Verbal

Add this one to an increasingly bizarre list in the land of 'safety always off'. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11421667/Woman-fatally-shoots-herself-while-adjusting-bra-holster.html

Which, they would argue, is the point.

You're confusing your theory with reality though. The fact is that all university admissions are up, across the board - as trousers has helpfully pointed out. That includes degrees such as event management, fashion management and some of the older favourites for 'mickey mouse' status, like media studies and sociology. Students I encounter are not, for the most part, making the sorts of calculation you suggest. Surf studies at Plymouth University, by the way, is apparently particularly popular.

On the contrary: it rewards D students in Surf Studies, assuming they don't get a job that pays more than the threshold - it's basically free money. And it rewards a large number of EU students who also qualify for the loans but do not repay them. The people who are disadvantaged are those who study for demanding subjects like medicine, whose debts will be astronomical because their courses run for much longer. As for the loan, it is certainly not a tax. A loan is a loan and a debt is a debt, and adding a couple of conditions to it doesn't alter that. Although we were told this wouldn't happen, some of the new 'stress-tested' mortgage applicants are being asked about their student debts in calculations about affordability. So in that sense too it counts straightforwardly as a debt - and one that will disadvantage many as this all starts to unfold (remember: the first cohort paying £9,000 pa for fees alone have yet to graduate).

Students are given loans - that's what they're called and that's what they are. Therefore they incur a debt until the loan is paid off. The fact that they may not hit the income threshold for repayment at all points during their subsequent careers doesn't alter the fact that the debt remains. Trying to call debt something else doesn't alter the fact that it's a debt. And it is certainly not a 'retrospective tax'; there's nothing 'retrospective' about it. Students themselves are well aware that what they're incurring is debt - hence the greater emphasis on 'student satisfaction' since higher fees were imposed. Controversies about contact hours in some subjects also stem directly from anxieties about the cost of their education, which they know they now pay for.

This is like calling a win in the hundred metres a split second after the starting gun has been fired. The first cohort paying £9,000 hasn't even graduated yet. We don't know what will happen to repayment of loans, and there have been various predictions, some of which leave a huge and unsustainable hole that could have a huge negative impact on fiscal policy (meaning large cuts or tax rises). What's more striking though is how many inaccuracies there are in that article. For example, the universities have certainly not been "given freedom over fees". Fees are capped at £9,000, and the coalition government withdrew central funding pretty much pound for pound. There's also little chance of the ceiling being lifted, so the universities - like education in general - will suffer a gradual erosion of spending power over the coming years. The rise in applications itself has more to do with demographics than some supposed 'buy in' by increasing numbers of working class applicants - and numbers are expected to fall in line with a falling birth rate over the next five years. And as for the argument that 'new universities' are more competitive, it's clear that a number of them are making cuts because the older universities, including the Russell Group, are taking censurably more students (the one freedom they have been given) - some of whom would have previously gone to post-92s.

Pompey are now officially part of the HSBC tax-evasion-for-suspected-criminals scandal. Former owner Vladimir Antonov had an account there holding funds, apparently from Snoros Bank, to buy an executive jet. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/12/hsbc-files-swiss-bank-hid-money-for-suspected-criminals

It's not a game. I can't find a shred of evidence that it's true - although if you can find some evidence I'd happily change my view about this. But it's odd that such clear claims were made about his 'atheist', 'hard Left' beliefs and yet the actual sources of these have proved elusive. As for proof that the 'next terrorist act' will be carried out by Muslims, that seems a very strange request. How can I prove the motives and beliefs of people who haven't as yet done anything? If you want to talk about past terrorist attacks, I suppose you could argue that the 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid bombers, plus the 1993 World Trade Centre, the mass shootings in Luxor, the Charlie Hebdo and Jewish deli attacks in Paris, the Sydney cafe siege, the mass murder of children by the TTP in Peshawar, the shooting of Malala Yusufsai in Swat, Pakistan, the execution by beheading, burning alive and stoning by ISIS - to name but a very few - were NOT carried out by Muslims. Many conspiracy loons have tried to do just this - is this where you're headed? To be clear, I'm against Islamophobia, not least out of self-interest - I'm married to a Muslim. But just as my wife is implacably hostile to violent Muslim extremists, so am I. If you've encountered extremists, as I have in Pakistan for example, and then had a work colleague kidnapped and tortured by them, you tend to have a slightly more jaundiced eye about the viciousness of Gulf-exported Salafist lunatics. If you've witnessed the murderous destruction of liberal Islamic sects, icons and places of worship by these fanatics, as I have, then you won't be quite so accepting of the argument that identifying these killers as Muslim fanatics is somehow 'Islamophobic'. It's actually the opposite: the diversity and richness of many Islamic cultures is under sustained attack by these Salafists - they've already wiped out Sufism in Afghanistan, for example, and are bombing their way to doing so in Pakistan. I do wonder, also, why you want to ‘apologise’ on behalf of atheists for the killings. Firstly atheists are united by nothing but a lack of belief. Secondly, Muslim responses to terrorist outrages conducted in the name of Islam have decidedly not been in the form of apologies, since this would imply complicity in the attacks. Many have, however, condemned such attacks – but condemning is a very different thing to apologising. As to the individual who shot the three young people in Chapel Hill, he may have been acting out of Islamophobic rage borne out of is 'atheism' - it's just that I've never heard of such a rationalisation, and there's no evidence yet that he's given it. Parking and a possible mental health issue - plus the ready availability of loaded, safety-off weaponry - seem to have been the causes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31431832 So sorry for giving you the impression that this is a 'game'. It isn't. I'm not partial to the prissy objection that we have to be 'even stevens' about parcelling out blame between 'atheists' (or whomever) and Muslim extremists, for fear of believing that not to do so is somehow to be prejudiced against an entire religion.

No, I mean what's the evidence? 'According to the articles' doesn't do it. What's the source of this claim?

Horrible indeed. Not that atheists are any less capable of killing than anyone else, but I'd be curious to know what the evidence is that he is?

That is truly shocking. The CSA has long been regarded, even by government, as unfit for purpose. Perhaps the DWP thought that meant the CSA should be the working model for job centres.

This isn't PR but just one variant of it - and not one that finds favour among many - known as the party list system. It's how the Euro elections work, and the Knesset and the upper chamber in Holland. When people talk about wanting PR for the UK lower-chamber elections they're mostly talking about STV. This isn't a great analogy - there's just so much more at stake in a democratic society of 60+ million than in a bowling green committee. The problem with FPTP is that while it doesn't literally disenfranchise people who support parties with little support in 'safe' constituencies, it doesn't give them enough of a stake in the outcome of a vote. The better forms of PR do allow for a larger number of voters' second-choice candidates to gain support - and that does at least reflect opinion more broadly in a constituency, rather than awarding the result straight to someone who may only get 30-odd percent of votes cast. It's not perfect - no system is. But if the ambition is to produce the 'least worst' form of democratic accountability, then PR is it. I'd add the Australian model of compulsory voting to it, contra Brand and his adoring groupie on here.

Please don't fall for the line of an unthinking hysteric like pap and his apoplectic yelling. The fallacy of your argument is completely contained in your post: you're making a simple equation between what you regard as unfair representations of people on benefits in the media with the actual views of voters of either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats. So contrary to your assertion, it actually IS a 'great leap' to think that voters for either party was signing up to a secretive campaign of bullying and intimidation to the extent that people's health is knowingly and sometimes seriously damaged.

The only people WORSE are voters? What the hell is wrong with you? I can only assume this is another variant on your rap that the British electorate are all (except you of course) 'morons'. If you're going to coarsen political debate to this level, I really suggest you take a holiday from humans. These revelations are appalling - but they are just that: revelations. Claimants and investigators have put together the story of a culture of bullying and intimidation, not just of claimants but also of staff members. Such behaviour is, among other things, illegal. Only a fool would suggest that anyone 'voted' for that.

I'm not sure I can stand almost 100 more days of trousers-whataboutery.

For once I agree with you. There is a particular incompetence in the Left's making this the central argument against the Tories' management of the NHS. The problems created since 2010 are far more root-and-branch than that, notably following the wholly preposterous Health and Social Care Act.

In this case they should do it. The woman in Jordanian custody tried to kill local men, women and children at a wedding party in Amman - a definition right there of a worthless low-life. Suicide bombers are two-a-penny - she doesn't add anything to the ISIS arsenal, and just makes them look even worse. If she were a bomb-maker it might be a different story.

Brilliant.

Not really. As many on here have pointed out, there are other countries (Canada, Switzerland, for example) that have high gun ownership rates. Only in the US do they kill so many. I think it's a cultural thing. The Second Amendment has been articulated by the NRA and others as the right to resist anyone and anything. It's a kind of individuated version of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Or, to put it another way, vast numbers of people in the US are psychologically in a semi-permanent Mexican stand-off with some supposed enemy/invader/burglar/asker of street directions. For this version of MAD to work, guns always have to be at the ready, loaded, cleaned, safety off. In other countries, this just isn't the case - guns are normally stored unloaded and sometimes disassembled. So with a high number of guns in the US literally at the ready to blast someone to kingdom come, it's no wonder there's such a high number of incidents like these.

Guns are not the problem, people are. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/22/florida-toddler-fatally-shoots-himself-father-gun

The Guardian now reporting the Osvaldo to QPR rumour. Seems a match made in heaven.

Sitting self-satisfied behind your bank of computer screens I’m sure you imagine all kinds of people should ‘behave’. But how about getting your own house in order? Instead of declaring your love and affection for Left Unity, a body which two months ago seriously debated a motion that ISIS is – I quote, because I can barely believe it – a “progressive force”, why not find something worthwhile to support? Given your self-declared ethnicity, how about “Pakistanis Protest Against Terrorism”, a campaign featuring demonstrations in Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, London, Boston New York, Berlin, Perth and Nairobi from Pakistanis against the TTP, (Pakistani Taliban) mass murder of schoolchildren in Peshawar. “These terrorists have hijacked our religion,” they say, quite rightly. But of course you won’t, because you can’t bear anything that doesn’t come with the rote incantation of “The West is to blame.” You say it like religious people say Amen at the end of prayers, and you happily accuse anyone who doesn’t as being in some sense an apologist for Bush or Blair or – a favourite theme – Israel. You say it because you can’t admit of complexity – that the world just isn’t as “simple” (your word) as you say it is. And so you will remain effectively silent in the face of the most appalling outrages – all so you can satisfy yourself that your “analysis” is always right. The bombing and killing in Mumbai? It’s the West’s fault. The mass abduction of children and women in West Africa? The West’s fault. The shooting of Muslim and black French police officers in Paris? The West’s fault. The shooting of cartoonists? The West’s fault. The shooting of Jewish shoppers? Probably their own fault. The ritual beheading of Syrian prisoners, including children, of American and British journalists, of a British aid worker, and – unless something drastic happens – of two Japanese men? The West’s fault. The problem for you is that there’s this guy out there, presently getting a lot of attention, who completely agrees with your “let’s blame the West” rote response. His “name” is Jihadi John.

I suspect RK knew that beneath all of Elia's problems there was a great player struggling to break out, and RK was confident, given his knowledge of him, that he could help him unlock his inner Ronaldo. Osvaldo, in all probability, is a completely different kettle of worms. A conundrum wrapped in an enigma bundled up with who the hell cares about a player and individual so apparently, nihilistically destructive.

De nada. I imagine you occasionally get to see some of the backwash of this - not such a long way from Mirpur to the Midlands.

While some of this is undoubtedly true, it’s an unnecessarily narrow and partial view of the broader consequences of Saudi actions over the years. Focusing on Saudi ‘foreign policy’ gives you a neutered view of wider Saudi (state and private) influence, and one that’s demonstrably misleading. And I don’t know your source, but it’s plainly out of date. Pan-Arab ‘Nasserism’ has ceased to exist, and Communism was only ever an indirect threat – and never a regional one – before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The ‘designs of regional neighbours’ comes down to two countries: Iran and Israel – and of the two, Iran is far more significant, for the familiar reason: it’s the Shia powerhouse. Saudi Arabia has sought, where it can, to buttress Sunni influence, notably in countries with already strong Sunni populations. Across the Arabian Gulf, the obvious example is Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is also not a nuclear power; Pakistan is – and the closeness of their ‘special relationship’ has given the Saudis a nuclear shield to balance (if that’s the word) the other two regional nuclear powers, Israel and Iran. (Stories have circulated for years that the Saudis were heavy investors in the Pakistani nuclear programme – all officially denied.) But Saudi Arabia’s biggest influence in Pakistan has been in funding a process begun by the cartoonish dictator Zia ul-Haq called ‘Islamisation’. A more accurate description of this would be Wahhabification. I watched a lot of this happening when I first started travelling to Pakistan in the mid-1980s. Aside from funding the King Faisal mosque in the heart of the capital Islamabad, the Saudis poured vast amounts of money into the construction of mosques and madrassas. Before the Saudis got their chequebook out, there were fewer than eight hundred madrassas in Pakistan, and these were confined mostly to the hinterland regions of the Tribal Areas and Kashmir. By 1997 there were twenty-seven thousand madrassas – all of them funded directly by the Saudis. Remember, all this has happened in a country that was – like Afghanistan before it –overwhelmingly influenced by Sufism, especially in the most populous region of Pakistan, the Indus Valley. And the teachings in these madrassas - I’ve seen it myself – consist of two things and two things only: a rote learning of the Koran (in a language none of the children understand) and jihad. Children get this education free of charge, and so the madrassas have proved a magnet for a huge proportion of Pakistan’s population. To judge the local effect of this Saudi financed transformation of the hearts and minds of Pakistan, you get some pretty damning and alarming insights from the Wikileaks documents. A cable, written in 2008 by Bryan Hunt, a US Consular official in Lahore, describes how it all works in the southern Punjab – where many jihadis, including the Mumbai attackers, were recruited. Hunt describes a ‘jihadi recruitment network’ that had developed around the predominantly Sufi city of Multan. A note on word meanings: ‘Deobandi’ and ‘Ahl-e Hadith’ are Salafist extremist groups with a long but *****il recently) marginal history in Pakistan. He says: As for the funding of this Salafist terrorist network, Hunt reports: The “schooling” of children entrapped in these networks is characterised as follows: http://fpif.org/wikileaks_saudi-financed_madrassas_more_widespread_in_pakistan_than_thought/ With a focus only on Saudi “foreign policy” you’ll miss all this. There are other forces at irk outside the Saudi foreign ministry. And the impact has been huge. Given the size of the problem of Pakistan we tend to think it has deep roots in history. It doesn’t. The transformation of Pakistan into Jihadi Central has happened only in the last thirty years. Reversing it is equally possible – but only if the supply line of unlimited Saudi and UAE cash is cut off from Pakistan’s madrassas and someone invests in some good old fashioned schools – like the one Malala Yusufsai got shot for defending. Just one example, just one country.