« Previous | Main | Next »

blast off

Sequin | 09:27 UK time, Wednesday, 14 March 2007

You're going to hear a lot about Trident and the nuclear deterrent today. If it bores you, I apologise in advance. I must say that before this debate erupted I had pretty much assumed that we had a nuclear deterrent and we would always have one. That Britain would always be one of the "nuclear nations". But now that the moment has come for a change of course, do you think we should grab the opportunity to go nuclear-free ? Or by doing so do we condemn future generations to a more dangerous world? Depends, I suppose, on where you think the future threat will come from. If you are a "glass half empty " merchant, like me, you think the world is doomed anyway.

Let's change the subject.... saw a lovely cherry blossom on the way in. And those of you who enjoyed Hugh Sykes' contributions from China may be in for something more later.....



  1. At 11:02 AM on 14 Mar 2007, La Corniche wrote:

    Haha! I gather the computers got the date for the cherry blossom wrong!

    But, on a more serious note, it's a bit sad for them given how important cherry blossom is in their culture.

    Were you on your bike, Carolyn? And the best cherry blossom I remember from my days in London is in Chiswick.....

  2. At 11:23 AM on 14 Mar 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Would someone please explain to me:

    a) the moral justification for developing and possessing weapons explicitly designed to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians

    b) the need to update something which does not have to be upgraded for years

    c) why we persist to refer to Trident as an independent weapon when it's manufactured, serviced and controlled by a foreign power

    d) why we should spend billions on this rather than on so many other worthy causes e.g. poverty at home and abroad, education, the NHS, mitigating climate change.

  3. At 11:38 AM on 14 Mar 2007, whisky-joe wrote:

    We're all doomed, doomed I tell you. (Including water voles.) :-(

  4. At 11:41 AM on 14 Mar 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    If we give up our nuclear "deterrent", would we have to give up our permanent place on the UN security council?

    If so, I say go for it. At the moment, the US basically has two votes on the council. Better to reduce it to one, and then we can concentrate on our proper place in the world rather than wasting time, money, resources and lives trying to be a Major Power.

    Of course, we won't give up Trident, and I refer everyone to the first episode of "Yes, Prime Minister" for the reason why.

  5. At 11:44 AM on 14 Mar 2007, Fifi wrote:

    I see the bloggage is cleared at last. Jolly good!


  6. At 12:32 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Chrissie the Trekkie wrote:

    Cherry blossom - ah yes, Japan. A nuclear free country and I wonder why? Could it be because they know how pointless the darned weapons are?

  7. At 12:42 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Feeling a bit Eeyore-ish about the future of the world myself, Sequin. Quite glad I'm not a teenager (apart from the obvious, eg spots, crushes and other hormone-relates misery).

    Anyone around? Or are you all off on your lunch hour enjoying the sunshine?

  8. At 12:47 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:

    Great article Sequin.

  9. At 12:49 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Gillian wrote:

    I used to belong to CND and went on a couple of marches and demonstarations. I used to belong to Friends of the Earth and campaigned againsy Nuclear Power Stations and waste management. I used to be an Old Labour supporter. All of these things used to fit together and be mutually supportive. I will be listening intently to any news about today's debate. It will be a very sad day if today's result leads to a complete renewal of Trident.....even more sad if the pundits are right and the motion is passed only because the Tories vote with the Government.

  10. At 01:01 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Peter Scott wrote:

    If even Blue Peter fakes a competition, can we believe anything we see on Television?
    Did Valerie Singleton REALLY make that one earlier? Shep must be spinning in his grave!

  11. At 01:05 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Fifi wrote:

    Not entirely un-blogged, then.

    It's now 13:05, and although the front page says 3 other froggers are on Blast Off ... I appear to be here alone.



  12. At 01:08 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Water vole wrote:


  13. At 01:14 PM on 14 Mar 2007, admin annie wrote:

    OO, has there been a blockage again?

  14. At 01:38 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    I never imagined feeling this way buuuutt.... doesn't discussing Trident make a nice change of topic?

    God, I must be feeling desparate!

  15. At 01:42 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Ah yes, CND and Greenham Common. I remember it well.

    The days when Labour Party and integrity could appear together in the same sentence without conditionals.

  16. At 01:45 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    Anne P - I agree entirely -I think the time has come for us to take a lead and not replace it. It's not as if we can save ourselves by firing it once one has been fired at us. Other threats are more real and likely and we should use the money elsewhere.

  17. At 01:55 PM on 14 Mar 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Aperitif (14):

    Be thankful the topic isn't the scandal that Eddie and Sequin have faked all the posts on the blog for the last few months, except for yours and mine ...and I'm not sure about mine!

    And don't get me started about the Windows On Your World scam!

  18. At 02:06 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Big Sis, I think you are you conflating "The Labour Party" with "The Labour Government" -- Many Labour MPs intend to vote against the government today, with support of their constituents in the party.

  19. At 02:43 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Perky wrote:

    It will certainly be interesting to see how big the "labour revolt" is (no puns please). I hope that a vast number of MPs will stick with their basic Labour principles. There are so many more things - and better things at that - that this money could be spent on.

    As for Blue Peter, it was never my cup of tea, I'm afraid. To goody-goody for my liking, although it's just gone up in my estimation for creative thinking!

    And if cherry blossom and sunny spring days aren't an advert for leaving nuclear things as they are, I don't know what is. Grammatically incorrect as that may be.

  20. At 02:55 PM on 14 Mar 2007, admin annie wrote:

    well indeed Appy not to mention the difference between the Labour Party and New Labour.

    That low rumbling noise we have got so used to over the past 10 years or so is the sound of keir Hardie turning in his grave.

  21. At 03:04 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    Appy (14) If that is how you feel about discussing the E word, maybe we should ask Sequin to do an article on the Cricket World Cup. Ouch! [walks away rubbing a sore, slapped cheek]

    H. :-(

  22. At 03:09 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    SSC (17) The posts on the blog I can believe come from real people because some of mine, although not all, have appeared here from time to time. However, when it comes to straplines I have my doubts. I must have sent in about 30 at different times and have never seen one of mine appear. And have you noticed that the e-mail address uses a premium-line number? Very fishy, if you ask me!


  23. At 03:43 PM on 14 Mar 2007, David wrote:

    You only have to look at how everyone scorned the Deutchmark, how Switzerland is completely hostage to terrorism, how Japan languishes in third world poverty, to see why it's essential we keep Trident.

    Thank God, too, that Russia shows us how possession of nuclear weapons leads to a stable and prosperous society.

  24. At 03:47 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Appy, the Labour Party in its 2005 Manifesto committed itself "to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent". It is, therefore, Party policy.

    I fully accept, however, that there are many within the Party who remain adamantly opposed to nuclear weapons.

    Time was when many of those on the front benches were also antinuclear, as you and I both know.

    I'm with Old Labour on this one.

  25. At 04:02 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Fifi wrote:

    TSSCat : thee and me, we think as one.


    Or should that be: 'Grrrrrr!'


  26. At 04:17 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Received today from Margaret Beckett:

    Thank you for signing an e-petition on the 10 Downing Street website, in
    which you asked that the UK reconsider replacing the Trident nuclear
    weapons system, and instead champion the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    We believe the NPT continues to offer the best hope of achieving the goal
    we all share - a world free from nuclear weapons. But deciding to maintain
    our deterrent is completely consistent with the NPT, and will not stop us
    playing a leading role in international efforts on non-proliferation and

    We know the British people want us to lead by example - we already do, and
    we intend to carry on doing so. Our weapons stockpile is the smallest of
    any recognised nuclear weapons state, ......

    Houb Salaam
    14/03/2007 at 16:22:22 GMT

  27. At 04:27 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Richard Menhinick wrote:

    I cannot see the justification for spending £20 billion on another useless American weapon system.

    The Americans can't make weapons that work - and they don't provide return-to-base warranties!

    Remember the Patriot missile systems in the first Gulf war? Eventually the yanks admitted that the "successful deployment" videos were all faked and the damned things couldn't hit a barn door at 10 yards.

    Remember the MoD purchase of US attack helicopters? They turned out to be useless because the yanks wouldn't give us the tactical software needed to fly them.

    Oh yes, and the A10 attack planes that do more damage to our troops than to the Iraqis because the pilots have to rely on binoculars for targetting. (You are only safe with Americans if they are actually aiming AT you!)

    Lets save a few quid and buy something from the Chinese ... there's a much better chance of it actually working if (God forbid) we ever had to use it!

  28. At 04:35 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Electric Dragon wrote:

    Ah, the classic false dichotomy. Our Glorious Leader is being rather canny in portraying this as a straight choice between on the one hand spluffing £70bn on replacing Trident and on the other unilateral disarmament. This is of course nonsense - if we need a nuclear weapons capability (which is a different argument), then the one we have is perfectly adequate to the task, with only minor upgrades or servicing required over the next couple of decades. We already have Trident I; we don't need Trident II. But no, according to TB we must have the very best - to quote Yes Prime Minister:

    Sir Humphrey - "[Trident I] is the Saville Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Château Lafitte 1945. It is the nuclear missile system Harrods would sell you."
    Jim Hacker - "It costs £15 billion and we don't need it!"
    Sir Humphrey - "You can say that about anything at Harrods!"

  29. At 05:03 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Reckon I'm with the not-so-silent majority in here on Trident.

    And nice comment, David.

    Btw, Humph, I do believe that some of the straplines are by real people, cos they're by fellow Froggers. I even had one myself, over Christmas!!!!! much to my joy.

    So you see, even though they scorn us a lot, they love us, really. Your time will come.

  30. At 05:13 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Paul Smith wrote:

    Why can we not be more like some of the other European / western nations for whom a nuclear deterrant is not needed - like Italy, Denmark, Norway and so on? How come we need it and they are not concerned about not having it? And then we could spend the billions on something more useful instead like schools or hospitals?

  31. At 05:15 PM on 14 Mar 2007, brenda haworth wrote:

    so now Iran has 2 good reasons for the bomb, there is a good possibility of a nuclear threat (lot more than us), and the NPT has been broken yet again.

  32. At 05:19 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Bob Banks wrote:

    Will people still be enjoying cherry blossom in 100 years time?
    If nuclear weapons continue to proliferate, then we are likely to have had a catastrophic nuclear war by then, and there won't be many people left to enjoy cherry blossom.
    If - as Tony Blair says - "renewing" Trident is "necessary for our security" then nuclear weapons would also be necessary for the security of Spain, Italy, Germany - and indeed Iran and all the other countries in the world. And then - they very likely to be used!

  33. At 05:21 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Tridant Cream Factor 5000 wrote:

    Does the £15billion include VAT?

  34. At 05:23 PM on 14 Mar 2007, david watmough wrote:

    I think the choice of the timing of the Trident debate is not about it being essential for reasons of national defence but of Tony Bliar's wish to detach supporters of Gordon Brown and thus sink his chances of succession.
    Mark these words but it will have a very negative effect on support for Gordon.
    It is truly extraordinary that with daily deaths of soldiers and civilians in Iraq Tony Bliar is still in office.

  35. At 05:28 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:


    I'M real, believe me!

    And the strapline is mine, all mine - for today, at least.

  36. At 05:31 PM on 14 Mar 2007, jumper wrote:

    The threat is from a mad islamist group or state who believes that it is allah's will to destroy western civilisation even if it causes martyrdom on a vast scale. Perhaps genocidal suicide would be a plus. Deterrence is therfore not the issue, we must have the capability to take the pre-emptive first strike against such evil and it would probably have to be at the nuclear level.

  37. At 05:31 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Richard Trillo wrote:

    What are we currently deterring? What would a renewed Trident be deterring in the future? The only likely scenario for the use of nuclear weapons against the UK is in some kind of unofficial/terrorist/self-destructive/suicide attack that would be more likely to occur if a nuclear response could be guaranteed by the paradise-bound perpetrators. If the *really* bad guys get hold of nukes – never mind the leaders of nuclear states who currently have their fingers on the buttons – it would seem we're all done for.

    This is a great opportunity for Blair to do something good for our future. Turn down the heat. Too much to ask? Of course it is.

  38. At 05:41 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Glenda Lee wrote:

    Tell me, is someone burying of bad news?

    While the airwaves are screaming with dissent about Tony Blair's very own plans to renew British stocks of WMD's (one law for them.....) Committee meetings have been brought forward to 4pm today and 8.55am tomorrow morning(!), to speed through the Sexual Orientation Regulations. As things stand, these regulations will slide seamlessly into law within a few days, without the tiresome necessity of public debate, as our 'representatives' blatantly ignore public opinion once more. I expect I'll be labelled a homophobe for even mentioning it.......

    Meanwhile BBC, what's happened in the vote on the Private Member's Bill, presented yesterday, to give parents the right to be informed when their children access contracepion and abortion services? Hasn't made the headlines again.....
    Neither have the SOR's....
    And neither, even, did Trident on the BBC lunch time news.....
    But then, we've got our grenn credentials to conserve, haven't we?
    Beginning to wonder who's doing the burying.....

  39. At 05:42 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Mel Tisdale wrote:

    The whole Trident debate is banal. Nowhere is the accuracy of this weapon system discussed, yet it is that accuracy that took away the notion of our nuclear weapons being a deterrent. They are clearly designed to inflict a pre-emptive first strike. The latest version of Trident is so accurate it can be used without a warhead, simply relying on the kinetic energy to destroy its target. That requires pinpoint accuracy. Put a nuclear warhead on that and no bunker, no matter how hardened, would survive. In contrast, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were detonated at a height of about 1000 meters somewhere near the centre of the city in question. They had a yield of about 12.5 Kt according the latest analysis. This is one tenth of the size of the smallest Trident warhead. Explore that aspect of the Trident weapon and you put some famous faces in the Haige charged with planning a crime against humanity many orders of magnitude worse than that of the holocaust. National shame should then ensure that the Trident missile system is dismantled.

  40. At 05:46 PM on 14 Mar 2007, admin annie wrote:

    Margaret Beckett is obviously a descendant of the White Queen who as I recall could believe two mutually inconsistent things before breakfast on a daily basis. So getting Trident 2 is completely consistent with supporting the NPT.

    They've spun themselves stupid and they're trying to take us with them.

  41. At 05:48 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Peter Scott - Nice mention by Carolyn! So she does read the Blog ......

    Not that I ever doubted it. Everything which happens here is real, really.

  42. At 05:52 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Thank you to the Lovely Hugh for a further insight into the ''real'' Baghdad. He once again displayed his knack of knowing exactly who to talk to to obtain the real picture. He goes right to the heart of the human story, so we see through the political gloss in real terms, as it affects real people. I look forward to hearing, and so learning, more.

  43. At 06:29 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Brian V Peck wrote:

    There may be more than a grain of truth on David's hypothesis (34 - 5:23pm) but my complaint is not only the complete disgrace of spending so much money on this project. But the pure hypocrisy of Blair, Bush et al when these bullies are telling other Nations that they cannot have Nuclear technology...full stop. And to think that when I was on the march in London against these weapons several weeks ago I had my cycle stolen, in Bristol. If this bill is passed tonight do you think that Blair and his wife who are probably now millionaires - could please reimburse me for my stupidty!!

    Brian V Peck

    Published Author and Political Dissdent.

  44. At 07:22 PM on 14 Mar 2007, carolyn quinn wrote:

    Did I get it wrong when I spoke about cherry blossoms? Aren't they those lovely pink flowers? Can't claim to be any sort of gardener myself. I have to buy plants that I can't kill.

  45. At 07:50 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Carolyn (44) No you were probably right - the cherry in our neighbour's garden in Derbyshire has been in flower for some time now.

  46. At 11:03 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    Sequin: Corniche is right. Go to Chiswick, to Staveley Road and, unless the axeman's visited in recent years, you'll be stunned by the cherry blossom.

    It shouldn't take you long on your bike! - you might even earn a pair of yellow socks.

  47. At 11:16 PM on 14 Mar 2007, Big Sister wrote:

    After the awfulness of the acquittals at yesterday's Court Martial and the gloom that descended on me as I considered the vile depths to which human nature can descend, I feel somewhat heartened tonight that the number of Labour rebels on the Trident vote was significantly higher than originally anticipated.

    And with that thought, and the image of Sequin and her colleagues doing their bit to help the environment, I shall head for bed.

    May the sun shine again for us all tomorrow, and may our spirits be lifted by this early spring and all the good things it promises.

  48. At 11:33 PM on 14 Mar 2007, David Jones wrote:

    Personally I do not think we need to continue our nuclear deterrent. It would seem the money would be better spent on developing state of the art conventional weaponary for our armed services.

    If the majority view is we need a nuclear deterrent I am lost why anyone would think US based version is a good way of delivering it. We should do what the French did and develop a real independent version and give UK firms the money to develop it.

    The reason the UK/Blair government is pushing this through is another bad attempt to keep the special relationship going. The whole relationship is now one sided. The recent mess with the US not giving the UK the access codes to the Helicopters it purchased is a good example of why it is time to go it alone.

  49. At 12:10 AM on 15 Mar 2007, Gossipmistress wrote:

    So Tony got his way then, no surprise there.
    No effective opposition to him, as usual.
    Oh dear I'm beginning to sound like eeyore again.....

    On a more cheerful note I enjoyed tonight's programme Carolyn and it was good to hear Hugh again.

    I wonder whatever happened to 'our man in Chechnya' we were going to get to talk to.....

  50. At 12:29 AM on 15 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Humph (22) - ah but, perhaps yours weren't any goo..................runs away ve-ery fast!

  51. At 10:31 AM on 15 Mar 2007, Zoltar Fortune Teller wrote:

    Don't worry about Trident. Worry about a twenty-six-mile wide chunk of space rock that will strike Earth in 2009.

  52. At 12:38 PM on 15 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    WELL I GUESS THAT YOU WILL NEVER KNOW, VALP (50). Sorry for shouting, everyone, but she has decided to run all the way to Aberdeen. Given the subject with which Sequin started this thread, I take to be another example of over-kill!


  53. At 12:48 PM on 15 Mar 2007, Belinda wrote:

    Worry about a twenty-six-mile wide chunk of space rock that will strike Earth in 2009.,/i>

    And what am I supposed to 'worry' about exactly? Rearranging my dental appointment? If we die, we die. At least we won't have to hear about Jade Goody anymore.

    Plus we know from all experience that this space rock will be due to hit Los Angeles, and the US Government will send Bruce Willis up to save us all.

  54. At 06:06 PM on 15 Mar 2007, Frances O wrote:

    Um... what writing will be all the way through this space rock?

    And will it be pink on the outside?

  55. At 10:00 PM on 15 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Humph, um, may I come back from Aberdeen yet. it's cold up here? Pretty please? Twas but a joke.....

  56. At 10:02 PM on 15 Mar 2007, Molly wrote:

    Catching up on the blog- lovely comments on the cherrry blossom- were YOU responsible for the misinformation in Japan about their 'season' starting on the wrong day?

    Good show, by the way.;-)


  57. At 07:19 AM on 16 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    ValP (55) "?" You were the one who chose to go to Aberdeen. You were the one who chose to run away ve-ery fast. If you want to come back again then that is your choice as well. I cannot understand why you should feel a need to ask my permission.


  58. At 09:25 AM on 16 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Well, I remember when Mrs. Thatcher & Co. wanted to buy Trident. I thought it was an appalling waste of money, as will replacing (note I said "Will", not "Would") it.

    I don't think it's even about the special relationship. Its just about pride. Our inglorious leaders don't want to have to leave the nuclear club.

    BTW, how many women could be treated with a certain cancer drug for the price of Trident plus Olympics? How many Hercules aircraft could be treated with flame-retardant foam?

  59. At 09:39 AM on 16 Mar 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Oh, and another thought about Trident. I think Tony wants to get this difficult decision out of the way before he goes, so his successor is not lumbered with the debate, rebellion etc. This very morning it was reported that a selection timetable has been put in place.

  60. At 05:48 PM on 16 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Well Humph, I'm not sure I want to be over-killed!

  61. At 07:54 PM on 16 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    Okay, ValP (60), if that was what was worrying you then you can certainly come back. Actually I thought that the over-kill was your decision to go all that way in the first place, so maybe you should come back, just to be on the safe side.

    Could you remind me, again, what is the situation about me offering apologies? Am I allowed to say sorry, or not?


  62. At 09:19 PM on 16 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Before I begin, please forgive my squiffiness!

    Humph, why would I slap you for mentioning cricket? I think I might be more likely to give you a sympthetic hug. I mean, fancy having to suffer watching and/or listening to cricket!... (Sport is for doing not spectating).

    Big Sis, Ad Annie, yes (I think). I wanted to say something about maintaining being different from replacing and Keir Hardie no doubt spinning so fast he's bored his way through to Austraiia by now... but he probably wasn't buried vertically... Um, I'm not sure what I'm on about...

    More digestif for Aperitif s'il vous plait!

  63. At 01:25 AM on 17 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    Appy (62) If you would like more coverage of sport on the PM programme, then you only need to say and I would back you to the hilt. I somewhat got the impression that you thought sport was not really news and should be left to other channels of the BBC radio network.

    When it comes to discussions of climate change and people who think sticking fingers in ears and singing LA-LA-DI-LA counts as scientific research I get annoyed. If people want to prove that there is nothing wrong with flying from Manchester to London to save half an hour on a buisness trip (getting to the airport, checking in, getting on the airplane, the actual journey, checking out and doing the rest of your journey by car rather than doing the whole trip on the ground) then the first note that they should use is LA! As you sometimes get annoyed with frog comments about party politics, I often get annoyed with atmospheric pollution denyers. It is related to what I do!

    Your desperation (14) that discussing Trident would be a nice topic (and I took that comment to be ironic) I read to be in juxdopostion (sp?) to recent comments from you about discussions on the environment. I found that hard to take; hence the comments about cricket.

    I am currently being rationed on the Frog about the number of times that I am allowed to say "Sorry" (61) and await news from ValP about whether apologies from me are allowed again. If/when they are, you will receive one from me here!


  64. At 12:26 PM on 17 Mar 2007, Val P wrote:

    Humph dear - you may apologise as often as you wish, but I've forgotten what you felt you needed to apologise for? If I remember correctly, it is I who should be doing the apologising, as I cast nasturtiums on the quality of the many Straplines which you had submitted, and were languishing unpublished (my 50, re your 22). So, mea culpa?

  65. At 04:02 PM on 17 Mar 2007, Fifi wrote:

    Did you know we have a new, wireless Furrowed Brow today?



  66. At 05:58 PM on 17 Mar 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Humph (63), I hadn't realised what you meant by "the E word" in your post at 21. You are right; I am sick of hearing about climate change (rather than the environment per se) on Radio 4 -- the day I posted at 14 above (yes, with irony) even the short story at 3.30 was introduced as a climate change piece. Your cricket post now makes sense but I see it was the comment equivalent of you sticking out your tongue at me. Hmm. Since you mention apologies at the end I shall assume it wasn't serious and we are still friends!

    btw, I don't quite know whether you are implying that my reluctance to revist the climate change debate suggests I don't believe it's important? Just in case, I would like to point out that I have never denied the existence of atmospheric pollution, and comments I have made on this blog have been along the lines of "I wish that those with influenece would stop talking about it and get on with tackling it" rather than any kind of denial. And I also believe that there are other issues which are even more pressing, but which are covered so much less (human trafficking being one example), because they aren't so acceptable as discussion topics in nice, middle-class, UK homes.

    Finally, you say that I "sometimes get annoyed". Occasionally yes. But unless I say that I am cross about something I am not -- I am being faux-exasperated/ironic/using hyperbole for effect.


  67. At 08:03 PM on 22 Mar 2007, Humph wrote:

    I am trying to do a bit of personal research on the philosophy used in tapestry. This is purely for my own satisfaction, you understand, and if there is no-one here who is able to help me, I will not suffer from that. However, if anyone is able to help me that would be much appreciated. Does anyone know where I can lay my hands on a copy of this PhD thesis from Oslo University? Thank you if you are able to help me.


    "Needles - one end is sharper than the other"
    - Lars Twerd.

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.