mockney piers

I like it. That about covers it. On gibralter, very true quids. Having lots of family from Andalucia I'm often informed that Gibralterians are incredibly snooty, but get on the wrong side of them and they apparently swear like Spaniards. I do think the residents should have the biggest say, which is why I think: 1) the Falkland Islanders have every legitimate right to want to hold on to their sovereignty (i was just pointing out that we nicked the rock in the first place) even though we were actually trying to get them to bugger off 2) those in northern ireland have a right to remain part of the union until those that don't inevitably outbreed them 3) those snooty gibralter types can hang on to those awful shopping malls and dirty beaches (give me cabo de gata any day of the week) 4) the Basques should be allowed a free plebiscite, after all the hassle (and it'll be a close run thing) ironically I think they'll vote to stay 5) chagossians should be given right to return regardless (or even because if you ask me) how much it'll piss the americans off 6) and of course the ponies should have the Shetlands back. any more?

Whilst the world is more entertaining for having someone like chavez round ("boooosh you are a donkey") he is an utter utter loon!!!

For that matter what if the chagos islanders wanted to go there? They'd get rich from the oil revenues making up for the insulting 'compensation' we gave the Mauritian authorities for having put them into unemployment and squalor, it would end us having to politley ask the US to leave (or send an armada to kick them out, yeah right) and it would stop all that troublesome use of royal prerogative to overturn a series of high court judgements in their favour. Everyones a winner again. As long as they bring some clothes, perhaps we could send them all our itchy Shetland jumpers. Or does lapdog Britain not nobly stand up for our plucky island folk when they're not white ... err or US strategic interests are at stake?

I'm not sure there are any players I'm that fussed about meeting. Haev been to a couple of book signings, but only because they were gimmes for a good crimbo present for my brother. Geoff hurst looked thoroughly bored, Paolo Di Canio was a true gent, had time for everyone and even shook me by the hand after a bit of banter. His politics are somewhat dubious mind....

I was just saying the argies are no angels, direct enough for a military man ;-P ------------------------------------------------- "I was paid to lie for my country" Isn't that just a definition of diplomacy full stop? ------------------------------------------------- You don't think the argies could make it effectively impossible or at the very least cost inneffective to actually get oil out of there should they up the stakes (and lose the moral high ground)? Wouldn't a great British compromise be the best way forward, that way everyone (well, the oil companies and the banks as usual) is a winner?

"I have enough friends who own ?1000 emailing machines without needing to join the club myself" so very very true. macbook vs pc. so pointless a debate when a toaster loaded with linux and connected to a keyboard and a teleprint would probably do for most. The quality of the porn is pretty terrible mind, and you'd always get melted butter on it.

My memory tells me it's either a 1-0 or a defeat (usually a thrashing), there is no better nor in between. Yep, looking back to 97, that's exactly the case. http://stats.football365.com/dom/interactive.html

ta for that.

link?

I bet the odds are pretty good on that score cowboy! Still, I'm feeling a little more comfortable about relegation. As quids said many moons ago, I think there are enough worse teams about to save us from the fall.

I think it only fair that I should point, in the light of arguments about rights to claims based upon residency, and the unanimous latin american solidarity in support of Argentine (argentinian? are these interchangeable or is only one correct?) claims *deep breaths, get to the flippin point*, that Argentina has a pretty torrid history in terms of its own native population. It has a smaller native population than any other country in latin america (less than 1% compared to 55% in bolivia (plus another 30% mestizo or mixed descent), and most 'indios' that you see in the streets of Buenos Aires will be immigrants from Chile, Peru, Bolivia etc. The destrucion of the native culture for farming land clearances, could almost certainly be considered genocidal, and most of this occured post independence from Spain, so they don't even have the old 'under the conservative government...' style cop out for this. I just thought that as I was portraying the Brits as, not necessarily unreasonably, at worst immoral and at best cynical imperials, that I shouldn't by implication be painting the Argentines as lovely cuddly types; historically at any rate, may I say as individuals and as a people they are pretty wonderful, if a little bit bonkers...mind you that's what I think about the Brits too ;-). Never in the field of human debate have so few sentences lasted so long to so little end.

Piers and silverfox in agreement about something shcok, leaving alone the uncanny cross-postage!

Of course it didn't hurt that South Korea was considered one of the great lynch pins against communism in the cold war world of asian domino theories, and a tenacious and loyal military ally in the cold war's hotter bushfires; that US investment in the country was huge, compared to negligible investment in Ghana, a strategic backwater. You also do the history of South Korea a disservice with its weak governments, military coups and penchant for serious civil unrest. Meanwhile many kleptocracies are encouraged, both by western governments and multinationals to remain in power to keep the open doors of trade imbalances and resource exploitation going. I do recall (not at the time you understand) poor Guatemala's attempt to achieve good governance being somewhat undermined by the CIA at the behest of a certain orange company. But yes, that good governance encourages progress and growth while bad governance does the opposite does, understandably and largely, hold true.

I'd paraphrase that to say "Poor countries are poor because rich trading blocs are powerful and unscrupulous, AND because [poor countries] are usually badly governed." to make it more accurate, in my opinion of course. Even well governed poor countries tend to remain so. Badly governed rich countries are poor too to be fair.

I thought he invented the phrase "It's all good"

" You say homeopathy is placebo. Placebo tends to have a 25-35% success rate in many trials. Maybe the homeopaths are on to something" But that's rather the point isn't it. Placebo is a little understood and very powerful effect. But homeopathy is simply dressing placebo up as something else. It's pretending to know something that it isn't. It's pseudoscience of the worst sort and a multi billion dollar industry selling essentially snake oil (and people complain about 'allopathic' medecine, sheesh). I've time for homeopathic hospitals, I really do, because they will have a good success rate with placebo. They spend time with patients, they explain what the 'treatments' are intended to do, they reassure and comfort, wrapping the sugared err sugar pill in, well, spiritual sugar. All good. I just wish that's what GPs were able to do more often, hence why I think those resources are better spent allowing that level of service from those prescribing genuine medicine, and why homeopathy should be only in the private sector.

You don't have to be paranoid to post here, but it helps. What is it with everyone today?

*~warning, rampant historical parallels of really limited use* The Roman republic considered that everything was due to it because of its vast superiority over anyone else; but they didn't like the whole idea of actually having to rule anywhere else; they considered that not only beneath them, but a drain of efforts and economics. As they grew, mostly down to the naked ambition of powerful men, it squared the circle of its de facto move towards empire by persuading itself that it had a moral duty to civilise other peoples through direct control. It proved a diversion of it's (far more successful) trade, commerce and industry energies into a vast military industrial machine that eventually collapsed under its own weight once said empire over extended and came under pressures from outside populations. The parallels with the British empire are only too easy to see. We should never kid ourselves that any justification of empire lends any legitimacy at all. Of course having grown up just off the icknield way I'm pretty sure these Isles should actually belong to the Italians ;-)

"If my ships/army are bigger than yours then we can establish sovereignty wherever we want? Is that it?" Historically speaking that would certainly prove a correct statement. Whether in this day and age we should have got past that of course, is another matter entirely.

lest we forget the george osborne one...

Although in all fairness it would probably put me off. Sometimes the destination, however you get there, is more important than the journey.

whilst i guess his willingness to retouch his bullingdonian past could be considered admirable, that all smack of the worst sort of solipsistic, arrogant (not to mention misguided) elitism you could possibly witness. Mind you, look at them....is it any wonder?!

Blimey, even as an oldbie I found all the myriad and intricate cross breeding of threads, streams, memes, politics, personalities (new, old, altered and banned), exasperations and grievances on display here almost impossible to follow (a bit like this, or do I mean that, sentence). And anyway, the butler did it.

Ooh, I've not tried them, may have to give it a go. I've just been bathing mine in warm snake oil every evening and it seems to have done the trick.

"Seriously? It may not have made the hardcore reject violence, but it certainly saw a big shift in the US re financial and political support to the IRA, and Gerry Adams realised that the game was up re violence." I completely agree that affected funding from Noraid but I would argue strongly that Gerry Adams realised the military war was unwninnable in the 80s, ran a clever dual strategy in the 90s and was already working to committing the whole IRA to soley peaceful means prior to 2001. I'd say by the late 90s all but a hardcore were fully committed to a peaceful route even if public pronouncements (for obvious strategic reasons) weren't yet there. I'm not saying 9/11 had no influnce but looking at the timeline of progress I think it's unsupportable to argue that it was a decisive moment, in fact I'd say the Omagh bombing of 1998 had a much much more powerful influence on the mindset of all the communities involved than did 9/11. Anyway, yet another offtopication, I apologise....on the rest of the post I do concur.