Awol

The poll was by Populous, apparently. *EDIT* to insert source: Link Sadly the EU don't want to play that game. If the UK starts to unpick bits they don't like then other countries will want to do the same, somewhat defeating their core drive towards "ever closer union". Barroso might be a scumbag Maoist, but at least he's honest about that point:

I'm not sure a Labour government could really be accused of robbing the public of a vote if the current government fail to deliver it after promising to do so. They promised (in Blair's final manifesto) to hold a UK referendum on the European Constitution. After the same referendum was lost in France, Holland and Ireland in quick succession, they stopped holding the votes and renamed it the Lisbon Treaty. In substance it is exactly the same document so it's fair to say they lied then and that post-2015 Labour government would be unlikely to allow an EU referendum vote in 2017 to the 80% of people who want one.

Adam Afriyie MP has thrown a huge sh*t grenade Cameron's way this morning by pushing for an amendment to the EU Referendum Bill, aiming to bring it forward to October 2014. He raises some fair points about Cameron's commitment and even ability to deliver a 2017 referendum (there being the small matter of an election he won't win in 2015), the extremely unlikely scenario that other EU members allow the UK to unilaterally renegotiate fundamental terms of membership and the uncertainty this situation creates between now and 2017 for business. If Cameron really wanted the people to have a vote (and the polls are saying that 8 out of 10 people now want an EU referendum) he'd ignore Clegg and get it done - before Labour get another chance to rob the public of a vote. It's going to be very interesting to see how this develops over the next few weeks. Linky

Come on now. I'm all for appreciating a diverse range of opinions in the media. I don't often agree with what the Telegraph have to say, for example, but they're a respectable newspaper who defend their points reasonably well. I couldn't give a toss if the Daily Mail betrayed their Nazi heritage and took a huge swing to the left, they're **** scum, and it has nothing to do with whether they stand behind Labour or the Tories. I think that's fair comment, along with the Murdoch titles (except maybe The Times, but I don't get to read it often these days and won't pay for on line access).

Haha, a very good description that.

1 point better than none but not a good day out.

That is 60 years old, poorly maintained and still works like a dream. You really can't beat an AK-47 for rugged reliability.

Hasan gets quite a lot of air time on Al Jaz' chairing debates or 'interviewing' guests. He's an utter tool with such an inflated view of his own self importance it's actually difficult to watch. None of that makes him wrong about the Mail but his blatant hypocrisy is amusing.

Blame the BBC for the figures, not me. I think they are full of it on most things, most of the time.

There are stacks of guns in the UK, mostly owned by criminals. There will be a few, but not stacks. Most criminals don't have a gun, only the very extreme minority might have one. and that means that most crimes committed don't have firearms involved. Which means less people get hurt when a crime does occur. Admittedly this is 10 year old BBC article and the numbers are likely to have increased rather than gone down: link I'd say even the lower range of that estimate qualifies as "stacks".

Exactly so, but I don't think there is any requirement or justification for civilians to own assault rifles.

Drat I'm not making anything up so there is no need to cry wolf and try to invoke a moderators warning yesterday that clearly doesn't apply to this conversation. The word you used was "blimey", meaning to express shock or alarm. You then went on to question whether it was okay to spy on a European telecoms provider, our NATO allies, EU partners etc. My answer was yes, absolutely, for the reasons given. There really is nothing more to add.

There is an article in the Torygraph today saying the UK economy is the fastest growing in the developed world. Always wary of any statistics that come from a government but things do seem to be improving on the macro scale. That's not to say everything is rosy in the garden but it's definitely better than things getting worse!

There are stacks of guns in the UK, mostly owned by criminals.

You seem to be operating on a mental model of nation-states whose interests are defined by their geographical boundaries, spying on each other. That all seems a bit 19th century - perhaps that's why you quote Palmerston. The interests that rule us are international, and have no loyalty to any nation. I think you clearly recognised that in past discussions about banks and financial elites, but you're not applying it here. When "our" spying apparatus engages in industrial espionage, whose interests is it working in? Does it spy on multinationals who may operate here and lots of other places? When the security services target trade unionists, members of Occupy, Greenpeace, CND, student protesters, people who protest about McDonalds' logging, is there really any shred of credibility in the idea that this is done for the security of the people of this nation, rather than the financial interests of a global elite? We really need to get past this idea that these spies do what they do to protect "us". The story we are given is that it's all about preventing terror attacks, defending the country from aggressive foreign action and so on. That's quite a long way away from a full and honest picture. Agreed. Your notion of nations spying on each other is a bit outdated AWOL. Old national boarders are irrelevant and governments will spy on people where ever they live whether it's 10km away, 100km or a thousand. I'm really not interested in getting into a discussion about the illuminati and the shadowy elites running the world, the article was about GCHQ being rumbled for spying on activities in Europe, then Drat implied this was somehow shocking. I was trying to point out that it is the least shocking thing ever and that we in turn are spied on by our friends, neighbours and allies, not just those governments we would consider hostile. That this goes on is not some outdated notion, it is fact. The gathering of information is now far easier and done more through technology than suave, man from the milk tray types, but that has no relevance to the original implication that we should somehow be shocked that it happens, all day, every day, all over the world - and that naughty old GCHQ is up to it as well.

The information was secret, Drat. There's a big old clue in there if you can spot it.

You really are missing the point AWOL, IMO either deliberately or (and I dont suspect this) through ignorance. Spying on other states happens, of course it does. The fact that this case is showing that the UK Gvmt was complicit in spying on what are some of her biggest political, trade and military allies is somewhat interesting do you not agree? No Drat, you are missing the point. The fact that we are spying on our allies in Europe is the least remarkable thing I can think of. They are also spying on us, but they haven't got a cheeky little American chap telling the world about it. Sorry I've read that sentence a few times and can't make any logical sense out of it. Would you mind writing it a different way please to express what you mean?

No, Panama is more my style.

The EU is exactly "Jonny Foreigner", whether UK citizens are living there or not is utterly irrelevant and such an absurd argument I can't believe you are trying to make it. I'm pretty sure there are quite a few Brits living in Moscow and Beijing. Should we therefore not spy on Russia and China! Come on, it's ridiculous. European nations all spy on each other, whether that's for diplomatic secrets, economic information or IP. Believing that membership of the EU makes everyone in it fraternal brothers is a nice line for politicians to spin to the gullible, but it isn't actually true.

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"? If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS. A leading MP in the last Gvmt was "furious" - Hmmm that is the evidence for regurgitating what are old allegations? I haven't seen the emails and neither have you. Therefore neither of us are in position to say whether they contain significant evidence of Burnham's complicity in cover up and intimidation or not. The Torygraph obviously seem to think so, let's see what comes out after this story. The age of the allegations are a moot point if any evidence has only just come to light.

Spying on anyone and everyone beyond Dover is okay, indeed it is essential. As old Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." Nothing has changed since. However trying to conflate that issue with domestic civil liberties is complete nonsense. Knowing what foreign governments are saying to each other behind closed doors has nothing at all to do with a government wanting to bang people up for 90 days without charge, for example. As for operational name those used by the military are created by a random word generator. I don't know if the security services use the same model or just have a good sense of humour.

The article states that they have been trying to get these emails released under FOI for 4 months. It's a bit weak, in fact it's obviously wrong to try and suggest that this has something to do with Ralph Miliband and the dreaded right wing media.

Wouldn't that come under the category of "evidence" and be worthy of investigation rather than being dismissed as "desperation"? If taken in the context of alleged cover ups during the same period at Morecambe, Basildon and what we know happened at Stafford, it does rather make a nonsense of Labour's lofty claims about its record on the NHS.

First reaction was blimey Why blimey? GCHQ are spies, their job is to gather information covertly. The headline should read: "GCHQ does its job, weasel American runt shafts them". Sadly it isn't the last betrayal of a close ally this little ***********er has up his sleeve.

Quite a lot of people have permits for weapons here ranging from the beautiful old school Jezails to pistols of various type - Glocks are popular but there are also a lot of old Russian Makarovs kicking about. If you get out of town into the desert it's not unusual to see Bedouin carrying AK's. I only know of two ex-pats with live firearms and I don't think either are licensed. One has an old Henri-Martini rifle of Zulu vintage and the other has a bolt action Lee Enfield .303. For someone more accustomed to smaller NATO calibres the round for the Henri-Martini is an absolute beast, it looks more suited to shooting elephants than people. If I ever felt the need to carry here it would be time to leave the country.