peterms

No, it's you. He's crap, we know because it's been said on here a thousand times, about three separate ways. That must be right, then. In the red corner, Chindie, several England managers, and most informed football commentators. In the blue corner, oooh, a few internetty peeps. I should get out quick if I were you.

Personal information Full name Barry Bannan Date of birth 1 December 1989 (1989-12-01) (age 20) Place of birth Airdrie, Scotland Height 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) Playing position Midfielder Personal information Full name Gordon Sidney Cowans Date of birth October 27, 1958 (1958-10-27) (age 51) Place of birth West Cornforth, County Durham, England Height 5ft 7in (1.69m) Playing position Midfielder

Shouldn't this be in a PM? :winkold:

Yes, you're right, I was. :oops:

I take a different view of this. The Afghan campaign is a counter-insurgency but it's a war nonetheless. It is simply not possible to militarily confront the Taliban (which is the only way they can be physically confronted) without civilians being hurt or killed, precisely because they fight from amongst the population. I know for a fact that great lengths are taken and considerable personal risk accepted by coalition forces in order to avoid civilian casualties, but it's simply not always possible. As to our public's perception of the war I'd say this: Since GW1 western peoples have had the perception that because of the precision bombing capabilities we saw on our TV news, all wars could be fought this way with a minimum of civilian casualties. The public could henceforth have their consciences untroubled by the prospects of 'clean' war in which only the baddies would die. Kosovo reinforced this false impression. When a conventional force comes up against an irregular force these advantages are negligable at best and the civilian casualties inevitably mount up. Both civil and military authorities know this to be the case and therefore try to restrict information about these casualties - and even those suffered by our own forces - because they don't think that the public can stomach it. That's not a defence but an attempt at explanation. The hearts and minds campaign is being lost because from day one the political will to deploy sufficient forces to secure the population was absent. When you spread a small force very thinly they end up fighting for their lives and using every means at their disposal to stay alive. For example, when that entails calling down airstrikes inside a town to prevent a small garrison being overrun, civilians will get killed. We still don't have nearly enough men on the ground to secure the population and Afghanistan has nothing like the political leadership necessary to impose a centralised state model onto the country. Neither of those things will change, so eventually we will lose/declare victory and run away. Civilian deaths are important for two reasons. The first, which you address, is that it's morally wrong to kill them, to sit in a plane 5000 feet up and drop 500lb bombs on and around a house where a target may or may not be sheltering but which is certainly surrounded by civilians. The second, which you don't, is that it's self-defeating. Mao wrote that in guerilla warfare, defeat was certain without the active and continuing support of the population among whom the guerillas operate. The strategy therefore has to be to undermine this support, which is where the hearts and minds campaign comes in. Indiscriminate (though targetted) bombing, panic shootings of civilians and claiming that it was a "ricochet" from a "warning shot", reprisal attacks on villagers following IED incidents, and the rape and murder of Afghani women by coalition forces, all undercut the strategy and build support for the opposition. I suppose our military leaders have read Mao, haven't they?

Yes, add Julian Assange to the list of people who will stand up for our right to know the truth. Or add the leaker to a bonfire for compromising operational security in an ongoing war. Releasing documents pertinent to Iraq in what amounts to an after action review - Chilcot - is entirely different from compromising operational details while we are still up to our necks in it in Afghanistan. I'm not having a pop at Assange though because wikileaks has done some great stuff in the past, but this thing is a whole different order of magnitude and the leaker (a US soldier as I understand) needs executing. Compromising operational security? I wonder. In the reaction so far, there seems to have been two main themes: it's nothing new, and it will place in danger those still in the front line. I would be more inclined to believe the second claim if it were explained a bit more, with specific examples of how it will do that. At the moment, as just a sweeping claim without explanation or example, it sounds like bluster. I think the real problem for our security forces and government is that the material illustrates how poorly the whole thing has been planned and how unlikely it is that the stated aims of this action will succeed. Also, of course, the information on civilian deaths (which is not news to the military or the Taliban or the Afghanis, just to us) gives some insight into how operational blunders are undermining the "hearts and minds" campaign we are supposed to be waging. This undermines the political justification for the war, not operational security; it is an embarrassment to those prosecuting the war, not a danger to those fighting it. Are there other details which might endanger soldiers on the ground? Maybe, but I've yet to hear a cogent description of what they are and how they have this effect. Until I hear one, I will remain unconvinced.

Four at the back, but one's a rushback goalie.

In keeping with the zeitgeist of VT OT, what a load of old bollox. :winkold: There's enough wordy threads already, Snowy. Bugger off back to one of them. :winkold:

Yes, add Julian Assange to the list of people who will stand up for our right to know the truth.

Okay, this might just seem a bit of an argument about semantics surrounding the phrase 'in practice' but I think it's rather important. Just because people 'in practice' vote along party lines (candidates having usually purported to be a member of a party) does not mean that they are 'in practice' electing a government of a particular hue. They are, in practice, electing their representative, someone who is supposed to represent that constituency, regardless of whether the particular constituent actually put a cross by their name. Just because they don't approach it in that way does not mean that, in practice, they are not actually doing it. It's pretty much the same for an MP who loses the party whip or crosses the floor. The reason that there is no by-election called is because they, as individuals, are the ones who receive the votes. People may believe that they are voting for a particular flavour of government or a particular party to govern but they need to be slapped around the face again and again with the proverbial wet fish (preferrably something rather large and smelly) until they recognize that they aren't. This situation (the coalition) should seek to educate the public as to the constitutional practice rather than be an opportunity for people to moan because the system isn't what they stupidly thought it was. Yes and no, Snowy. The constitutional position is as you describe. What I'm talking about is more what it seems most people think they are doing when they vote. Voting is often an expression of tribal loyalty (as I say, declining). Sometimes it's just wanting to give encouragement to a minority party, knowing they have no chance but that every vote will matter to them. Very occasionally, eg when a candidate has been deselected but stands anyway as an independent, it's a vote for the individual over the party. Mostly, I think, when people vote they are expressing a preference for which party they would prefer to see form the government. Whether that is technically, constitutionally what they are doing isn't the point I'm making. Our constitution is a bit opaque, but I'm not sure I go along with wet fish as a teaching aid. If you're set on the idea, though, may I recommend a week-old plaice? Light enough not to cause real damage, flat enough to cause an impressively loud impact, old enough to be smelly but not a major health hazard.

They switched off the fixed ones. I gather there were only 4 of them, and they are still operating the mobile speed cameras. Were they ineffective, or does the continuation of the mobile ones restrain speeding?

and your point is what exactly? That when the state is seen to murder people who leak documents, it may go some way to explain why others are reticent about leaking.

If we accept that the state should be the arbiter of moral judgements, we end up with the sort of state most of us wouldn't want to live in. Thank god for people like Clive Ponting et al.

No, that's my point, it isn't what happens in practice. The theory is that people select between individuals. The practice is that most people vote on party lines. Our constitution, such as it is, doesn't really recognise the primacy of party in voting behaviour. Though party loyalty is waning, in general this still holds true. Many people can tell you the name of the party they voted for, but couldn't name the candidate. If we really did vote only for individuals, we wouldn't have much clue what sort of government would emerge (bit like PR, I suppose). As it is, we are accustomed to electing people who vote overwhelmingly on party lines, so that the government which emerges is pretty well aligned with the position of the majority party - until they start to drift away from it, but that's another story...

The policy is to pursue leakers aggressively and to be vindictive in dealing with them. Generally, I think people leak the more highly classified things either when as you say they have a book to sell and are feeling out of the reach of the government (Peter Wright, Spycatcher), or else when they feel the degree of wrongdoing they have witnessed is so extreme that they have to take a stand even if they are likely to get caught (Clive Ponting, Belgrano; Sarah Tisdall, cruise missiles; Cathy Massiter, illegal bugging of politicians). The way these people have been treated has sent a strong message to others that they can expect no mercy if they expose the illegal and immoral activities of the state, and I'm sure that consideration weighs heavily with other potential leakers, as it is intended to.

Sadly not. Iraq expert Carne Ross claims civil servants are withholding vital documents

It's not about respecting other views - which I do - it's about challenging the things you post that are factually untrue, like stating that the current governent are unelected. Quite clearly that statement is false, or put another way, a load of bollocks. I seem to remember you posting not too long ago that the electorate doesn't vote for the government, they vote for MPs who then form a government. The constitutional position is that we elect MPs, who then form a government, rather than that we elect a government. In fact, most people vote for a party than selecting between individuals, and when there is a single-party government, no-one normally feels they had no idea what they would be getting if the party they voted for won. In the current situation, people voted for parties as usual, but the government which ensued wasn't what many people expected; though it was always reasonably likely from the polling figures that there might be a coalition of some sort, I don't think anyone can claim to have known what balance would ensue and what programme would be on offer. So we do technically vote for MPs not a government, but in practice people vote for the party they wish to see form a government, and have a reasonable understanding of what it will do if it wins; and this time round, people didn't vote for this particular coalition, because it wasn't put forward as a proposition. I think that's why it feels like this particular government is more removed than usual from what people voted for.

Think he means the left column is budget, right column not. Only they're not quite in columns. What sort of photography do you want to be doing? eg if you want to take pics of wildlife you would want more telephoto capability, whereas you wouldn't with landscape photography.

Affect.

Yes, nothing wrong with community or collective control over village halls, housing estates, the means of production or the global economy. And the "third sector" have been meeting Cameron and other tories for several years to discuss a larger role for vol-orgs in managing services. The problem lies in a couple of areas. First, passing services out leads people who take them on, to pick and choose what they want to manage. Here's an example, not from a plc, but from our cuddly doctors. As a substitute for universal provision and a requirement to look after all of us, it seems a little wanting. Second, the stuff about local communities and vol-orgs is just a figleaf for the real agenda, which is the transfer of massive amounts of wealth from us (all of us, who own it already) to a collection of global capitalists. Just one example of what's in store. We own the NHS, the schools, the local authorities. They are ours. And yet this semi-elected bunch of creeps is about to destroy the value we have built up over generations, and hand it to the private sector, whoever they are and wherever they are based, as an act of ideology and greed, for which they personally and individually will profit, probably by far more than Blair managed. A couple of community-owned pubs, a few dozen parent-run schools, garnering headlines before sinking into unnoticed bankruptcy in a few years' time, are no more than window dressing. It's corrupt, it's wrong, and we should fight it.

Fixed.

Come off it, you're telling me you've never been blootered while fettling up the Nimrods?! I thought it was poor procurement that was to blame for the state of our defence equipment, but it seems the answer is much simpler...

It sort of reminds me of Nungwi Beach, volleyball at sunset...

The example of the Liberal Party and the SDP forming the Lib Dems was a merger. The present administration is a coalition. A merger is intended to be permanent, a coalition aims to be no more than a temporary arrangement. A merger requires some change of internal governance arrangements (eg a vote of the membership, or whatever each party's governance requires), a coalition doesn't.

But would they answer honestly?