peterms

True and the more we get experienced in them, the better we would get. Coalitions are about discussion, diplomacy and compromise. Sounds like someone has just written the greatest job description for Britons. I always thought we were pretty, bloody good at that shit. Some people of a foreign persuasion might say we need to get a bit more in touch with our fem side before we make that claim.

You are clearly an organisational genius. I shall henceforth pay renewed attention to your posts, as it is clear you know what you're talking about.

No, and you will note from my postings that isn't what I am saying. Sure there were 'rumours' around the airport about offended muslims, just as there were stories about muslim workers abusing war wounded at Selly Oak Hospital before the military had separate wards, but both are just heresay. As I alluded to earlier my take is that the directive and potential for offence was more likely borne out of a politically correct non-muslim, rather than a muslim. So then what do you understand to be the "offence" which has led to soldiers being inconvenienced? I'm assuming that they were inconvenienced, or put out in some way, though I'm still unclear exactly how, and by whom. I'd really like to understand this, and since you report yourself to be still angry a full three days after witnessing it, no doubt you can help fill in the gaps, if you wouldn't mind.

I thought the directive came from Des Browne and not the army ? Enlighten me. I am in need of enlightenment. Des Browne was Secretary of State for Defence and I understand that the dress code thingy was one of his brainwaves ..along with which banning personnel from blogging, speaking in public, posting on bulletin boards , playing in multi-player online computer games, or sending text messages or pictures to phones without the permission of a superior And yet it dates from the time when the IRA were a serious threat to army staff, which as I recall was rather before his brief spell in the limelight? In any event, I think we all know these things are created by staff and signed off by a Minister.

The reality is probably a combination of people and also circumstances. Lets be honest its hardly a great time to be in the airline business. It's an interesting industry. It's been a management theory case study for many years, an industry which seems to teeter on the brink of failure for many participants, where even the cash-flow problems of refuelling an aircraft can send an airline down the pan - yet also attractive to new entrants, from time to time. If you factor into that the problems of rising energy costs, concern about carbon footprints, and the logistical and financial problems caused by dust clouds, it would be entirely unsurprising to see some more failures before the year is out. Still, I expect it'll all be the fault of the bolshie bastard airline stewardesses, eh.

I thought the directive came from Des Browne and not the army ? Enlighten me. I am in need of enlightenment.

Well when they put BA out of business and ALL of their BA cabin crew members on the dole at least they can slap themselves on the back for beating the fat cats. I don't think you've done the slightest bit of research about the correlation between company failure and union membership, have you?

I suspect all the parties have people who are thinking of ways to form a government, and people who think that is the last thing that would be in their longer-term interest.

Well, the story demonstrates that the directive dates from many years ago, and is felt by the Army, who apparently issued the directive, to be outdated. The personal blog on the conservativehome site blames this on Muslims, without a shred of evidence. Your comment about the real reason being "offence", rather than obeying Army directives, risks falling into the same trap. Do you have anything showing that the reason for the way soldiers are shepherded through BHX is caused by the unreasonable feelings of Muslims, rather than by Army policy?

The main agenda for the union tends to be preserving and increasing membership, and preserving and improving pay and conditions; obviously both have a reinforcing effect on each other. To that end, I've not usually observed them to be shy about taking on Labour councils or governments, when necessary. Of course, for pretty obvious reasons, anyone interested in improving the conditions of the poorer rather than the richer segments of society will be more likely to find themselves in conflict with the tories. But that doesn't make it a party-political, ideologically based issue, which I think you imply.

I agree that it is probably more efficient, but the point is the reason why. They are not allowed through the terminal as their presence 'offends' people. Do you think that is correct policy? IMO if our government are worried about minorities being offended by our troops returning from the the front line, then perhaps we could remove all of the potential for offence by not sending them there in the first place. Do you have more information on this, or maybe a source? I can find a story about returning soldiers having to change into civilian clothes a couple of years ago, because of a long-standing requirement not to wear uniform in places where they might be a target for the IRA (presumably a pretty old instruction), but nothing very recent. I gather this comes from the Army, rather than the company running the airport. Who was "offended", what was the nature of the offence, who decided what? I can dig around for later. If I find it I'll post in a separate thread. As I stated in an earlier message, no one is likely to hold their hands up to admit the decision. As some say, it's certainly more efficient, and not a big deal. But for me the fact that the hand was forced is a big deal. Conservative Home had this account of soldiers not being allowed into the terminal building in uniform: The Mail had this: It was a story about Army regulations being misrepresented as Muslims getting offended. Obviously that's not what you mean, because you were describing an incident you personally witnessed last Friday, if I understand you right.

I agree that it is probably more efficient, but the point is the reason why. They are not allowed through the terminal as their presence 'offends' people. Do you think that is correct policy? IMO if our government are worried about minorities being offended by our troops returning from the the front line, then perhaps we could remove all of the potential for offence by not sending them there in the first place. Do you have more information on this, or maybe a source? I can find a story about returning soldiers having to change into civilian clothes a couple of years ago, because of a long-standing requirement not to wear uniform in places where they might be a target for the IRA (presumably a pretty old instruction), but nothing very recent. I gather this comes from the Army, rather than the company running the airport. Who was "offended", what was the nature of the offence, who decided what?

This is working now.

It was certainly different.

Cuellar actually caught him, which adds to the amusement value.

Now this stream.

Stream here.

Luke Young on for a farewell appearance.

About the same as the match itself, so far.

There were queues at various times of day in various places. In any case, the job of returning officers is to allocate resources to do the job properly. Turnout was higher than normal, but not abnormally so and not outside the bounds of what could reasonably be expected. And voting patterns at times of day don't tend to vary a lot either, in my tedious experience of trying to get the buggers out. It is absolutely not the fault of the voters.

Saw that briefly on Sky news this morning, what happened? people in quite a few boroughs were prevented from voting, as the polls clsoed at 10pm and they were still queing up to vote! They effectively just locked them out, and said they could not vote, even though they were queing up to do so. Some of the polling stations were just understaffed or not organised well enough. AT some polling stations, there had been queues for hours. For a modern western democracy, that is farcical. And very undemocratic. I do not believe it was simply a case of loads of buffoons turning up en masse at polling stations at 9.58pm. The other strange things about this are that it's not happened before, as far as I know, and yet it happened in several dispersed areas of the country. Makes me wonder if there had been some sort of discussion among whatever network of returning officers there might be, maybe about the waste of all those unused voting papers in past elections, or how to plan the most lean and efficient allocation of staff based on just-in-time techniques, to see who could run the most cost-effective show. The chance of this happening spontaneously in a reasonably widespread fashion and for the first time without some sharing of ideas about how to slim down resource allocation must be pretty low, I would imagine. But it's pretty incompetent. Not quite on the banana-republic scale of Florida, but pretty shameful.

Bye bye Charles Clark. There will be few Labour tears shed for someone who has spent quite so much time and effort over so many years on factional in-fighting, plotting, backstabbing and undermining.

No ID necessary, as far as I'm aware. Save for NI, I believe. I really don't think there is much evidence of widespread fraud in voting at the ballot box. It's postal votes where there seems to be a problem. I think the bigger problem with fraud arises after the election is over, as with expenses.

At the risk of getting into technicalities which may be better discussed offline or else not at all for the sanity of the wider audience, don't quite follow your point here about higher prices? Construction prices, rent levels, something else?

I'm amazed you think its wrong to be honest. Most working familys have less need of social housing tbh. They are capable of living in the private sector much more easily. Social housing is about need not want. Would you have babies living in cardboard boxes under the arches? I think you'll find that most teenage mothers tend to live at home with their mothers in the first place. But try and think about it as giving a new life, a small chance in life, a roof over its head, after all its not to blame for anything is it? I have no problem with people getting houses when they genuinely need them. And no, not all working families can afford to live in the private sector. Some live in shitholes paying the council rent of up to £50 a week, until a better house comes along. How can they have a fair chance when they are constantly being pushed back? I know this is only one example, online, but you can be rest assured that this happens across the UK. Maybe not in every case, but in a lot of cases. http://www.babyandbump.com/teen-pregnancy/318423-council-housing-s.html "Is it ok to lie and say my parents want me out of the house"? What? That is what I am talking about. People lying to get free houses. They know fine rightly if their parents don't want them there then the housing executive deems to be "homeless" and a priority, but she clearly isn't a priority. Absolutely ridiculous. So it's nothing to do with her being a teenage mother really, it's to do with her lying about her circumstances Why can I rest assured that this happens across the UK? how can you be sure of it? Why does it even bother you? Someone with a young baby and no means of income will always be ahead of a "working family" by definition. One is actually more needy than the other. One has an income, the other doesn't. It's nothing to do with "being bumped up" its to do with being more in need. Would you have the innocent baby living with no roof over its head because someone who has a job thinks they deserve it more? Is it the baby's fault? If we have a system of allocating housing based on gatekeeping rather than rights, then of course people will bend the truth, even lie, to get past the tests. When does "my parents would prefer not to have me and the baby sleeping on the couch, and my boyfriend hanging round as well" become "my parents won't allow me to stay"? The lies are driven by the system. In Scotland, we have done away with the priority need categories which cause this. In a couple of years, councils will have a duty towards everyone who is homeless - a pretty revolutionary concept, I know. Personally, I am more upset by rich **** lying about their income to avoid tax, than homeless pregnant kids lying about their home circumstances to get somewhere out of the rain to live. Well, that just shows what a yogurt-knitter I am, I suppose.