BBC Blog Network

User Profile

tarquin

Listed below are comments made by tarquin between Sunday, 25th October 2009 and Friday, 20th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

That was horrid, Henry 00:25am on 20 Nov 2009 "Why is it even being given airtime/web space by the BBC?"

The same reason it's being given airtime around the globe - as far flung as Australia and Japan

600 comments in 12 hours - and they seem to be mostly British, seems it's in our interests
That was horrid, Henry 00:08am on 20 Nov 2009 Thanks Robbo - I've now entered cynical mode and moved on to grumbling acceptance

I don't know why people are trying to defend this - fact is, if such blatant cheating (and this really is the most blatant and pivotal case since the hand of god) goes unnoticed it goes against our sense of natural justice

So what if the roles were reversed and we would be hypocrites? The point is the rules were broken and it went unpunished, I would hope I'd be big enough to accept if that had been England it'd be a hollow victory, but regardless there's a reason we have an impartial official to referee and quite simply with the technology we now possess and the coverage this gets there's no reason not to intervene - it's weak saying 'mistakes happen' in such a ridiculous case - people aren't going to lie down and accept such an obvious miscarriage of justice which was plain for all to see

as you said, Zidane was effectively sent off because of the fourth official and that was less pivotal than a vital winning goal, why was a headbutt to the chest so much more important than cheating?

it's a fundamental issue of right and wrong, and it's a watertight verdict
Phil McNulty Q&A 02:22am on 19 Nov 2009 The question about Birmingham is just silly - results are often decided by dodgy decisions, picking up on one game out of 38 is pointless

Look at how the Tevez West Ham/Sheffield affair ended - and they had a legal point - it was also made emotional by the fact it was the last few games, we're talking November here - the FA are never going to go back months and pick on some dodgy antics, it'd turn the league into a farce

I would however disagree on the France v Ireland game tonight - a one-off match carrying the fate of two nations should not be decided by blatant cheating, incidents like that happen regularly all over the world, had it been a league match (or group stage) you can live with it but considering the stage and the complete unfairness of it, something really should've been done
What was that about teapots and kettles? 11:07pm on 11 Nov 2009 Aww, guyd beat me to it
More could quit, drugs panel tells Johnson 11:15pm on 02 Nov 2009 Keep at it Mark, you were one of the few interested in this topic back in the days of Smith, so kudos to you, and I will keep following this

Not really much to contribute here - we all know the story, this just comes down to which side the sword falls on - Johnson or Nutt, and whether the government can somehow defend itself by saying it can make scientific decisions without scientific evidence

I think this is key:

"that if government decides to reject the advice of an advisory panel, they publish both the original advice and their reasons for not accepting it."

I want to see their reasons for doing it - they can ignore advice if they want, but we need to know on what basis, I think in this day and age we expect our elected politicians to consult people who at least know something about the issues, and won't settle for using the law 'to send a message'
Scientists v Politicians: Round 3 10:50pm on 29 Oct 2009 6. CountingChickens wrote:

Sometimes, I wonder about scientists. The pro-cannabis ones always talk about how cannabis is not as dangerous as other drugs like tobacco or alcohol. Have you ever met a cannabis user that doesn't drink or smoke (yes, they mix tobacco with Skunk). What he hasn't mentioned is that some reports put smoked cannabis at levels four times more carcinogenic than tobacco. Yes, cannabis may give you cancer so trust your local scientist. Yep, sure will.

---

I know many cannabis smokers that don't smoke tobacco - can't say I know any who don't drink, but most people drink, and that's rather unrelated

The point is the illogical nature of the political decision here, not the actual science involved, and no-one is saying that cannabis is completely safe - the point is that tobacco and alcohol are much more harmful, they also have a far worse affect on society (particularly alcohol), when cannabis' harm is to the individual - so there's little public interest argument (why prosecute someone for using something that can only hurt themselves..)

It is illogical to say a drug like cannabis, which is less harmful than booze and cigs (debate the health affects within that all you want), is bad, when we allow aforementioned products - simple reasoning

It is also foolish and illogical to completely ignore scientific advice, which should form the basis of our political decisions as it is in the best interests of the public to listen to cold hard facts, rather than the biased media and the politicians who know nothing other than how to placate them
Census question questions 01:31am on 28 Oct 2009 18. Busby2

There will be an option in the 2011 census to tick 'english', as the Mail report (and as is available at the ons website)

In 2001 the options were white - British or Irish, with a box to put whatever you wanted

They are also still counting the total number of rooms, number of bedrooms will be a sub-question - this is being done to address the very problem that you set out, so that if you have say, 8 rooms, it can be determined if there are several 'living' rooms and only 2 bedrooms, or if there are as many as 4
Census question questions 9:05pm on 27 Oct 2009 I'm glad you picked this up, Mark - I also found his comments particularly foolish and it's good to know the UKSA followed them up too

The fact is, the only new question will relate to the number of bedrooms (in addition to the old 'number of rooms'), 'overnight visitors' is not a new question at all and only relates to census night so that no-one is missed, from the way Hurd and several media outlets were talking the census was asking who was staying every night

It was also implied that the questioning was a government directive, continuing the theme that labour are intrusive, however it was, as you say, independent - and the sole, new 'intrusive' question asks how many bedrooms you have - was this one question, that would be published by any estate agent, really worth these remarks which undermine the census, simply to get a cheap party political shot in at labour?
Nick Griffin on Question Time 03:27am on 27 Oct 2009 225 just_another__dave

"This is a ref to Churchill, I guess.
Well, here's a bit of what Churchill really thought ( before the days he was pee-ceed into something acceptable on Play School ) =>

[quote]
"In cabinet in October 1954 Mr. Churchill warned Maxwell Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe emphasised that there is no power to prevent these people entering no matter how much the number may increase.

On immigration Mr. Churchill remarked to Sir Hugh Foot, Governor of Jamaica, in 1954, “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.”

Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955, "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan!"
[unquote]"

---

Indeed Churchill made some comments that would today be considered racist - but think about when he lived, I bet you we all have at least one grandparent, or even parent who was pretty racist, my own grandfather disliked anyone who wasn't white - he would never have voted BNP, even with his views it wasn't his primary concern and he certainly wouldn't actively support a party who wanted repatriation and had link to the National Front and fascist parties

Intriguingly, despite the views held by many of the older generations, we never went down the BNP (or equivalent) road after the war - the worst we got was people like Enoch Powell and views like Churchill's, nobody violently racist in politics - and think, even though Churchill had these views - he still didn't do anything to throw out dark-skinned people, despite being prime minister twice - as you quote, he said it wasn't an easy problem, so no, of course he wouldn't have supported the aims of the BNP (who do think it's an easy problem), because he was a liberal who believed in personal freedom and hated fascists, even if he personally disliked coloured people, to say he would support the BNP is an insult to his memory
Nick Griffin on Question Time 02:13am on 25 Oct 2009 12 Chads_comments

I need clarification, when a question was posed to Nick Griffin regarding his views on the Holocaust, he refused to answer in case he was prosecuted ( I believe it is a criminal offence to write or say the holocaust didn't take place) . However, Jack Straw said he could answer, as he was the Justice Minister he would give his guarantee Griffin wouldn't face any prosecution. If I heard correctly ,can Jack Straw do this, and if he can and if Griffin had given his beliefs, would this have set a precedent

----

I do not remember this version of events - Griffin said he was not a holocaust denier, and he 'proved' it by saying he had never been convicted for it

Of course, that would be impossible anyway as it is not a crime to deny the holocaust in the UK - in many EU countries it is, but not here - regarding your recollection then I would guess that is what Straw was referring to, as he knows the law and would be aware he could not be prosecuted

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

tarquin