More considered remarks will follow. Right now I'm just enjoying the moment.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
What do you expect? I hear when Clinton was reelected, he also went through a massive overhaul of his staff too.
Over here, Martin has basically overhauled his staff so much that almost everyone now on his senior cabinet are people who I have never heard of.
Nothing new here.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Basically this is a victory for the right-wing press in the UK. . . but no-one else. Yes, the guy himself was so conservative he made Blair look like a member of the Labour Party, and his departure is no great loss for the nation. But what the Mail and the Telegraph have actually done is to fuck their preferred party, the Conservatives: after this, no-one in public office will ever be able to do a favour for anyone ever again, and why else would any Conservative want to be in power but to help themselves?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I agree with Lee to a substantial extent. I disagreed with virtually all Blunkett's policies; what he did to get the Mail all worked up wasn't all that bad but it was the sort of thing that Labour used to have a go at the Tories for. I would also like to replace 'Conservative' in Lee's final sentence with 'politician'.
I'm looking forward to Cecil Parkinson, Shagger Norris and Boris coming out in support of Blunkett... Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: What do you expect? I hear when Clinton was reelected, he also went through a massive overhaul of his staff too.
Er, yeah, but Blair hasn't been reelected. Well, he has, but not recently.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
He won't be agin until next year. Not that I think it's a foregone conclusion or anything.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Well, you never know. The Tories might...
Sorry, I can't even finish that sentence without laughing.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
I was going to vote for them until 1. they fired Boris Johnson from the front bench who is the only charistmatic torie in existence (despite me not sharing most of his political views what he said about Liverpool was completely justified and since when was adultery a crime? We all know that the was the real reason he got fired;) and 2. I remembered what their European policy was.
Blunkett's tough policy on immigration was something I rather enjoyed but his anti-terror laws took things way too far, this is not the fear stricken US.
You know what the test immigrants have to take now is? They have to know how to claim benefits, how to take employers to tribunals for compensation, what their rights are under the HRA'98 (human rights act) (though this is really something WE should know - let alone immigrants) there is a section explaining our history and the major events but it won't be on the test so it's completely pointless. Let's teach immigrants how to scrounge off an overburdened welfare state - nice idea there Sir Bernard Crick.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The Tories have a European policy?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
and I thought you guys were talking about Bush....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, in a way we were...
Did you know this Fortier woman once described Michael Howard as attractive? I think she just has a thing for Home Secretaries. Charles had better look out!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marauth: what he said about Liverpool was completely justified
Just out of curiousity, how?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
What did he say about Liverpool?
..and for that matter, who in their right mind would name a place "Liverpool"?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
He said that everyone in Liverpool was a whining git (well, that was the gist of it anyway). Actually it wasn't even Boris who wrote that piece; he just stood by his decision to publish it.
I don't know why Liverpool is called Liverpool and don't really care. It's not exactly up there with names like Spittal in the Street or Wagga-Wagga, is it?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It was shortly after a Liverpudlian in Iraq (David Kelly, I think) was captured by extremists. He was held captive for several days, with them threatening him constantly. And then they decapitated him and showed it on one of the Arab news channels.
There was a day of mourning in Liverpool. And the Specator (right-wing publication edited by said Boris Johnson) said that everyone in Liverpool was, as, Wraith put it, "a whining git". Which was possibly just a touch harsh, quite insensitive, and policitally a fucking stupid thing to do.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Actually he said that they were all obssesed with having something to be miserable over and it was not their business but the business of the family to be sad over the death. It's true, Britain is overjoyed when we have some catastrophe we can all cry over even though it couldn't be further from us. I never heard of Bigley till he was captured and wasn't to surprise/bothered when he was killed because it is now commonplace if you go to Iraq you're very likely to be captured and killed by extremists - it's a warzone; what the hell were they expecting?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not to be decapitated and have it shown on television, I would assume.
I also question your definition of "commonplace". Unless you think that the family of people killed in car crashes over here shouldn't be surprised because such instances are "commonplace".
The Princess Diana sitaution was an example of the country being stupidly hysterical and showing forced mourning. The papers (and the people) were slagging her off the day before she was killed, and then the day after they (and the people) were proclaiming her to be a saint.
Ken Bigley was an ordinary man working over there who was captured by extremists. His messages/pleas home were shown on TV for all to see. His families messages to the terrorists and Blair were also broadcast. Not getting emotionally involved was not easy. Even after his death, the reaction was a subdued, respectful mourning, not the flag waving, glitzy, Elton John-soundtrack affair that was Diana's death.
Still, if you can't see the difference between being ordered for execution and having your head cut off, and being killed in a car crash because you weren't wearing your seat belt, I don't know what to tell you.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Ignore
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, the 'Liverpudlians are grief obsessed, whining gits' thing has been going on for years. Private Eye did a compilation of various articles that had appeared over the years (most of which had been in publications or by writers who had attacked Boris). Although curiously enough, several members of the City Council made similar comments recently and were applauded for 'telling the truth' about it.
I agree that Bigley's death was shocking, although not totally unexpected. The long build up, rumours of negotiation and a possible release, etc, all contributed to it not being a 'man killed in warzone' story.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
To be honest, I never noticed anything over the top about the reaction in Liverpool to Bigley's death. Flowers and the like, but not mass hysteria.
And it's hard to criticise them too much, since they generally refuse to buy the Sun, and that has to be worth points in anyone's book.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
they are completely unintelligible though, I've had conversations with more intelligible cornershop owners.
It was apparently sparked off by a minute's silence across the whole city, they did something similar for Diana, I mean WTF does Diana have to do with Liverpool? She wouldn't have been seen, erm, alive there. Sure it's sad that an innocent guy got killed but what about the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed during the war? Are the fine inhabitants of Liverpool gonna have a minute's silence for every one of them? Or even just a silence for them collectively? No they weren't on TV begging for their lives so f' 'em. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
To be honest, I didn't notice much about the death of Bigley anyway; I live in in a giant concrete typewriter at uni and cant't get radio without the aid of an irritatingly big set of aerials.
quote: And it's hard to criticise them too much, since they generally refuse to buy the Sun, and that has to be worth points in anyone's book.
Quite right too!
quote: Sure it's sad that an innocent guy got killed but what about the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed during the war?
Well, what about them? It was a war. Sure, it's regretable that people other than Saddam and co were killed but sometimes in war that happens. They weren't British, let alone Liverpudlian. Whay should the 'fine inhabitants' of Liverpool care as much about them?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm not getting the hypocricy at all. It's all very well being "yay boo sucks to our troops WE ARE INVADERS AND WHO SAYS WHO THE EVIL ONES ARE" rad to the core, but quite frankly, if there's a two week build up involving a bloke being tortured, and then beheaded, a city has the right to show some respect.
quote:Originally posted by Marauth: It was apparently sparked off by a minute's silence across the whole city, they did something similar for Diana, I mean WTF does Diana have to do with Liverpool?
Sorry, I've no idea what you're going on about there. The entire country did the over-the-top mourning thing for Diana, not just Liverpool.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: It was shortly after a Liverpudlian in Iraq (David Kelly, I think) was captured by extremists. He was held captive for several days, with them threatening him constantly. And then they decapitated him and showed it on one of the Arab news channels.
There was a day of mourning in Liverpool. And the Specator (right-wing publication edited by said Boris Johnson) said that everyone in Liverpool was, as, Wraith put it, "a whining git". Which was possibly just a touch harsh, quite insensitive, and policitally a fucking stupid thing to do.
Wow. That's even more dickish than the politival nutjobs in this country.
Possibly a record.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Certainly up there with the Hillsborough disaster. There was an accident at Liverpool's football stadium (of the time), and a large number of people were crushed to death. Very sad. And the Sun decided the next day to run a story titled "Thieving Scousers", allegedly showing people running amoungst the dead bodies stealing their wallets. The story was later proven to be untrue, but to this day the Sun has a lower circulation in Liverpool than any other UK city. Which is a good thing.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
Was the Sun not the same fine publication that had the headline 'Gotcha' when the RN sunk that Argentinian ship in the Falklands war? Or was that the Daily Star it's before my time.
The point I was making about the hypocrisy of Liverpool is that we must indulge them mourning for one man who died in a warzone (I don't give a s**t how he died, he went into the middle of a wartorn country filled with islamic extremists who had already done this sort of thing) and yet any suggestion that we even acknowledge that it was wrong to let thousands of the natives die is met with rabid cries of 'it's war, this sort of thing happens!!! We're not the bad guys, we're liberating them!!!!' It's war, there are no 'good guys'.
P.S. I'm not some commie, anti-war student hippie; far from it, just don't like it when corrupt governments use war to disguise failing domestic policy and political discontent.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Was the Sun not the same fine publication that had the headline 'Gotcha' when the RN sunk that Argentinian ship in the Falklands war?
Yep. ALthough that was kind of justified. And 'that Argentine ship' was the General Belgrano. The Sun is also responsible for such classics as 'Ship, Ship, hooray' when Harold Shipman died. Not to mention when Brian Clough died and the headline was 'Goodbye Big 'Ead'; unfortunately it was just below a story about a beheading in Iraq. The Sun's circulation is now at it's lowest level since 1974.
quote: I'm not some commie, anti-war student hippie; far from it, just don't like it when corrupt governments use war to disguise failing domestic policy and political discontent.
Well, you're certainly coming across as one! I suspect that the level of grieving was exaggerated somewhat by the media (you may have noticed that they tend to do that). This government's record, on domestic or foreign affairs is so pisspoor that one little war hasn't exactly distracted much attention from it.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:The point I was making about the hypocrisy of Liverpool is that we must indulge them mourning for one man who died in a warzone (I don't give a s**t how he died, he went into the middle of a wartorn country filled with islamic extremists who had already done this sort of thing) and yet any suggestion that we even acknowledge that it was wrong to let thousands of the natives die is met with rabid cries of 'it's war, this sort of thing happens!!! We're not the bad guys, we're liberating them!!!!' It's war, there are no 'good guys'.
Well, the people of Liverpool were 100% behind the war in every way, and any mention of the large numbers of Iraqi deaths is met with fingers in the ears. That's why they all read the resolutely anti-War Mirror, and not the pro-War Sun. They are being ironic.
And I'm all for slagging off the American government, but not giving a sHIt sHIt sHIt that an ordinary bloke from Liverpool got his head cut off just because you don't like Bush makes as much sense as going to war against a country because terrorists from another country blew up one of your buildings.
And I mean no disrespect, but the "there are no good guys in war" attitude is a very first year political student opinion to have. It's all very well looking at and trying to understand other points of view, but there comes a point where you have to stamp your own idea of morality onto any given situation. Whether you think that the war itself was justified, you can't seriously claim that Bush is just as "evil" as Saddam. Misguided, yes. An idiot, certainly. But on the whole, a better choice.
(Not that that gives him the right to impose his will on another country, but we're already down that road and it's too late to do a U-turn).
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Also, the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq have not been cold blooded, premeditated murders.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
I think one shouldn't just dismiss town- or countrywide mourning/outrage as sycophantic hypocrisy and summarily despise the people involved.
There may be some hypocrites among the people in question, like flag salesmen and politicians looking for a cause, but the phenomenon of large crowds feeling sympathy for a person they 24 hours earlier were seemingly unattached to is much more complicated than just being explained with "they're joining up in the hopes that others who started acting that way will accept them in the club". I think it is a built-in mechanism and it has a meaning.
I guess it falls under sociology and/or anthropology (what's the difference???), but I haven't studied enough of either to write a fucking article about it.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I;m not sure what everyone was arguing about. Yes, what happened to Bigley was pretty nasty, but on the other hand no-one was making him work in Iraq. He was there making a shitload of money, and he wasn't that hard up to begin with.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I doubt he signed a paper saying "there is a chance you might get captured and beheaded after two weeks of tortuous build up" though. And I bet the number of people willing to go out there and work in Iraq shot right down after that.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
While I was at Wikipedia, I ran this past and learned that "In 1190 it was known as 'liuerpul', meaning a pool or creek with muddy water. Other origins of the name have been suggest (sic) including 'elverpool', a reference to the large number of eels in the mersey."
So that, uh, sort of points vaguely at an answer.
I prefer my British placenames to be of the form "X-on-Y."
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I prefer my American placenames to be of the form "New [existing placename]", then two letters that confuse and frighten me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I doubt he signed a paper saying "there is a chance you might get captured and beheaded after two weeks of tortuous build up" though.
That's actually in next year's Kinko's coworker handbook.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And at WalMart they've been doing that for years.
So basically liverpool means 'shithole?'
The British place names I like are the ones that come in groups - you have a small set of vllages named in common, like the ones we've seen today, the Episcopi (Huish Episcopi, Kingston Episcopi) and the Curries (Curry Mallet, Curry Howell), in Somerset. . . I seem to remember a few such groupings in northern Essex although I forget the names.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
There's a set of street in Romford all named after monarchs. Victoria Street, Edward Street, George Street. I got confused delivering pizzas there, because I am stupid.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Ilchester, Stilton, Dorset Blue Vinny, love those places.
Psycosm:
quote:I prefer my American placenames to be of the form "New [existing placename]", then two letters that confuse and frighten me.
What, like New York, NY? I think it's an americanization, like with "turtle" (tortoise), "flavor" (flavour) and "smack" (smaque, french snough).
Try using it in a sentence. For instance, "The end is drawing NY", or "The watcher took Eop and Bombo, Bephar was NY slain."
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Turtle" isn't an Americanisation of "Tortoise", though. It's a different creature.
And, ironically, writing it "Americanization" IS ITSELF an Americanistion. Which costs you all your points.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Omg, it's already begun. You're slipping into the Nixrealm Proper.
Please fight it, I can still sense the good in you, father.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"...sociology and/or anthropology (what's the difference???)"
Anthropology is the study of human beings. Sociology is the study of human beings in herds. I mean flocks. I mean society. I don't know what I mean. Ask Tim.
(The mechanism you mentioned indeed exists and has a proper name, which I would offer you for your article instead of the rather informal "identification effect", had I not forgotten it.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)