colhint

The idea is that the threat of a caution plus a night in a publicly funded police cell isn't a deterrent; whereas a guaranteed £400 charge and a night in your own expensive private cell might put off a chavvy retard who decides to have one too many bottles of VK in their local O'Neil's or Whetherspoons. The police will still be required to do the policing but it is hoped that they'll be called upon less with this policy in place. I haven't seen any mention of private companies being allowed to round people up on their own accord!?! So, in theory, it doesn't lessen police resource (at least initially). In fact, it may increase it, because instead of having a word with some drunks and telling them to go home or you'll lock them up for the night, the pressure is on the copper to 'nick' em, round em up into vans and get them to these private cells, wherre they can be 'processed'. I think this in fact could lead to more serious problems on the streets, as police try to arrest revellers and get them processed, and face resistance. If someone is sufficiently D & D to pose a threat or nuisance to themselves/others, they should be treated in the normal, legal way, and detained and her maj's pleasure. If not, then they're just bunging people who are a bit loud and lairy into private cells to make some dosh, surely? Either way, I can't see any way that this is going to happen. Not in the forseeable anyway. how is it any different to how it now, except that once they are handed they can carry on with policing. So I cant see how it would create more work for the police.

They don't call him Paddy Backdown for nothing. It's not just him, though, they're all at it. The annual conference denunciation of the tories, followed by another year of keeping them in power and meekly voting through everything they claim to be against. Lots of shite about how green they are, then vote for fracking and nuclear. Cable "letting it be known" all week that he's concerned about a house price bubble and (between the lines) wants a major change in econ policy, then crawls into the conference and votes for Clegg anyway. I liked the WATO interview. when Kearney read back to him the embarrassingly misdirected e-mail instructing him and others what to say when interviewed; some arse had sent it to the press by mistake, but shouldn't be criticised for that, as it's about the same level of competence as the Libdems show in anything else. Also liked when she put to him that his colleagues see a pattern of "will he, won't he" in his leaks and posturing, saying that he has "endless vanity". How ironic to see him in the interview claiming that his and his party's continual treachery towards their own history, values, and members, is "grown up politics". Smug, patronising, deceitful bollocks. Oh, the whole lot of them, really. An utter waste of space. Do you mean the Lib Dems are all the same, or politicians? The LibDems haven't been in power for decades, so yes they took whatever was on offer. Labour hadn't been in power for the best part of 20 years so Blair ditched everything Benn, Foot and Bevan stood for to get in power. The Tories hadn't been in power so they turned into Blair lite. They all change their colours just to get elected. They have no principles

I agree

Bill Bryson

I look at gambling from another point of view.Most people would think if you had a £10 stake and expected to win £50 that would be unlikely. But if you had £1000 stake and hoped to win £50 that would seem more realistic

But thats not what I said though. I said there were a lot more Italians playing top flight

I think the problem is two fold 1 being that we have so few coaches 2 English players don't play abroad. So in the German, Italian, Dutch teams for example, there players will certainly be playing in Different countries. All the England team play in England. So it wouldn't really matter if we only had 65% English players in the prem if there were others playing abroad. I think someone said there were only about 70 English players playing in the Prem in the Last match before the internationals. I bet there were not many more Italians playing in Seria A. However I'll bet there were loads more Italians playing top flight football in Europe compared to English.

man I feel old. After I explained to my 13 year old daughter how he crocked Louis but then passed to someone from westlife, she said who's westlife

Its not pussy its a gash

Well under 10's was 9 a side played on about a third of the pitch. It was 3 in the scrum a scrum half and 5 backs. Its not so about the backs making all the difference, They obviously do, but its more breakaway tries they get. I think the majority of tries come from good forward play. And to be honest at this level good forwards are better then good backs. That's because there isn't that much difference in speed compared to pro's. Sure the backs generally win, but its much closer. What is more important at this age, 4 big tackles and they tend not to come near you again

Well It should be a good year for Hull Ionians under 11's. We struggled a bit last year, but that was mainly down to some new lads getting up to speed. Now though things change this year, we go from a 9 man game to 12 man. So this time we have a back row and a fullback. We dominated scrums last year and this year with the back row I can't see anyone touching us

i still reckon 'Arry should have the job. Quick brown envelope and we'll find Messi was English after all

Yet you were okay with MP's voting on war based on a summary of the situation. Which is it? I'm sorry I cannot follow your logic

No, I think we go the the CIA and Mossad as say "What do you think the capabilities and intentions of the Syrians are, then?" In general, I think we get intelligence through the usual means - buy, beg, borrow, or steal. What do you reckon? No. I think the security services said that Saddam had wmd, and the 45 minutes claim was the "sexing up" part which Campbell introduced. I don't think it's claimed that Campbell made the entire thing up, is it? If he had, of course, then the security people would have a clear moral imperative to expose his lies. As it is, I suppose they managed to convince themselves that the 45 minutes lie which committed the country to war was exaggeration rather than a downright lie, and so kept quiet instead of whistleblowing: an example of the cowardly, amoral and self-serving attitude which in the end makes them equally culpable in his lies. And of course a perfect illustration of why they are not to be trusted with such decisions. Let them gather intelligence and serve it up, not make decisions about our future. If they control the scope and extent of the information shown, they very heavily influence, perhaps even control, the decisions which are based on this information. This would at least mean that the information is exposed to scrutiny and challenge from people coming from different perspectives. You've heard of groupthink? Bureaucracies, such as armed forces and security services, are good examples. Independent thought and criticism of the official line are not encouraged. This is why some of the most successful military commanders have been those who buck the trend, encourage underlings to tell them the truth, challenge the consensus. But it goes against the culture. Tim Harford is good on this, as is "The Psychology of Military Incompetence". No, I don't want groupthinking buffoons closing down independent thought and critical scrutiny on the basis of "national security". Well I reckon we do have agents in the field. I'm sure we have agents all over the world. Do you believe that when 4 guys from Leeds I think it was had their house raided to find bomb making equipment that was just info passed on? I'm sure we do pass on info between nations though. As for the Campbell thing I think it was almost verbatim from the internet, so just wondering how you think the intelligence service was involved. I'm just wondering why you think they control the scope or influence the decision. I think it is more likely they pass on whatever they have, then the politicians make the decision. I am also wondering what you think they have to gain, by suggesting we go to war or not. You also mention groupthink, independent thought of the official line not encouraged. Could you just as easily say following the party line. Recently we have had a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The politicians have been allowed to spin this along party lines whichever way they want. The Secret services cant really reply. No If I am not making my stance clear on this, I'll try to qualify it. The intelligence service is to provide info only, have no say on the decision. That is up to MP's.

if there is not enough intelligence then don't go to war. It should be that simple.

It sounds like you're putting forward a scenario where a secret agent is living under cover, and the secrets they have gathered can be revealed only at the cost of compromising their cover. With respect, that sounds a little too comic book for my taste. If we are going to sacrifice the lives of thousands of people, then we must be assured that the case for doing so is sound, and that the course of action is reasonable, proportionate, and likely to be effective. We must also be sure that people support it. None of that can be achieved by allowing security forces to present a partial and selective version of events to the people making decisions. Let's remind ourselves, people working in security forces have the same failings as people in general. They lie, they deceive, they make flawed judgements, they allow themselves to make poor decisions, they can be swayed by all sorts of poor influences. On top of that, they are exposed to "intelligence" from other security forces who in all likelihood are deliberately presenting lies or partial truth in the hope of changing the actions of another country. That's what they do. It's part of their job. Placing decisions of national importance in the hands of a few people acting in secret, with no accountability for their actions, no requirement to defend, explain or justify their judgements, is a very poor course of action. Especially when they have been trained to think that lying is a legitimate tactic if it achieves the aim they are working towards. And let me say again, coming so soon after the same type of people gave us utterly misleading information about Iraq and wmd, I'm very surprised that anyone could seriously think it would be a good idea in any respect. Should we disbelieve everything they say? No. Should we accept everything they say? No. We should test it, require it to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, and justified. Just like in a court of law. We can't send people to prison for shoplifting only after rigorous process, and allow ourselves to be dragged into war on the say-so of a shadowy and unaccountable set of spooks who have recently been shown to be either incompetent or liars. The reason we expect people to have to account for their actions and what they say is not general interest or nosiness, but because it tends to improve the integrity of their actions. This case is no different. I must make a few points here Peter. How do you imagine we get intelligence. Do you think we just go to The Syrians or Al Queda and say I work for the British Government, could you let me know your capabilities and intentions please. As for the part in Bold. How on earth can you possibly know this? Wasn't the Phrase used by the Blair Government "we acted on bad intelligence" when it seemed more appropriate to say we acted badly on intelligence. Do you think the intelligence service provided Campbell with the wmd stikes in 45 minutes, taken from some post grad on the internet. Now I am not saying that the security service make any decision on war. They should not, They provide information to the Government of the day and the JIC. The government decide what is released to MP's and if we go to war What's the alternative. Pass everything to MP's. Bear in mind reading VT few people have faith in them

well it would melt in Syria

of course there are agents there

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck. It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything. So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on. Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!" 14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published. Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them The security services, like the armed forces, the police and other state employees, must be subject to democratic control. The alternative is that we have a police state. To argue that they work "under cover" and so their activities must be concealed from the scrutiny of elected representatives, who must accept whatever summary of activities which the security forces deem to prudent to allow them to see, is frankly not an argument even the heads of the armed services make. If we are to engage in war, we must be assured that the basis for war is sound. It is not acceptable to be given a summary, a flavour, and to accept at face value the assurances of the people vetting the information. If anyone was minded otherwise a decade ago, I'd have thought the experience of us being drawn into a murderous and illegal conflict on the basis of a pack of lies, would have taught them something. yes they must be under scrutiny. However the intelligence gathered should be presented in such away that they are not compromised. Now if there were say information that could only come from one source, is it right that it shared with every MP. Bearing in mind that one source is now compromised and could be used to gather other intelligence. Wouldn't it be better to presented it to the JIC who could then advise MP's. If the alternative is provide MP's with everything, how long would it take for sensitive information to be passed to the Russians,Chinese, US etc. As for no, you're right, we should just trust what we are told prepare to die arab type people! I have it on good authority from trustworthy agents that stuff has happened I needn't worry myself about proof or detail but it's a big enough secret thing that I should endorse killing you, whoever you are! Isn't that what we do now, well if you replace trustworthy agents with MP's

There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck. It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything. So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on. Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!" 14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published. Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them

I don't think that all MP's are given all of the information, quite rightly too. You can't have all that intelligence out in the open. So I assume it's just a summary. How that summary is put together and the content is where Blair failed spectacularly. To be honest, had I been an MP and were given the info that Saddam had WMD and were capable of launching an attack in 45 mins, I would have voted for a war. Anyway Syria, Can't we just provide support to The Chinese or Russia and let them get on with it

My big fascination is probably Britain from 600 through to 100 years war. Can't stop reading about it

my son. Plays Rugby Union for the local team, under 10's. He was invited to join a Leeds Carnegie training camp for the week. He is staying with his Aunt who is nearer to the ground. He phoned me Monday night saying he was a bit worried because they want him to train with the Under 12's, bigger boys. Saw his report for the week Good Very Good Good Very Good Good Tackling Outstanding

what I like now is the fact there are or have been Spanish, Italian and UK managers in England but I don't think we have had a German. Now I know Lambert isn't German, but that's where he learned his trade

None in all out a teensy bit drastic but I'll do a deal with you One in, one out, one shot