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.

    Only the general impression, big picture will get through and it's going to be absolutely devastating.
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    felix said:

    And simply to say also why would anybody with an ounce of judgement pay £130 for rubber wellies?

    Because they want to be comfortable after walking 10 or 12 miles in them? Just because footwear is waterproof why would it be cheap? You wouldn't wear cheap boots (unless you were very poor, of course).
  • AlastairMeeks
    AlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    JBriskin said:

    Urghn why does Boy George have a beard????

    Count the chins.
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    Sean_F said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    And another one. See a pattern emerging?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/11171624/British-law-firm-inflated-Mau-Mau-compensation-costs-to-taxpayer.html

    My personal favourite was the one regarding allegations of rape etc concerning troops training in Kenya - which all collapsed. Due to things like the soldiers in question being provably on a different continent on the dates alleged etc.

    One soldier was being sued - the woman claimed that her son was his. Her lawyers fought tooth and nail against a paternity test. For years. While charging for the fight against the test.

    After getting no where with the MOD brief, he hired his own counsel. Who in a matter of days, noticed that the birth records entered as part of the suit gave the childs blood type. Which proved the child wasn't his.
    It seems to me that there's rather a lot for the SRA to investigate.
    The smarter lawyers will simply have avoided knowing things. The idiots who shredded actual documents will get nailed to the wall.

    The problem is infinite free legal aid for any claim given to private firms. Imagine, a junior trainee notices a problem that means the client was lying. Congratulations - you have just cost the firm a million quid.... all the incentives are in the wrong direction...
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
    Talking of Orwell, I need PBers help.

    In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'

    I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.

    Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
  • Luckyguy1983
    Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,093
    MikeL said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JournoStephen: Struck by the number of Labour friends who say they'll vote Tory for the first time if Labour abandons Trident. https://t.co/kuYlMjCKef

    Unbelievably toxic.

    The general public aren't interested in the detail - they just go for general impression, big picture.

    Having a GE campaign where every single day the message is being banged out loud and clear that "Labour will leave the country defenceless .... in a dangerous world ...." is going to mean carnage for Labour.

    Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.

    Only the general impression, big picture will get through and it's going to be absolutely devastating.
    I don't agree. The case for Trident rests upon a total lack of debate on the issue.
  • Floater
    Floater Posts: 14,207
    So, the German police can react forcefully to a demonstration - but can't manage much of a response to serious lawlessness by migrants.

    Strange old world.

  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
    Talking of Orwell, I need PBers help.

    In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'

    I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.

    Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
    Don't know, but from the text online it looks like it was O'Brien:
    http://msxnet.org/orwell/1984
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    LG83 Trident has been debated many times..in many forums.
  • tlg86
    tlg86 Posts: 26,950
    edited January 2016
    MikeL said:

    Doesn't matter about the detail, doesn't matter that even Portillo wants to get rid of Trident - none of that will get through.

    Portillo's argument is that he can't envisage a scenario where we'd use our weapons without the USA having already done so. Worse still, I'd argue that the scenario we'd use our nukes without the Americans using theirs is one where the USA can't be seen to be using theirs.

    I suppose another argument would be that if we didn't have them no one would seriously propose getting nuclear weapons. But, on the whole I'm happy to renew trident as it shows we're committed to playing our part in NATO.

    What will do for Labour is that they'll be portrayed as being anti defence full stop.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    JosiasJessop said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
    Talking of Orwell, I need PBers help.

    In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'

    I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.

    Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
    Don't know, but from the text online it looks like it was O'Brien:
    http://msxnet.org/orwell/1984
    Thank you
  • Gravitation
    Gravitation Posts: 287
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
    Talking of Orwell, I need PBers help.

    In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'

    I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.

    Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
    O'Brian - the guy who leads Winston along into thinking he's a member of the Brotherhood against The Party but turns out to be a member of the Thought Police and totally loyal. I think he says it after Winston has been arrested and during his 're-education'.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
    Talking of Orwell, I need PBers help.

    In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'

    I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.

    Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
    O'Brien
    http://george-orwell.org/1984/19.html
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    JosiasJessop said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sandpit said:

    Plato_Says said:

    Stop The War have issued a statement defending North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. Not making this up.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-UqvixBlA8mO7h9Odg53q_ApYWH0ec7p8MYk_nQLPCE/mobilebasic

    So let me get this straight, nuclear weapons are good if it's the North Koreans using them, but bad if it's the UK or US having them and not using them. Okay...
    http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/notes-on-nationalism/

    Negative Nationalism
    Talking of Orwell, I need PBers help.

    In 1984 who said 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake'

    I'm racking my brains trying to remember who it was.

    Is for the morning thread, thanks in advance.
    Don't know, but from the text online it looks like it was O'Brien:
    http://msxnet.org/orwell/1984
    Yup, O'Brien, Chapter 3, paragraph 14, sentence 3, I make it.
  • Luckyguy1983
    Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,093
    richardDodd said:

    LG83 Trident has been debated many times..in many forums.

    Yes, of course, I meant debate that impacts the public consciousness, not geeks in discussion threads (no offence intended, I include myself).
  • richardDodd
    richardDodd Posts: 5,472
    LG83 Trident has been discussed in Parliament..
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/685916821137014785
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    richardDodd said:

    LG83 Trident has been discussed in Parliament..

    It'll be discussed some more in the next few months too.

    In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    richardDodd said:

    LG83 Trident has been discussed in Parliament..

    It'll be discussed some more in the next few months too.

    In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
    lol That's very true. I don't think the Government will be doing this by stealth.
  • Malmesbury
    Malmesbury Posts: 55,725
    edited January 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/685916821137014785

    Perhaps some gentle reminders of the end of the Major government and the start of the Blair government - Labour spinners were *writing* stories for journalists to use (some printed without change!) and planning events in concert with with signed up newspapers etc. The grid was far more than just a plan....
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Malmesbury said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/685916821137014785

    Perhaps some gentle reminders of the end of the Major government and the start of the Blair government - Labour spinners were *writing* stories for journalists to use (some printed without change!) and planning events in concert with with signed up newspapers etc. The grid was far more than just a plan....
    Unfortunately for them, Blair is the Emmanuel Goldstein of British politics.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    One for BigJohn about his favourite MP

    Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview

    Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    edited January 2016
    Wanderer said:

    Sandpit said:

    richardDodd said:

    LG83 Trident has been discussed in Parliament..

    It'll be discussed some more in the next few months too.

    In fact the government would happily talk about it for weeks if it meant that Labour were arguing with each other in public over it, while North Korea are testing nukes.
    lol That's very true. I don't think the Government will be doing this by stealth.
    I can imagine the Cabinet deciding that Trident renewal is a very big decision, has lots of money allocated to it over a period of decades. It's therefore only right that we allow a full week's debate in Parliament, followed by a month of Committee work, followed by three days in the Lords then another full week's Parliamentary time, and so on until Labour can agree on what exactly their policy is on the subject!!
  • matt
    matt Posts: 3,789
    edited January 2016
    British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.
  • JosiasJessop
    JosiasJessop Posts: 46,251
    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
  • Wanderer
    Wanderer Posts: 3,838
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    One for BigJohn about his favourite MP

    Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview

    Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview

    I am prepared to describe young women as my achilles heel for £4500, if anyone's interested.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    edited January 2016
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
  • viewcode
    viewcode Posts: 25,202
    matt said:

    British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.

    If you want justice to wait for lawyers to start acting ethically and stop being greedy...you'll be waiting a long time.
  • another_richard
    another_richard Posts: 27,927
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost.
    The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain.
    The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent.
    The Spanish despised trade and industry.
    Spain expelled many of their useful minorities.
    The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.

    For England the opposites happened.

  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    Yougov US GOP poll

    Trump: 36%
    Cruz: 19%
    Rubio: 13%
    Carson: 6%
    Paul 5%
    Bush 4%
    Christie 4%
    Kasich 4%

    Without Trump

    Cruz 34%
    Rubio 17%
    Carson 8%
    Paul 7%
    Bush 7%
    Christie 7%
    Kasich 5%
    https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/09/ted-cruzs-moment-gaining-national-gop-support-and-/
  • MarkHopkins
    MarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    One for BigJohn about his favourite MP

    Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview

    Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview

    I am prepared to describe young women as my achilles heel for £4500, if anyone's interested.
    *spoiler alert*

    Does it have something to do with you being a man?

  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Very simplified:

    Three reasons:
    1. Economic. The flow of gold from the New World did the Spanish economy no favours. It depressed economic activity and encouraged rent seeking at a time when there was enormous technological change.

    2. Political. Spain, after Philip II, was blessed with a series of incompetent, inbred rulers.

    3. Military. Spain spent a lot of its money in attempting to hold together a far flung empire. The Habsburg dominions under Charles V encompassed much of Germany, Spain and Portugal, the Netherlands (which included Belgium) and chunks of Italy. Oh yes, and the New World. But although the Habsburgs ruled this huge area, the Spaniards refused to subsidise the Italians and vice-versa. This led to lots of wars where it was everyone else against Spain and the Habsburgs.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    One for BigJohn about his favourite MP

    Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview

    Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview

    I am prepared to describe young women as my achilles heel for £4500, if anyone's interested.
    Redheads are my Achilles' heel
  • matt
    matt Posts: 3,789
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    That's enormously complicated but the short answer is:

    A. Gold of itself is interesting but inflationary and inflation bouts rent Spain repeatedly;
    B. Spanish society was utterly stratified and frozen. Compare to the dynamism of Dutch and English (including North America).
    C. The Spanish empire was in the wrong place for the valuable commodities for the 18th century. Look at the economics of the VOC and the U(EIC).
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    edited January 2016
    another_richard said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost.
    The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain.
    The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent.
    The Spanish despised trade and industry.
    Spain expelled many of their useful minorities.
    The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.

    For England the opposites happened.

    Good point about the Catholic Church.

    Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.

    Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    One for BigJohn about his favourite MP

    Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview

    Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview

    I am prepared to describe young women as my achilles heel for £4500, if anyone's interested.
    Redheads are my Achilles' heel
    I'd better stay away from you then.
  • geoffw
    geoffw Posts: 9,161
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
    Simon Sebag Montefiori's "Blood and Gold: The Making of Spain" is still on the BBC iPlayer. Episode 3 answers JJ's question.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    rcs1000 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    One for BigJohn about his favourite MP

    Simon Danczuk received £5,000 for newspaper interview

    Sun on Sunday paid Labour MP for interview in which he described young women as his ‘achilles heel’

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/09/simon-danczuk-5000-sun-on-sunday-interview

    I am prepared to describe young women as my achilles heel for £4500, if anyone's interested.
    Redheads are my Achilles' heel
    I'd better stay away from you then.
    For the avoidance of doubt

    Female redheads are my Achilles' heel.
  • matt
    matt Posts: 3,789
    rcs1000 said:

    another_richard said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost.
    The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain.
    The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent.
    The Spanish despised trade and industry.
    Spain expelled many of their useful minorities.
    The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.

    For England the opposites happened.

    Good point about the Catholic Church.

    Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.

    Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
    Braudel has written many of the standards of the era.
  • viewcode
    viewcode Posts: 25,202
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    One word. Capitalism.

    The British and Spanish Empires were organised slightly differently. Both had their share of stupid noblemen heading private armies to futz around, but the Brits eventually bent their will to money-making activities (planting tea, planting tobacco, selling opium, coughcoughslaverycoughcough, etc) and prioritised things like trade. The Spanish bent their will to conquest for its own sake, religious-conversion-or-else, and their colonies (although huge) were neither prosperous nor well-run. The Brits generated wealth, the Spanish destroyed it, with the obvious result

    Additionally (and famously), the Spanish confused "money" and "wealth". When they discovered stacks of gold they thought it made them rich, so they bought it back and invented inflation.
  • matt
    matt Posts: 3,789
    viewcode said:

    matt said:

    British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.

    If you want justice to wait for lawyers to start acting ethically and stop being greedy...you'll be waiting a long time.
    I'm entirely ethical and can happily justify my rate in the context of skill and amounts involved. I just don't don a cloak of a higher moral purpose and look to have taxpayers pay for it.
  • flightpath01
    flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    rcs1000 said:

    another_richard said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Spain pissed its South American money away on fighting wars it lost.
    The War of the Spanish Succession was a damaging civil war within Spain.
    The Spanish monarchy / governments were inbred and incompetent.
    The Spanish despised trade and industry.
    Spain expelled many of their useful minorities.
    The malign influence of the Catholic church on education.

    For England the opposites happened.

    Good point about the Catholic Church.

    Worth remembering that there were a series of rebellions and revolt in Spain even prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, one of which led to the independence of Portugal.

    Can I recommend Geoffrey Parker's Global Catastrophe.
    We had our own civil wars and 'the' civil war was a terrible affair. We did break the power of the Church thanks to Henry VIII.
    Perhaps it was the unifying compromise arrived at to bring about the restoration and the rise in power of the Royal Navy.
  • geoffw
    geoffw Posts: 9,161
    viewcode said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    One word. Capitalism.

    The British and Spanish Empires were organised slightly differently. Both had their share of stupid noblemen heading private armies to futz around, but the Brits eventually bent their will to money-making activities (planting tea, planting tobacco, selling opium, coughcoughslaverycoughcough, etc) and prioritised things like trade. The Spanish bent their will to conquest for its own sake, religious-conversion-or-else, and their colonies (although huge) were neither prosperous nor well-run. The Brits generated wealth, the Spanish destroyed it, with the obvious result

    Additionally (and famously), the Spanish confused "money" and "wealth". When they discovered stacks of gold they thought it made them rich, so they bought it back and invented inflation.
    Niall Ferguson's "Civilisation" has a fascinating comparison of Spanish colonial South America and English colonial North America along those lines.
  • TheScreamingEagles
    TheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,806
    Time to share this joke

    The Devil visited a Solicitor's office and made him an offer.

    "I can arrange some things for you, " the Devil said. "I'll increase your income ten-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you'll never lose a case and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife's soul, your children's souls, and their children's souls rot in hell for eternity and I want you to murder a tramp'

    The solicitor thought for a moment. "What's the catch?" he asked.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?

    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...

    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Short version, the War of the Spanish Succession took its toll on Spain and the Spanish people, and they decided to spend the next few decades arguing among themselves rather than uniting and being a world/colonial power.
    I thought the War of the Spanish Succession was mainly fought in Belgium and Germany, between the English and the French?

    More importantly, in my view, is the impact of the gold trade: large conveys of bullion arriving at random intervals resulted in exogenous inflationary shocks on a repeated basis while encouraging flow of capital away from sustainable development into fortune hunting
  • flightpath01
    flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    JosiasJessop said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit/Gravitation - Thank you to you two too

    The PB quiet evening Google-fu speed test challenge! Well done to tonight's winner @JosiasJessop :)
    I cheated. ;)

    As it's a quiet evening, a question arising from a conversation I had in a toddler group (*) that showed up my dire lack of knowledge of Spanish history: how did Spain get from being fantastically rich in the 15/1600s to being overrun by Napoleon, whilst England headed in the other direction ?
    Does anyone have a quick explanation or a good English-language website where you do not need too much background knowledge? Wiki didn't really help ...
    (*) With a mum, not a toddler. Obviously ...
    Please don't spoil the image... I rather like the thought of you discussing the war of Spanish Succession with a toddler.
  • viewcode
    viewcode Posts: 25,202
    matt said:

    viewcode said:

    matt said:

    British soldiers etc. A couple of general comments: they've always been subject to the rule of law (and yes, it's been deliberately ignored on occasion when they acted in ways that might be contextually explicable but perhaps less so objectively). What's changed is the rise of law firms who see themselves as morally superior to us generally and, speaking personally, corporate lawyers and think that they serve a higher purpose. They can do this is they want, but when their charge out rates (non-discounted) exceed Silver Circle firms and, separately, they rely on legal aid for claims which legal aid should never be considered appropriate for (and certainly not given the pressure that legal aid is under)' it rather sticks in the craw.

    If you want justice to wait for lawyers to start acting ethically and stop being greedy...you'll be waiting a long time.
    I'm entirely ethical and can happily justify my rate in the context of skill and amounts involved. I just don't don a cloak of a higher moral purpose and look to have taxpayers pay for it.
    Lawyers don't don cloaks of a higher moral purpose?

    Isn't that what lawyers do by definition?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories