mockney piers

"I'm not sure there was any road to Damascus change of mind where the Irish suddenly found themselves to be europeans. except for a few chattering classes liberals. As far as I can see a few people grabbed the money and became very rich, later topping themselves when they realised the emperor didn't have any clothes and the rest took the EEC grants while their farms remained idle. The celtic tiger was really a kitten being weaned in a cage of the EU zoo." Actually bonkers. It's so mad it's unfiskable it's that bad. The one kernel of sense is did 9/11 make Irish terrorism unacceptable? I think they may have feared it did but I dont think it lasted. I think US acceptance of murder and torture immediately undermined a moral high ground; some Irish continue to think the bomb and the armalite are acceptable. Thankfully the vast majority of northern Ireland doesn't. That has come about organically, I really think 9/11 has absolutely zip to do with it all.

Revisiting Deus Ex. Grphically really showing its age, but as spoilt as we've become with bump mapping and blooming and physics and graphic in genereal post half life 2 and far cry, playing it reminds you of just how much is missing from most games, I'd even include Half LIife 2 in that. Decent story and writing and intrigue and interest and suspense. Bioshock came close I guess, but I can't think of anything that matched this old fella since.

It is rather lovely. To point out truths is to side with our current (ever so slightly imaginary) enemies. Tis unbritish to consider elizabeth's stirring words in defence of these isles and also walsingham's torturers. Cromwell's noble stand against tyrrany and also his religious fanticism and wholesale murder of civilians. To reflect on the bravery and chivalry of Agincourt and Crecy whilst pondering on the horrors meted out by English Brigandage. To claim how progressive the British Empire whilst remebering Irish famine and south African concetration camps. These aren't liberal revionisms, they're just examples that the world is a bit nastier and more complex than the simple truths trotted out for us at school would have us believe. My country* right or wrong is a bit pointless. But I like the orwellian reference, in harsher times I doubtless would be up for reeducation to learn those truths a little bit better ;-) *see also Lorca vs Alba etc.

"on the basis of two posts, dangerously smacks of those on the left who have a bizarre alliance with islamic fanatics" wow. have just taken this in. Are you suggesting that Islamic fanatics have an issue and mayhap a vested interested with the opium war of the mid nineteenth century and/or the Falklands conflict, maybe OPEC trying to tie up oil supply? Otherwise not really getting your point.

The fact that it was stipulated in a contract between two parties kind of suggests that both parties felt that it at least pertained to one. But now I guess I'm being pedantic. I would certainly suggest that it would be more natural to consider that rock Chinese than British, but then the Chinese considered themselves the centre of all things and evryone else barbarians. It took them about a century and 40 million dead to learn the lessons that the wider context had a brutal reality on them. The opium war was the first and in all fairness one of the least bloody of those lessons. Plus they do things like considering tibet a natural part of their birthrigt so can hardly hold their heads up high. None of this detracts from the undeniable naughtiness of Britain's actions there, but we are certainly not alone in this behaviour. Neither the first nor the last.

I don't think it's a default position, i think it's a rational position, though I admit that differing points of view can arise, and as in the case of the 1830s, prevail.. As for my interpretation of britain and Hong Kong, as much as anything one reads has to be taken at least a little on trust, from what I have read (and experienced as yes I've been there) I can't really see how there's any other interpretation other than we did a bit of nasty gunboat diplomacy to pursue immoral ends and forced a country to cede some land in order to more easily allow us to pursue said immoral policy. Unless you think an open door policy to the drugs trade is a good thing? There's certainly an argument that we should allow that from Columbia, thus cutting out the nasty mexican smuggling middlemen and the scary columbial production cartels and just buy good product from the farmers, controlled by legal domestic distribution and taxed accordingly (apparently 1/5th of the government income in the 1850s derived from tax on opium sales to china), but that's a discussion for another thread.

But totally agree on the brilliance and pragmatism of the compromises by al those concerned regard the settlement of hong kong . Nothing is ideal but it's a bout as good anyone could have hoped for. The portugese method with Macao was truly bizarre; just go and something pretty much has to happen as a result. Oh, and magpie, cheap jibes about noone supporting britain smacks horribly of the 'they hate america' rhetoric amployed by the right against anyone who has something of a realistic and considered opinion rahter than fanatical jingoistic support. As Modern Warfare keeps informing me every time I die, with it's in game philosophical quotes "Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles"

"in that no fecker lived there / wanted it until the Brits built a colony" talking of quislings? The treaty of Nanking being the entirely imposed one on an enemy we defeated in an entirely illegal war (condemned in the house of commons once they finally got to hear about it) prosecuted to allow us to have an ideal spot to continue making an awful lot of money selling indian drugs to the chinese despite desperate implorations by the Chinese government that we stop heaping misery on them...that one? I know you know that, so the drawing of parallels is all the worse for that.

"It is also worth noting that a country?s sovereignty or claim to territory does not rely on whether Britain recognises it or not." Spot on. "Although the cynic in me does suspects that any large country could very quickly forget about a few thousand islanders who want to be part of it if their islands weren?t of some strategically advantage" Diego Garcia springs to mind. We didn't seem to be so keen to follow their interests as subjects of british protection. Indeed the government(s) have rebuffed their claims despite repeatedly having been found wrong in both international and domestic courts/tribunals. And i don't think anyone has said it was all about oil. I think the implication has been that the goal posts have moved since the size of the oil deposits has been realised. it will however be very expensive oil to bring up. there will come a point where it's worth our while, and it can only be done with full cooperation from argentina. If it had all been about hanging on to them because of the oil we wouldnt have been trying to perusade the islanders to accept changed sovereignty would we, which again rather undermnes the whole terrirtorial claims nonsense. But the will of the inhabitants, not even in this case a majority but genuine unanimity, should be respected, and we were probably right to uphold their desires over those of a miltary junta; though the cynic in me would certainly say that it suited a political expediency agenda rather than upholding the rights of man, as the aforementioned Diego Garcia would certainly suggest.

Plus Rachel Stirling (emma peel's daughter no less) is something of a cutie. But yes, I've been reading very good reviews of this production.

anyway, ancient history; a compromise will eventually worked out. We were actually trying to be shot of them a while back, but were unable to persuade the islanders to go for changed sovereignty. Of course all a bit different now there's lots of oil in them thar waters.

Great link PGC; Brendan, because when Briotain recognised the newly formed Argentinian state it recognised her territorial integrity and Argentina was recognised to have to be in possession of them when Britain reneged on that and took them again in 1833. I'm pretty sure that they'd have been happy to lease them to us as a useful naval stopover, but we just helped ourselves. Oh and loved the bit about the Monroe doctrine principal of not wanting foreign influence in the americas, when what it really means is European influence.

Choice words. Doesn't deny that we nicked it off the argies, i never said there was anyone living there. Theft is still theft. Just because you have squatters doesn't mean they own the house now does it. But it was a long time ago and possession is i guess 9/10ths. By the spanish claim token of course, we should really get washington back shouldn't we?

with all that oil I dont think the UK can afford not to hang on to them surely.

Theyre just trying to get a better negotiating position. We won't be able to get he oil out logistically without argentinian cooperation. They just pushing for a better slice of the oil pie when the deal is inevitably made. And do remember that we nicked it off them in the first place. Other than the falklands/malvinas sticking point, Argentinians have a huge amount of repsect and love of all things British. I've been there, indeed my brother used to live there, and we Brits are suprisingly popular there.

A slight aside, but NATO didn't really have anything to do for 50 years did it. It has struggled to define a role in the post cold war world and it's failed to get most members to engage in NATO operations in Afghanistan. I'm not saying a European army is the way forward, nut it would make alot of sense financially. Europe spent almost as much on military spending (well, post peace dividend, pre war on terror at any rate) as the US with only a fraction of its military capability to show for it. I tend to agree wih quids that you can be pro European but still question the direction of European integrtion. After all we managed to avoid war when it was just the common Market, pre European Union didn't we.

hofpully

Networks and systems just moved to pimlico. I'm guessing new ip addresses. Huzzah!!!

Ahem; I gather our lisby is the real deal, in no way affiliated to those who would huff and puff a house down. Apologies. Back to that beauty contest then....

oh my god, i can see this on a proper browser at work....what happened? Oh great, 12 months here moderating on a blimmin fiddly iPhone, and the day i give it up........

Or a wolf?

Thise damned clowns have struck again. Damn them to hell and back!!!!!

I think brum was whingieng about people whingeing (sp?) about smilies. He feels it undermines users and is divisive. See I can step in and implore calm, peace and understanding without mod powers and a symbol by my name cowing people into submission. I don't think explicity marking out mods as seperate is good for the place as a whole. Liking the imperial march, I'd have gone with Galactic Funk Droid's Disco though. *edited to say big cross post on everyone and I'm glad that i was right about the whole self moderating thing. Ooh and thanks for your kind words ladymuck*

Vince. If you want to know who the real moderators are it's the forumites who participate on the threads. Who have good humour; they cajole, prod, suggest and occasionally rebuke. I've said many a time that this forum is 98% self moderating because it has such a good community. The real moderators are the users who are always positive contributors; the seans, the *Bob*s, the Keefs, the brendans, the bellendenbelles and the peckhamGateCrashers and anyone clad in proverbial tweed. They are those who were once newcomers and railed against the authorities like leagleEagleish or quids and realised that they actually liked the place and the people. They are the ones who report innapropriate posts or threads in the wrong room, kalamityKel and cate are absolute troopers in that respect. And there are new moderators all the time, those who have stumbled upon this place and invested emotionally over a period of time. The ladymucks and the daizies and the Mick macs and the declans. Who presses the move-thread button twenty times a day is irrelevant and their voice carries no more weight than anyone who obviously cares about the place. The above names are just a few, there are so many more and the place wouldn't be the same without them. Well done all of you I say. I'll continue to pipe up if someone is bullying or shouting or being uncivil and my voice will carry the same weight, no more no less, than if you choose to do the same.

That's more or less it Declan. I personally stood up for someone. As PGC and Bob said, the thread was drunkenly ill judged. I'm sure most have regretted drinking and calling/posting in the past; it happens. My vouching has nothing to do with my old moderator responsibilities and wolf's permanent banning is long long long overdue in my opinion, he's been indulged more than all other tightrope walking posters put together. Again my personal opinions and posts are not relevant here especially as that was a decision i was not in a position to make; merely an opinion offered. I'd love to know what people think moderation involves. It's all about making sure things are in the right place. Politely PMing people informing them that you've put a theed in the offers section. Occasionaly fixing picture links or shrinking huge embedded pictures so they don't bend pages out of shape. It isn't about power it's about holding hands and helping the place run more smoothly than it otherwise might. Can I just say that I think the admin team are absolutely brilliant, and they really care which is all that is important. round of applause and hats off to you chap(esse)s. And yes I vouch for them personally too seeing as im apparently finally allowed an opinion. Quids is quite right to blame HAL. I blame HAL. He's been working on this for a while, and from what I am able to glean from his online persona, I believe this has actually been a strategy and I hope he's happy that his long term goal has been realised. I'm only ashamed that I've thrown on the towel, but there's only so much criticism you can put up with for something you do voluntarily before it becomes too much. As my dad would say 'i wasn't born to suffer' so fuck it frankly. But a million thanks for the kind words and messages of support from people; you honestly don't know how much it means to me.