"What was the line of questioning on WATO that made Comrade Jeremy angry?"
Initially it was very similar to the K G-M interview on C4 News a while back. Martha tried cutting across him and his voice rose a few octaves. From then on whenever he was interrupted or contradicted, the contempt in his voice was palpable.
Actually I think this is quite illuminating. It's not the questions themselves that irk him as in his mind he has a perfectly reasonable response to any query. It's the refusal of the questioner to accept his answer as being satisfactory that clearly gets to him. It's almost as if he thinks his world view is the only one with any merit.
With respect a Headmaster could hardly claim that he was unaware that the law had changed in Autumn 1987! I rather suspect that if confronted with the accusation - which he openly admitted to his staff - that he would confess his guilt and so avoid any need for a drawn out trial.The evidence is pretty overwhelming and I cannot believe that former members of staff would be likely to lie under oath to protect him should he deny it.
Yes - sorry - those were two separate points. I appreciate that could have been clearer. The first paragraph was on the Head you mentioned - I fully agree you are right, that is clearly criminal behaviour, but I doubt if a prosecution could be launched after this lapse of time.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
But prosecutions have been launched for sexual offences dating back a good deal earlier than 1987. I accept that what I am referring to is a much less serious offence but that would surely be reflected in any sentence imposed.
Yes but - forgive me - they are specifically excluded from statutes of limitations, as are cases of murder. For common assault, which is what this would be, my understanding is a complaint has to be lodged within six months of the event. 1987 was 28 years ago. I also pointed out why, even if I am wrong on that point, I don't think it would get very far. Whether that is morally right or wrong is a different question. Clearly, hitting people, especially children, is not a good thing to do. But the law is involved with realpolitik.
To sum up, I believe the original material you quoted to be wrong on several key points regarding the likely possibility of successful prosecution and I have explained my reasons for so thinking. I hope you found them interesting even if you disagree with them.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
"He is far from a dangerous man. He is a very honoured citizen. He represents his people extremely well. His is a voice that must be heard... I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it."
''I've never felt that I was in a situation that would be improved by the use of violence.''
You make some excellent points very lucidly, but corporal punishment wasn't for the benefit of teachers. It was for ordinary law abiding pupils who wanted to get on with their lives. They almost never got whacked. And, arguably, disruptive kids who f8cked up their sh8t, did. (though I concede many on here experienced otherwise so maybe I'm wrong).
It looks pretty evasive to me. 'Has no recollection'; 'In the late 1990s/in the past'; 'is not speaking [when the question was, 'accepted an invitation']' and talking of the use of the word 'friends' as a diplomatic gambit when he is (A) not a diplomat and (B) was not doing anything useful to promote peace. I think this doesn't really put the problems to bed, although no doubt it will be enough for his followers to once again start their ravings about his brilliance and media bias against him.
Jezbollah wasn't even answering their questions himself - 'Jeremy has no recollection', 'Jeremy is deeply moved'. Some earnest Spad giving wishy washy answers.
"It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where my friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invite my friends from Hamas to speak as well."
If this is just diplomatic language, rather than genuine affection, I look forward to someone linking clips of him describing Israeli politicians and American Republicans as friends.
"To become Prime Minister, the next leader needs to consistently advocate the kind of vision and policy agenda that rehabilitates the Labour brand, creates enthusiasm amongvoters and shows personal readiness to lead the country. The party should pick the leader that can most naturally play that role, not pick a leader they like and hope will make an electorally adroit ideological adjustment in office."
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Yes but - forgive me - they are specifically excluded from statutes of limitations, as are cases of murder. For common assault, which is what this would be, my understanding is a complaint has to be lodged within six months of the event. 1987 was 28 years ago. I also pointed out why, even if I am wrong on that point, I don't think it would get very far. Whether that is morally right or wrong is a different question. Clearly, hitting people, especially children, is not a good thing to do. But the law is involved with realpolitik.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
I think with children the statue of limitation clock doesn't start ticking until you reach your majority, and in certain limited circumstances might extend for two years, but essentially if you are over 20 you are wasting your time.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
More importantly, has he described them as his friends? After all, it's diplomatic language used to make everyone play nice, rather than a term of sympathy.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Indeed, in the piece I've written for the weekend, I've pointed out Corbyn's always been very open and honest about meeting up with Sinn Fein.
Whereas John Major misled* the House of Commons about talking to the IRA when he said 'It would turn my stomach [talking to the IRA]'
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Two issues arise from this.
Firstly, is that really what he was doing (or thought he was doing)? His reported words appear rather at odds with that.
Secondly, the government may well have its own contacts and dialogue with such people and groups (and, in fact probably does). Having a wildcard going in and giving contrary views might be far from helpful.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
More importantly, has he described them as his friends? After all, it's diplomatic language used to make everyone play nice, rather than a term of sympathy.
The kind of idiot who gets married and then proceeds to cheat. If you're thinking with down there, then common sense tends to go out the window.
I have no knowledge of this particular website, but the number of commercial websites with simply shocking security is ridiculous. One wonders how many more respectable computer dating agencies are looking more nervously at their subscription counts. Largely the problem is that flashy bullshit on your website tends to introduce lots of bugs and vulnerabilities, where as a more plain functional website is much easier to secure, but tough to get past the marketing department - maybe a few more high visibility cases might start to change peoples minds... probably not.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
More importantly, has he described them as his friends? After all, it's diplomatic language used to make everyone play nice, rather than a term of sympathy.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Having a wildcard going in and giving contrary views might be far from helpful.
I'm reminded of David Miliband's disastrous trip to India.
To get round DT subs, if you use FFox - go to Tools, Options, Privacy - delete individual cookies - type Telegraph into the field and press Delete All.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hattie was actually right about forcing Labour to have either a female leader or deputy.
Up until this point, I thought it was part of her Hatemen feminism that's been her main agenda for 30yrs.
Now, perhaps she had a point - compelling Labour to have ovaries as a default seems to be the only way it's going to happen. I suspect she knows the Party better than the rest of us on this one.
Possibly. However, since it was her decision to resign the deputy leadership before the outcome of the leadership election was known, if they end up with two men she will only have herself to blame. I suspect, with her usual mix of arrogance and ineptitude, she thought Cooper would walk the first one and therefore it didn't matter who the deputy leader was.
Thank you Plato. In fact, I found it even easier in the end by following your advice - I don't use Firefox much, so I open it and away I go!
Until the day they implant cookies by IP address or computer rather than browser, I suppose.
Would you walk into your local newsagent and steal something from the shelves?
Well - I walk round and read the headlines. Does that count?
You can read the headlines in the Telegraph without breaching the paywall. I do wonder why some people think that getting around digital security systems so as to obtain something for free is somehow alright. Honest citizens who would never dream of stealing anything physical will cheerfully and casually loot a web-site and even, as we have seen on here this morning, post instructions to help others do the same.
A person uses their knowledge, skill and talents to create something which they then try and sell. If it is a physical object then to steal it is wrong, but if it is electronic it's fair game. It is an attitude that I just do not understand.
Thought provoking. What is even stranger is that I don't think it is right to download films or music from illegal "free" sites (so I don't) but I really don't have too much of a problem reading more than my entitlement of the Telegraph or the FT. Hmm...the etiquette of the internet. I will need to think some more about this.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, the man Mr Corbyn claims not to know and who has condoned the killing of British soliders in Iraq, has written a 1,017-word blog about his links to the North Islington MP.
In it he explains how they met, declares himself a supporter of Mr Corbyn and again repeats that British soliders in Iraq are a "legitimate target for resistance".
Key quotes are below. He also challenges the claim he is anti-Semitic, responding in detail that can be read over in the full post here.
ON HOW HE MET CORBYN
Quote I have briefly met and collaborated with Jeremy Corbyn in 2009. We organised a debate at the British parliament where Corbyn, myself, and Hezbullah MP, and current Lebanese government minister, Hussein Haj Hassan spoke. A day before, we had also spoken together at a rally of the British anti-war movement. Corbyn’s openness to dialogue is what made the visit possible. The pro-Israel lobby then woke up and started a smear campaign against me resulting in a hasty and unjustified decision by the interior minister to deny me re-entry to the UK. That campaign had almost the same content of the current campaign that is spearheaded by the pro-Israel lobby and the conservatives. The claims are that I am anti-Semitic, that I am a bigot, and that I rejoice the death of British soldiers.
ON WHY BRITISH SOLDIERS ARE 'LEGITIMATE TARGETS'
Quote As for rejoicing the death of British occupation soldiers in Iraq, this is a misrepresentation of a position that I still uphold until this day. The occupation and destruction of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful, criminal and a crime against humanity. We still witness the repercussions of that terrible crime until this day. The criminals responsible for it, including Tony Blair, are still at large enjoying impunity. Every soldier taking part in an illegal occupation is a legitimate target for resistance. This is a guaranteed right to occupied people under international law. But rejoicing the death of people, even enemy soldiers, is not something that I would do. Rejoicing the victory of peoples resistance against occupation, is another matter.
ON WHY HE SUPPORTS CORBYN
Quote Yes, I do support Jeremy Corbyn, and I am hopeful he will win the leadership of Labour and help build a better future for the British people. I am like Mr Corbyn a socialist, and we do share similar values. This does not mean that I agree with him on everything and I am sure that he also disagrees with me on some things. He was not my cheerleader then and I am not his cheerleader now, serious people do not reason in these terms.
FerFuxSake, the New Statesman have nicked the Star Wars reference I was planning to use this weekend.
twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/633991056095334400
Jeremy is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy-field created by all living things. He surrounds us, he penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.
One way of seeking redress against a particularly sadistic teacher might be to launch a publicity campaign - but it's not difficult to imagine that could start a libel action.
So all in all, I would advise you that whatever grievance you have against your former teachers, it doesn't seem likely that you would get very far with it, and it might lead to a lot more mud being thrown at you which would be unpleasant for you.
Out of curiosity, what was the source of your earlier quotation?
EDIT - Some of the other comments rather go to prove my point!
Let me first make it clear that I do not personally have an axe to grind here in that I never suffered anything beyond being hit over the head with a text book! Nevertheless I have always felt strongly about people in power and authority who abuse their positions - whether politicians - judges- clergymen - policemen - or schoolteachers and believe they should be held to account. The various sexual abuse cases relating to celebrities - many dating back decades - has brought to my mind the fact that many teachers DID abuse their positions by punishing pupils in unauthorised ways. I am not being retrospective here - but seeking to apply the law as it then stood. It particularly offends my sense of justice that boys - sometimes girls too - were punished for often minor misdemeanours or breaches of school rules by teachers who then proceeded to break the law of the land and to commit a criminal offence It raises the question as to who was most in need of correction! I was not aware that a six month limit applies to criminal offences. Most people to this day remain totally unaware that when such things happened to them they were actually victims of criminal behaviour. I have a sister-in-law who taught at a Primary School. She has referred on a number of occasions to what happened at her school following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools in Autumn 1987. Her Headmaster continued to plimsoll 10 and 11 year old boys until the early 1990s and justified so doing on the basis that 'the parents agreed with him.' Those lads would now be in their mid to late 30s, and I would be surprised if they did not have a cause of action should they wish to press the matter.
Completely disagree with your point of view. Dredging up the past is usually a mistake unless serious crimes are involved IMO. I think there ought to be a statue of limitations for minor crimes like there is in almost every other country in the world.
To be fair, you can see that it might seem like a better idea than using the home email...
It's easy enough to create a throw-away, short-term and one-purpose email account.
And it's easier than losing your job for inappropriate use of work computers.
I'd expect a much bigger risk is the spouse discovering the credit card statement. I wonder how the payment appears ...
Paypal
As an aside, the Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset has resigned, after her stored, received and sent "intimate emails and text messages" on his phone, misconduct report reveals
Way back when in the late 90s, it was pornographers and bookmakers who led the way with internet security and e-commerce in the UK. It ended up including online players too - so was termed Girls, Games and Gaming.
The kind of idiot who gets married and then proceeds to cheat. If you're thinking with down there, then common sense tends to go out the window.
I have no knowledge of this particular website, but the number of commercial websites with simply shocking security is ridiculous. One wonders how many more respectable computer dating agencies are looking more nervously at their subscription counts. Largely the problem is that flashy bullshit on your website tends to introduce lots of bugs and vulnerabilities, where as a more plain functional website is much easier to secure, but tough to get past the marketing department - maybe a few more high visibility cases might start to change peoples minds... probably not.
But Nick, do you think Corbyn in his wildest imagination could ever have imagined he would be a serious candidate for Labour leader.
Jezza's walked through his entire political career as a serial protestor, which is fine- it enriches the political debate- but realistically he has never seen himself as a potential leader. He only went into this one because it was his turn- not quite that burning ambition that the likes of Brown had.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Completely disagree with your point of view. Dredging up the past is usually a mistake unless serious crimes are involved IMO. I think there ought to be a statue of limitations for minor crimes like there is in almost every other country in the world.
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” - Confucius
''Jeremy is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy-field created by all living things. He surrounds us, he penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.''
Corporal punishment is not coming back, and quite frankly if there is a disciplinary issue with children then the education system ought to find other solutions than merely the threat of violence. Thankfully, the hard-right of the Conservative party do not have that much influence.
More's the pity. I always thought that teachers campaigning for an end to corporal punishment were like turkeys campaigning for Christmas.
I don't think it's a pity at all. Good on the teachers for realising kids aren't things to beat up.
Hmm It's not about "beating up" at all. I vaguely remember getting tapped on the back of the hand with a cane once at prep school - the symbolism and 'fear' of the cane acted as far more of a detterent, than any physical punishment. As @Taffys says, it protects hard working head down types.
But it shouldn't even be there as a deterrent. I was one of the hard working head down types, and for me it would have created an environment of fear.
Honestly, it really wasn't anything to fear - unless you were an unruly sort. I think the majority of 'canings' when I was at school were a swift tap on the back of the hand. It was the shame and worry involved of getting your name read out in assembly that was the real detterent. My name was never read out in assembly, thankfully !
When I was at school the names of those to be beaten were read out in morning assembly and then we would form an orderly queue outside the Headmaster's study. Beatings usually six strokes of the cane across the bent over bottom, were a regular but not too frequent occurrence. Mainly they were given for the offence of under age smoking or, more rarely, a sixth former smoking other than in the sixth form common room.
Very seldom were beatings administered for actual indiscipline in the classroom, probably because there wasn't any such behaviour that warranted it, and only once that I can remember for for acts indiscipline elsewhere (an incident involving the creative use of a fire extinguisher). However, it was perfectly possible to receive a thick ear or a kick up the arse if one didn't behave as per spec during sports afternoons. Indeed I can remember being made to capsize my canoe in the River Thames in mid-February for the offence of "acting the goat with malice aforethought".
All of that was perfectly normal in those days, mild in comparison to some schools. The idea now that I should trace down some teacher and sue him for assault or whatever is laughable.
Any abuse that Kendall receives is utterly justified, the individual is the worst type of politician and a pretty poor excuse for a human being.
No, abuse is never justified, especially of colleagues. Full stop.
And that's why people such as Liz Kendall act in a disgraceful manner. The consequences of such action has been made socially unacceptable. You aren't allowed to call a despicable scumbag a despicable scumbag despite that being a factually accurate description.
The best example of this is with the bulk of people in social deprivation. The reason they are poor is because they are thick and/or lazy. Societally this description is completely unacceptable. They are "vulnerable" and need "support". It's a ridiculous state of affairs.
It seems bizarre but in general, people don't actually observe the way that Newspeak of 1984 is now thoroughly extant in the United Kingdom.
Are you seriously saying that because political correctness just might have gone a little too far, that means it's OK for strangers to call Liz kendall "c**t", "witch" etc?
I would not have a problem with some labour supporters vehemently disagreeing with Liz Kendall, saying that they think she should not be in the party even, but personal abuse on that level is surely in a another category, and has to be unacceptable?
She wants to drag Labour to the centre, she's not Le Pen!
''Jeremy is what gives a Jedi his power. He is an energy-field created by all living things. He surrounds us, he penetrates us. He binds the Galaxy together.''
Completely disagree with your point of view. Dredging up the past is usually a mistake unless serious crimes are involved IMO. I think there ought to be a statue of limitations for minor crimes like there is in almost every other country in the world.
“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” - Confucius
A slightly creepy analogy, but to continue it and be more accurate, you would be saying:
-'Person A is worse than Person B because Person A raped their next door neighbour, and Person B hasn't raped their next door neighbour for a long time'
And me replying:
-'Firstly, the location of the rape is totally irrelevant because Person B has been raping and pillaging everyone else with impunity ever since they came of age, to a far greater extent than Person A could even dream of, and secondly, their next door neighbour is their slave, so absolutely no need to risk breaking the law to get what they want.'
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
He got scratchy when the second or third charge of anti-semitism was levelled against him. His fluency and passion made it easy to believe that he was a peacemaker without a vituperative bone in his body.
His problem is that in the dark (heady) days of protest, he aligned himself with anyone who sought to challenge the Western free market capitalist liberal orthodoxy; a strategy of my enemy's enemy is my friend which put him into bed with Hamas, PIRA, Hezbollah, Greenham Women, you name it, etc.
As potential leader of the Labour Party, however, he is now part of that hated establishment. But he has to live with those previous associations and cannot unmake that bed.
In one way it is analagous to Cam's Bullingdon days but far far less forgiveable given that Corbyn was an actual MP and not a drunken student at the time.
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.
Neither did it annex Siam - Siam was independent throughout the Colonial period, Japanese occupation notwithstanding.
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.
It became a protectorate, with no say over its foreign affairs. That counts as annexation in my book.
To truly understand the history of states and empires, you must understand that annexation, or indeed military action of any kind, is a sign of weakness not strength. The British Empire was at it's strongest in 1850, but reached the height of its territorial extent after World War 1. This is because having a sphere of influence is far better than holding the territory. When you're the big boy in the playground you can get whatever you want from weaker states without paying to control them militarily or put in infrastructure etc. When you are threatened by rivals, as happened to Britain in the latter part of the 19th century, you are forced to take control - which is also why the US is growing more and more militarily aggressive - to use its current military advantage to compete with the growth of China.
The analogy would be Person B's father having raped someone before. No-one currently serving in the US government has been involved in the annexation of any country. The very highest levels of the Russian government have. In both the First and Second World War, when the US still wasn't ascendant in world affairs, they occupied large chunks of Europe and gave all of it back to the nations in question. During the early Cold War, when the US was evenly matched with the USSR, and the latter annexed large swathes of Eastern Europe, the US never annexed anywhere.
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
Afghanistan was never formally annexed, neither was Sikkim. Afghanistan was even able to declare war on Britain in 1919, and as a consequence won full autonomy in foreign affairs. Sikkim only became part of (Independent) India in 1975.
It became a protectorate, with no say over its foreign affairs. That counts as annexation in my book.
No, annexation means annexation. How was Afghanistan able to declare war on Britain in 1919 if it was annexed?
That said looking at those Corbyn replies he appears very naive.
Out of curiosity, has Corbyn ever met any one from like the UVF or Israeli extremists?
I don't know if he's met the UVF, but he's talked with Israeli ultra-nationalists who favour permanent occupation of the West Bank. So far as I know (and I've known him on and off for 40 years), he's always taken the position that he'll meet anyone if it might be helpful i understanding what's happening.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Yes - sorry - those were two separate points. I appreciate that could have been clearer. The first paragraph was on the Head you mentioned - I fully agree you are right, that is clearly criminal behaviour, but I doubt if a prosecution could be launched after this lapse of time.
The second one was because you described the pre-1987 offences as an abuse of power (board rubbers, cuffing etc.). I was explaining why I thought it unlikely the courts would agree, rendering any prosecution rather pointless.
But prosecutions have been launched for sexual offences dating back a good deal earlier than 1987. I accept that what I am referring to is a much less serious offence but that would surely be reflected in any sentence imposed.
Yes but - forgive me - they are specifically excluded from statutes of limitations, as are cases of murder. For common assault, which is what this would be, my understanding is a complaint has to be lodged within six months of the event. 1987 was 28 years ago. I also pointed out why, even if I am wrong on that point, I don't think it would get very far. Whether that is morally right or wrong is a different question. Clearly, hitting people, especially children, is not a good thing to do. But the law is involved with realpolitik.
To sum up, I believe the original material you quoted to be wrong on several key points regarding the likely possibility of successful prosecution and I have explained my reasons for so thinking. I hope you found them interesting even if you disagree with them.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
I found this on a website relating to Statutes of :imitation. 'In the UK most crimes can be prosecuted regardless of the length of time that has elapsed since they were committed. This includes, for example, serious violence, robbery, burglary, theft, sexual offences, murder and many other offences.
However, minor crimes cannot be prosecuted after six months. This includes, for example, violence that does not cause an injury, driving offences, among others. If the crime is racially motivated then the six month limit may be extended to twelve months.'
Perhaps the key phrase here re-minor crimes would be 'did not cause an injury.' Such an injury could, I imagine, be mental or psychological and the mere fact that he felt the need to bring the action might provide some prima facie evidence of that!
"It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in parliament where my friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invite my friends from Hamas to speak as well."
If this is just diplomatic language, rather than genuine affection, I look forward to someone linking clips of him describing Israeli politicians and American Republicans as friends.
Who was he speaking to? There was a black '...G20...' poster in the background - so presumably it was the great unwashed anti G20/ G8/7 mob. This surely is the point - not Corbyn, not even Hamas - but the people he represents and who will select the next bunch of Labour candidates..
I remember at primary school in the late 80s / early 90s there was a teacher who used to push children in the back pretty hard so that they almost fell over if they'd done something wrong. Even at the time I thought it was probably against the law but no-one ever complained about it and I think the parents probably would have supported the teacher at that time.
I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect. Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Interesting. It's been rejected twice before, over efficacy, safety and questions about whether FHSD (female hypoactive sexual disorder) as actually a disease or just marketing bullsh*t.
Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".
It was an illegal declaration of war, because foreign policy was in the hands of the UK.
My dictionary states annexing is to "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation"
It also says appropriation is to "take (something) for one's own use".
The UK took Afghanistan for its own use in foreign policy. And it was coloured red on British maps.
Which maps are these?
"Ostensibly, the country remained independent, however under the Treaty of Gandamak (1879) it accepted that in external matters it would "...have no windows looking on the outside world, except towards India".[9]
"Despite considerable resentment over not being consulted over the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 (Convention of St. Petersburg), Afghanistan remained neutral during the First World War (1914–18), resisting considerable pressure from the Ottoman Empire when it entered the conflict on the side of Imperial Germany and the Sultan (as titular leader of Islam) called for a holy war against the Allies.[12]"
I remember at primary school in the late 80s / early 90s there was a teacher who used to push children in the back pretty hard so that they almost fell over if they'd done something wrong. Even at the time I thought it was probably against the law but no-one ever complained about it and I think the parents probably would have supported the teacher at that time.
The pendulum has swung to far the other way now but in the past parents were far too deferential to teachers and authority in general. There was a naïve view that teachers, policemen and many professional people were almost always right and could be relied upon to act correctly. We now appreciate what nonsense that was.
I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect. Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Interesting. It's been rejected twice before, over efficacy, safety and questions about whether FHSD (female hypoactive sexual disorder) as actually a disease or just marketing bullsh*t.
Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".
Does the pill have physical or psychological effects?
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).
I see a 'female libido pill' has been given approval in the USA. Frightening prospect. Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Interesting. It's been rejected twice before, over efficacy, safety and questions about whether FHSD (female hypoactive sexual disorder) as actually a disease or just marketing bullsh*t. Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".
Does the pill have physical or psychological effects?
I shall not get involved in the inaccuracies in your list, The Cap'n Comrade Doc, is already doing that. However, in presenting the list that you do to support your argument that GB as the "Top Dog" went around annex countries I fear you are being too simplistic. Many places that became colonies or parts of colonies were annexed despite the wishes of the government in London.
Two of the most obvious and biggest examples are the annexations in India in the late 18th century by the Wellesley Brothers (for which the elder was nearly impeached) and Zululand in 1879 the Zulu war being engineered and by local officials in direct contravention of the expressed wishes of London. There were lots of other examples too. All told the British Empire grew in the 19th century less from policy and design and more from accident, local events, people exceeding their instructions in an age when communications with Whitehall took months, oh, and a need to keep the Frogs out.
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PM
But Nick, do you think Corbyn in his wildest imagination could ever have imagined he would be a serious candidate for Labour leader.
Jezza's walked through his entire political career as a serial protestor, which is fine- it enriches the political debate- but realistically he has never seen himself as a potential leader. He only went into this one because it was his turn- not quite that burning ambition that the likes of Brown had.
I think that's right, but although I like Gordon and think he did a decent job in impossible circumstances, I'm not sure that it did him or anyone else any good to be consumed by ambition: it messed up an initially sound relationship with Tony and made governing substantially harder.
Corbyn sees his candidacy as representing a broad progressive movement, and the latter as much more important than his personal position. I'm sure he'd agree that if he dropped dead tomorrow, people should have a 1-minute silence and then resume work on the project. I think that's quite attractive.
the Tories took 300 years to have their first female leader, so labour still have a couple of centuries before they're behind. Also the Cons have to be fair only had one, hardly a huge leap from none. Labour of course has a much higher percentage of female MPs, so I don't think we can accuse the party of being sexist. Still I'd like to see a female leader one day, shame the current candidates were so absolutely dreadful.
On which note I just voted - Leader - just Corbyn Deputy - Creasy, Watson, Eagle Mayor - Khan, Abbott, Lammy, then the other two I can't even remember, Jowell gets nothing
I might join the Labour Party proper at this rate!
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PM
That requires:
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election (b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest (c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election (d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PM
That looks to me (as per isam) like a true trading bet. The next Prime Minister will almost certainly be a Conservative. If David Cameron steps down in this term, he will probably do so before the end of the term to allow his successor some time to get his or her feet under the table. Given that he has averred again recently that he is not going to stand again, I don't see any true value in any Labour politician's price in this market.
But the 8/1 on Jeremy Corbyn looks likely to shorten.
I started my list with "parts of", so some of them were not annexations of the entire country.
On Afghanistan, I accept the annexation was never that successful!
Protectorates are protectorates! They are NOT annexed territories. Afghanistan still had an Emir and was never administered by the Viceroy in Calcutta (later Delhi)!
The relationship was more akin to the Gulf States (eg. Bahrain), which were likewise never formally annexed to the Empire.
Here is a 1915 map of the Empire showing present day Pakistan as the northwestern frontier:
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PM
That requires:
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election (b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest (c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election (d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.
I know, I was comparing it to the 2/1 on Labour winning most seats at the next GE,
Just taken the 3.0 on betfair for Yvette to come 2nd. She might even be favourite for that (notwithstanding that Burnham has a better chance of winning than she does).
I'm contemplating taking the 8/1 on Jez as next PM
That requires:
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election (b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest (c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election (d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.
If Labour is doing well and look like they might win, all the more reason for someone to knife Corbyn. If they're doing badly, half the PLP will knife him. His happy zone, such as it is, is standing still.
The final news organisation to move out of Fleet Street will be gone soon. Reuters started moving out in June and will finish the process by the end of this month:
The final news organisation to move out of Fleet Street will be gone soon. Reuters started moving out in June and will finish the process by the end of this month:
Comments
http://order-order.com/2015/08/19/government-adulterers-exposed/
"What was the line of questioning on WATO that made Comrade Jeremy angry?"
Initially it was very similar to the K G-M interview on C4 News a while back. Martha tried cutting across him and his voice rose a few octaves. From then on whenever he was interrupted or contradicted, the contempt in his voice was palpable.
Actually I think this is quite illuminating. It's not the questions themselves that irk him as in his mind he has a perfectly reasonable response to any query. It's the refusal of the questioner to accept his answer as being satisfactory that clearly gets to him. It's almost as if he thinks his world view is the only one with any merit.
Who'd a thunk it?
To sum up, I believe the original material you quoted to be wrong on several key points regarding the likely possibility of successful prosecution and I have explained my reasons for so thinking. I hope you found them interesting even if you disagree with them.
With that, I'm off for lunch. Have a good afternoon, everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJDPV7hEsdc
"He is far from a dangerous man. He is a very honoured citizen. He represents his people extremely well. His is a voice that must be heard... I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it."
You make some excellent points very lucidly, but corporal punishment wasn't for the benefit of teachers. It was for ordinary law abiding pupils who wanted to get on with their lives. They almost never got whacked. And, arguably, disruptive kids who f8cked up their sh8t, did. (though I concede many on here experienced otherwise so maybe I'm wrong).
Q7 Why did you describe David Irving, a man convicted of the holocaust, as an ‘honoured citizen’?
had been used ^_~
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/633985886758289408
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ
If this is just diplomatic language, rather than genuine affection, I look forward to someone linking clips of him describing Israeli politicians and American Republicans as friends.
Looks like I'll have to start locking myself in the shed.
Hmmm. Alan Johnson it is.
It's possible to argue that it's naive and it certainly risks trouble, but as he says, if you only meet people you agree with, you never help to solve anything. The fatal flaw of the early N Ireland peace process was that only people who weren't really causing serious trouble were engaged.
Whereas John Major misled* the House of Commons about talking to the IRA when he said 'It would turn my stomach [talking to the IRA]'
*Depends on your definition of misled
Firstly, is that really what he was doing (or thought he was doing)? His reported words appear rather at odds with that.
Secondly, the government may well have its own contacts and dialogue with such people and groups (and, in fact probably does). Having a wildcard going in and giving contrary views might be far from helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5Ur5E61sKY
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/633991056095334400
And it's easier than losing your job for inappropriate use of work computers.
I'd expect a much bigger risk is the spouse discovering the credit card statement. I wonder how the payment appears ...
The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.
As quoted by Paul Johnson in "Failure of the Feminists", The Spectator, 12 March, 2011.
Last time I looked it was Owen Patterson, Tory MP who believed in homeopathy and didn't believe in Climate Change.
http://www.quora.com/What-do-climate-skepticism-Holocaust-denial-homeopathy-and-intelligent-design-have-in-common
Dyab Abou Jahjah Binks ?
As an aside, the Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset has resigned, after her stored, received and sent "intimate emails and text messages" on his phone, misconduct report reveals
Jezza's walked through his entire political career as a serial protestor, which is fine- it enriches the political debate- but realistically he has never seen himself as a potential leader. He only went into this one because it was his turn- not quite that burning ambition that the likes of Brown had.
If you like it, fine. Not for me
Always two, there are....
Very seldom were beatings administered for actual indiscipline in the classroom, probably because there wasn't any such behaviour that warranted it, and only once that I can remember for for acts indiscipline elsewhere (an incident involving the creative use of a fire extinguisher). However, it was perfectly possible to receive a thick ear or a kick up the arse if one didn't behave as per spec during sports afternoons. Indeed I can remember being made to capsize my canoe in the River Thames in mid-February for the offence of "acting the goat with malice aforethought".
All of that was perfectly normal in those days, mild in comparison to some schools. The idea now that I should trace down some teacher and sue him for assault or whatever is laughable.
Bookie's benefit as is, though.
I would not have a problem with some labour supporters vehemently disagreeing with Liz Kendall, saying that they think she should not be in the party even, but personal abuse on that level is surely in a another category, and has to be unacceptable?
She wants to drag Labour to the centre, she's not Le Pen!
Liz Skywalker
Harriet Solo
Chewburnham
Darth Miliband
Grand Moff Cameron
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/caroline-pidgeon-named-as-sole-liberal-democrat-mayoral-hopeful/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/19/wikipedia_shapps_those_emails_wanted_we_deleted_them/
Your history of the British Empire is also incorrect. The UK became the primary power after 1815. It annexed parts of Ceylon in 1815, the Maratha Empire in 1817; Xhosaland in 1919, 1836, 1847 and 1879; Burma in 1826, 1853 and 1885; Hong Kong in 1842 and 1860; Borneo in 1846 and 1882; Punjab in 1846 and 1849; New Zealand in 1840 and 1864; Manitoba in 1869; Malaya in 1825 and 1874; the Ashanti Empire in 1874; Zululand in 1879; Afghanistan in 1880; the Niger coast in 1884; Somaliland in 1884; Sudan in 1889; Sikkim in 1888; Uganda in 1894; Kenya in 1895; the Boer states in 1902; Igboland in 1902; Siam in 1909.
So your argument that countries do not annex places when they are top dog is just not true.
I think 10,000-1 wouldn't be that generous.
Excitingly, and probably in a futile attempt to outdo Labour, the Lib Dems are running a Mayoral ballot with only one candidate
Duwayne Brooks didn't want the wooden spoon & who can blame him :
His problem is that in the dark (heady) days of protest, he aligned himself with anyone who sought to challenge the Western free market capitalist liberal orthodoxy; a strategy of my enemy's enemy is my friend which put him into bed with Hamas, PIRA, Hezbollah, Greenham Women, you name it, etc.
As potential leader of the Labour Party, however, he is now part of that hated establishment. But he has to live with those previous associations and cannot unmake that bed.
In one way it is analagous to Cam's Bullingdon days but far far less forgiveable given that Corbyn was an actual MP and not a drunken student at the time.
Neither did it annex Siam - Siam was independent throughout the Colonial period, Japanese occupation notwithstanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War
https://twitter.com/vizcomic/status/468123312020021248
'In the UK most crimes can be prosecuted regardless of the length of time that has elapsed since they were committed. This includes, for example, serious violence, robbery, burglary, theft, sexual offences, murder and many other offences.
However, minor crimes cannot be prosecuted after six months. This includes, for example, violence that does not cause an injury, driving offences, among others. If the crime is racially motivated then the six month limit may be extended to twelve months.'
Perhaps the key phrase here re-minor crimes would be 'did not cause an injury.' Such an injury could, I imagine, be mental or psychological and the mere fact that he felt the need to bring the action might provide some prima facie evidence of that!
Fearless koala chases South Australian woman on quad bike
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-16/koala-chases-south-australian-woman-on-quad-bike/6701210
Turns out it was the woman on the quad bike and not the koala bear.
This surely is the point - not Corbyn, not even Hamas - but the people he represents and who will select the next bunch of Labour candidates..
It should have said "Fearless koala on quad bike chases South Australian woman"
Intrigued that the FDA is comfortable approving centrally acting pharmaceuticals for a "social disease".
*ducks* from @Plato's board rubber.
My dictionary states annexing is to "add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation"
It also says appropriation is to "take (something) for one's own use".
The UK took Afghanistan for its own use in foreign policy. And it was coloured red on British maps.
@SebastianEPayne: New Statesman comes out for Yvette Cooper http://t.co/BPIONlEnlL #Labourleadership
"Ostensibly, the country remained independent, however under the Treaty of Gandamak (1879) it accepted that in external matters it would "...have no windows looking on the outside world, except towards India".[9]
"Despite considerable resentment over not being consulted over the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 (Convention of St. Petersburg), Afghanistan remained neutral during the First World War (1914–18), resisting considerable pressure from the Ottoman Empire when it entered the conflict on the side of Imperial Germany and the Sultan (as titular leader of Islam) called for a holy war against the Allies.[12]"
My reading is only the southernmost areas now forming the northern-most Malaysian states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Siamese_Treaty_of_1909
:-)
Clear diversion from a straight line causing interference, result should be given to O'Brien.
I started my list with "parts of", so some of them were not annexations of the entire country.
On Afghanistan, I accept the annexation was never that successful!
I shall not get involved in the inaccuracies in your list, The Cap'n Comrade Doc, is already doing that. However, in presenting the list that you do to support your argument that GB as the "Top Dog" went around annex countries I fear you are being too simplistic. Many places that became colonies or parts of colonies were annexed despite the wishes of the government in London.
Two of the most obvious and biggest examples are the annexations in India in the late 18th century by the Wellesley Brothers (for which the elder was nearly impeached) and Zululand in 1879 the Zulu war being engineered and by local officials in direct contravention of the expressed wishes of London. There were lots of other examples too. All told the British Empire grew in the 19th century less from policy and design and more from accident, local events, people exceeding their instructions in an age when communications with Whitehall took months, oh, and a need to keep the Frogs out.
Corbyn sees his candidacy as representing a broad progressive movement, and the latter as much more important than his personal position. I'm sure he'd agree that if he dropped dead tomorrow, people should have a 1-minute silence and then resume work on the project. I think that's quite attractive.
On which note I just voted -
Leader - just Corbyn
Deputy - Creasy, Watson, Eagle
Mayor - Khan, Abbott, Lammy, then the other two I can't even remember, Jowell gets nothing
I might join the Labour Party proper at this rate!
(a) Cammo not to stand down before the election
(b) Comrade Jeremy to win the leadership contest
(c) Comrade Jeremy to survive as leader until the next election
(d) Comrade Jeremy to win said election.
Multiplying together reasonable probabilities for each of those is going to make 8/1 very mean, I would say.
But the 8/1 on Jeremy Corbyn looks likely to shorten.
The relationship was more akin to the Gulf States (eg. Bahrain), which were likewise never formally annexed to the Empire.
Here is a 1915 map of the Empire showing present day Pakistan as the northwestern frontier:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/uk-1915-co1047-1098.jpg
Edit: Also what Antifrank said
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jun/15/rupertmurdoch.pressandpublishing
It's a bit confusing because according to this article they moved out 12 years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3132716.stm