Who is paying for Blair's security as Middle East Envoy? I hope not just the UK Taxpayers.
All ex UK Prime Ministers are entitled to have a level of security funded by the tax payer. I've seen figures for John Major's security costing over £1.5 million per year.
All ex UK Prime Ministers are entitled to have a level of security funded by the tax payer. I've seen figures for John Major's security costing over £1.5 million per year.
I see nothing wrong with this expenditure.
I am certainly no Cameron fan, but I remember him coming in for stick a few years ago by taking British Airways flights at Business Class for official engagements. Again I see nothing wrong with a PM taking comfortable flights on the 'national flag carrier'.
FrankBT Today at 13.09 (Chit chat thread)
That's the argument put forward by the Palestinians. It's a lot more complex than that. Jews have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years
In short, when the UN resolution in 1947 declared a partitioned 2 state Palestine (UNSCOP) , one of them to be a Jewish state, the Arabs wouldn't accept it and attacked what was to be set up as Israel in 1948. It was that first major conflict when Israel retaliated and took over much of what was Palestinian territory driving many Arabs from their own homes in the process. So Palestine became just the one State renamed Israel. You could say that the Palestinians created a huge rod for their own back by their action.
I'm old enough to remember all that going on. As you say, a chunk of Palestine was handed to the Jews. Who can blame the arabs for being upset.?
I have no axe to grind one way or the other but, on this point alone, I can certainly see the arabs' point of view.
FrankBT Today at 13.09 (Chit chat thread)
That's the argument put forward by the Palestinians. It's a lot more complex than that. Jews have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years
In short, when the UN resolution in 1947 declared a partitioned 2 state Palestine (UNSCOP) , one of them to be a Jewish state, the Arabs wouldn't accept it and attacked what was to be set up as Israel in 1948. It was that first major conflict when Israel retaliated and took over much of what was Palestinian territory driving many Arabs from their own homes in the process. So Palestine became just the one State renamed Israel. You could say that the Palestinians created a huge rod for their own back by their action.
I'm old enough to remember all that going on. As you say, a chunk of Palestine was handed to the Jews. Who can blame the arabs for being upset.?
I have no axe to grind one way or the other but, on this point alone, I can certainly see the arabs' point of view.
But before any of that happened the Brits ruled Palestine and before them the Ottoman Empire, and before them the Byzantines, Romans etc, etc. During all those centuries Jews have been living side by side with Arabs.in Palestine along with Christians.
So back in 1947 the Arabs did not rule Palestine. We did. But we wanted out. And as with any ruler what they say goes unless you want civil war. Palestine was temporarily handed to the UN who had agreed with us as per the 1917 Balfour Declaration to split up the area into a 2 State solution which would have been reasonably fair for both Jews and Arabs who had an historical interest in the land.. Instead of which, the Arabs decided they wanted to rule all of Palestine and attacked Israel a year later. The result was that many Palestinians ended up being displaced and dispossessed. Obviously there were plenty of innocent Muslims caught up in it all, who didn't want any part of it but It's what happens in War. The Palestinian leaders badly miscalculated, as Egypt later tried to do and failed miserably in the 1967 6 day war, when even more land was taken from them.
AFAICS it's the Palestinian leaders and terrorists who have caused all the trouble and hardship to their own people rather than the 'big, bad' Israelis, no matter how unpalatable their bombing tactics have been recently in Gaza..
But before any of that happened the Brits ruled Palestine and before them the Ottoman Empire, and before them the Byzantines, Romans etc, etc. During all those centuries Jews have been living side by side with Arabs.in Palestine along with Christians.
So back in 1947 the Arabs did not rule Palestine. We did. But we wanted out. And as with any ruler what they say goes unless you want civil war. Palestine was temporarily handed to the UN who had agreed with us as per the 1917 Balfour Declaration to split up the area into a 2 State solution which would have been reasonably fair for both Jews and Arabs who had an historical interest in the land.. Instead of which, the Arabs decided they wanted to rule all of Palestine and attacked Israel a year later. The result was that many Palestinians ended up being displaced and dispossessed. Obviously there were plenty of innocent Muslims caught up in it all, who didn't want any part of it but It's what happens in War. The Palestinian leaders badly miscalculated, as Egypt later tried to do and failed miserably in the 1967 6 day war, when even more land was taken from them.
AFAICS it's the Palestinian leaders and terrorists who have caused all the trouble and hardship to their own people rather than the 'big, bad' Israelis, no matter how unpalatable their bombing tactics have been recently in Gaza..
so what youre saying is that israel offers the dispossessed palestinians their right of return because israel isnt a terrorist nation and values its western styled democracy and civilisation. it is what we would expect of any jewish state and tenets of faith.
israelis being so superior to the average arab surely would not defend the mistakes of arab leaders and would seek to rectify the poor badly served palestinians through reparations.
so what youre saying is that israel offers the dispossessed palestinians their right of return because israel isnt a terrorist nation and values its western styled democracy and civilisation. it is what we would expect of any jewish state and tenets of faith.
israelis being so superior to the average arab surely would not defend the mistakes of arab leaders and would seek to rectify the poor badly served palestinians through reparations.
Nasty. Your contributions are sounding increasingly anti-semitic. I find you offensive. Israel, and indeed Jews in general, do not claim to be superior to anyone else.
so what youre saying is that israel offers the dispossessed palestinians their right of return because israel isnt a terrorist nation and values its western styled democracy and civilisation. it is what we would expect of any jewish state and tenets of faith.
Why should Israel offer Palestinians any of the land captured during the wars? In 2005 they let the Palestinians have the Gaza Strip captured by Israelis from Egypt in the six day war and look what's happened since.
so what youre saying is that israel offers the dispossessed palestinians their right of return because israel isnt a terrorist nation and values its western styled democracy and civilisation. it is what we would expect of any jewish state and tenets of faith.
israelis being so superior to the average arab surely would not defend the mistakes of arab leaders and would seek to rectify the poor badly served palestinians through reparations.
Nasty. Your contributions are sounding increasingly anti-semitic. I find you offensive. Israel, and indeed Jews in general, do not claim to be superior to anyone else.
Flippin' 'eck! :eek: I think you need to wind your neck in a bit. There is nothing in Wendy's post that is even remotely anti-Semitic.
Why should Israel offer Palestinians any of the land captured during the wars? In 2005 they let the Palestinians have the Gaza Strip captured by Israelis from Egypt in the six day war and look what's happened since.
Yep.....look at what has happened since. I don't the Arabs have gained much from being besieged for the last ten years.
What a sickening topic from Olly Mann this evening:
'Atheist author Richard Dawkins says it is "immoral" to allow Down's Syndrome babies to be born. Olly asks is it immoral to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome?'
What I find even more sickening is Olly's casual mention that he would consider abortion if his partner was expecting a Down's Syndrome baby. If the woman cannot cope, hasn't he heard of adoption? Many disabled people live happy and fulfilled lives. >:( And as for Richard Dawkins. >:(>:(
What a sickening topic from Olly Mann this evening:
'Atheist author Richard Dawkins says it is "immoral" to allow Down's Syndrome babies to be born. Olly asks is it immoral to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome?'
What I find even more sickening is Olly's casual mention that he would consider abortion if his partner was expecting a Down's Syndrome baby. If the woman cannot cope, hasn't he heard of adoption? Many disabled people live happy and fulfilled lives. >:( And as for Richard Dawkins. >:(>:(
I'm shocked and surprised at Dawkins if that's true. Do you have a citation for that at all, Chin?
I found Petrie Hosken most infuriating today! As good as putting a imam on trial today I thought by asking him things like did he condemn the murder of James Foley, why don't muslims go on a mass demonstration condemning the murder! LBC Presenters and other radio station presenters often do this and they make my blood boil always being so suspicious of muslims and as good as making them guilty until they prove themselves innocent and then do it all again the next time there is a terrorist attack by a so called muslim!
Then later on when she couldn't work out what a caller was saying, she accused him of being patronising and then said to him in a patronising arrogant way I thought, that if he carried on like that, it would be the last time he "talks to her"! Who on earth does she think she is?!!!! >:( Does she thinks she owns LBC or something?! The point that caller was making was obvious, but she imo, is often looking to make callers tread on egg shells with her unless they sing her praises and I don't know why LBC keep her on let alone took her on in the first place!!!!
I found Petrie Hosken most infuriating today! As good as putting a imam on trial today I thought by asking him things like did he condemn the murder of James Foley, why don't muslims go on a mass demonstration condemning the murder! LBC Presenters and other radio station presenters often do this and they make my blood boil always being so suspicious of muslims and as good as making them guilty until they prove themselves innocent and then do it all again the next time there is a terrorist attack by a so called muslim!
Then later on when she couldn't work out what a caller was saying, she accused him of being patronising and then said to him in a patronising arrogant way I thought, that if he carried on like that, it would be the last time he "talks to her"! Who on earth does she think she is?!!!! >:( Does she thinks she owns LBC or something?! The point that caller was making was obvious, but she imo, is often looking to make callers tread on egg shells with her unless they sing her praises and I don't know why LBC keep her on let alone took her on in the first place!!!!
Absolutely one hundred per cent agree Styker. Poor old Carlisle got frustrated with her as well, about her asking stupid and pointless questions about who the unknown eight hundred British Jihadis were and why they couldn't be arrested, deported and de-naturalised, if they can't prove they weren't terrorists. It was Daily Heil radio at it best (or worst, depending on one's point of view).
She shouted down anyone who had a different opinion than her and poor old Poppy was cut of in her prime, when she showed small bit of understanding and empathy about the subject.
Absolutely one hundred per cent agree Styker. Poor old Carlisle got frustrated with her as well, about her asking stupid and pointless questions about who the unknown eight hundred British Jihadis were and why they couldn't be arrested, deported and de-naturalised, if they can't prove they weren't terrorists. It was Daily Heil radio at it best (or worst, depending on one's point of view).
She shouted down anyone who had a different opinion than her and poor old Poppy was cut of in her prime, when she showed small bit of understanding and empathy about the subject.
It's not just limited to Petrie though, is it?
Just about everyone on LBC wants to be a 'shock jock'.
What a sickening topic from Olly Mann this evening:
'Atheist author Richard Dawkins says it is "immoral" to allow Down's Syndrome babies to be born. Olly asks is it immoral to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome?'
What I find even more sickening is Olly's casual mention that he would consider abortion if his partner was expecting a Down's Syndrome baby. If the woman cannot cope, hasn't he heard of adoption? Many disabled people live happy and fulfilled lives. >:( And as for Richard Dawkins. >:(>:(
This is why he (Ollly Mann) is considered a little wet behind the ears. (Re. the main LBC thread).
Absolutely one hundred per cent agree Styker. Poor old Carlisle got frustrated with her as well, about her asking stupid and pointless questions about who the unknown eight hundred British Jihadis were and why they couldn't be arrested, deported and de-naturalised, if they can't prove they weren't terrorists. It was Daily Heil radio at it best (or worst, depending on one's point of view).
She shouted down anyone who had a different opinion than her and poor old Poppy was cut of in her prime, when she showed small bit of understanding and empathy about the subject.
She said at one point something like that she felt the murder of James Foley really bad as she used to be a war reporter but with the medical corps but what makes her think that any decent person didn't feel sorry/upset for what happened to James Foley?
Her expecting muslims to do mass condemnations indicates to me that she thinks they are pro terrorism unless they prove themselves innocent every time there is a terrorist attack by doing mass condemnations/marches and not only do I find that patronising, I find it very ignorant too and I think LBC should pull her up on this behind the scenes.
This is why he (O....Whyllly Mann) is considered a little wet behind the ears. (Re. the main LBC thread).
He's quite young and still has a lot to learn.
He comes across sounding like an enthusiastic puppy, and the subjects he chooses tend to be tabloidy in the main. Eg last night he was asking callers to ring in to talk about ltheir experiences if they had been mugged. Typical LBC fodder. Maybe it was a slow night for calls.
Comments
Sigh
Who is paying for Blair's security as Middle East Envoy? I hope not just the UK Taxpayers.
All ex UK Prime Ministers are entitled to have a level of security funded by the tax payer. I've seen figures for John Major's security costing over £1.5 million per year.
I see nothing wrong with this expenditure.
I am certainly no Cameron fan, but I remember him coming in for stick a few years ago by taking British Airways flights at Business Class for official engagements. Again I see nothing wrong with a PM taking comfortable flights on the 'national flag carrier'.
That's the argument put forward by the Palestinians. It's a lot more complex than that. Jews have lived in Palestine/Israel for thousands of years
In short, when the UN resolution in 1947 declared a partitioned 2 state Palestine (UNSCOP) , one of them to be a Jewish state, the Arabs wouldn't accept it and attacked what was to be set up as Israel in 1948. It was that first major conflict when Israel retaliated and took over much of what was Palestinian territory driving many Arabs from their own homes in the process. So Palestine became just the one State renamed Israel. You could say that the Palestinians created a huge rod for their own back by their action.
I'm old enough to remember all that going on. As you say, a chunk of Palestine was handed to the Jews. Who can blame the arabs for being upset.?
I have no axe to grind one way or the other but, on this point alone, I can certainly see the arabs' point of view.
So back in 1947 the Arabs did not rule Palestine. We did. But we wanted out. And as with any ruler what they say goes unless you want civil war. Palestine was temporarily handed to the UN who had agreed with us as per the 1917 Balfour Declaration to split up the area into a 2 State solution which would have been reasonably fair for both Jews and Arabs who had an historical interest in the land.. Instead of which, the Arabs decided they wanted to rule all of Palestine and attacked Israel a year later. The result was that many Palestinians ended up being displaced and dispossessed. Obviously there were plenty of innocent Muslims caught up in it all, who didn't want any part of it but It's what happens in War. The Palestinian leaders badly miscalculated, as Egypt later tried to do and failed miserably in the 1967 6 day war, when even more land was taken from them.
AFAICS it's the Palestinian leaders and terrorists who have caused all the trouble and hardship to their own people rather than the 'big, bad' Israelis, no matter how unpalatable their bombing tactics have been recently in Gaza..
so what youre saying is that israel offers the dispossessed palestinians their right of return because israel isnt a terrorist nation and values its western styled democracy and civilisation. it is what we would expect of any jewish state and tenets of faith.
israelis being so superior to the average arab surely would not defend the mistakes of arab leaders and would seek to rectify the poor badly served palestinians through reparations.
Nasty. Your contributions are sounding increasingly anti-semitic. I find you offensive. Israel, and indeed Jews in general, do not claim to be superior to anyone else.
Flippin' 'eck! :eek: I think you need to wind your neck in a bit. There is nothing in Wendy's post that is even remotely anti-Semitic.
Yep.....look at what has happened since. I don't the Arabs have gained much from being besieged for the last ten years.
'Atheist author Richard Dawkins says it is "immoral" to allow Down's Syndrome babies to be born. Olly asks is it immoral to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome?'
What I find even more sickening is Olly's casual mention that he would consider abortion if his partner was expecting a Down's Syndrome baby. If the woman cannot cope, hasn't he heard of adoption? Many disabled people live happy and fulfilled lives. >:( And as for Richard Dawkins. >:(>:(
I'm shocked and surprised at Dawkins if that's true. Do you have a citation for that at all, Chin?
No, I took quote directly from the LBC website.
This is from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-28879659
It's on the Evening Standard site too.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/richard-dawkins-sparks-outrage-with-downs-syndrome-abortion-tweets-9682443.html
I don't blame you Martin.
Then later on when she couldn't work out what a caller was saying, she accused him of being patronising and then said to him in a patronising arrogant way I thought, that if he carried on like that, it would be the last time he "talks to her"! Who on earth does she think she is?!!!! >:( Does she thinks she owns LBC or something?! The point that caller was making was obvious, but she imo, is often looking to make callers tread on egg shells with her unless they sing her praises and I don't know why LBC keep her on let alone took her on in the first place!!!!
Absolutely one hundred per cent agree Styker. Poor old Carlisle got frustrated with her as well, about her asking stupid and pointless questions about who the unknown eight hundred British Jihadis were and why they couldn't be arrested, deported and de-naturalised, if they can't prove they weren't terrorists. It was Daily Heil radio at it best (or worst, depending on one's point of view).
She shouted down anyone who had a different opinion than her and poor old Poppy was cut of in her prime, when she showed small bit of understanding and empathy about the subject.
It's not just limited to Petrie though, is it?
Just about everyone on LBC wants to be a 'shock jock'.
This is why he (Ollly Mann) is considered a little wet behind the ears. (Re. the main LBC thread).
He's quite young and still has a lot to learn.
She said at one point something like that she felt the murder of James Foley really bad as she used to be a war reporter but with the medical corps but what makes her think that any decent person didn't feel sorry/upset for what happened to James Foley?
Her expecting muslims to do mass condemnations indicates to me that she thinks they are pro terrorism unless they prove themselves innocent every time there is a terrorist attack by doing mass condemnations/marches and not only do I find that patronising, I find it very ignorant too and I think LBC should pull her up on this behind the scenes.
Thanks folks. That's really pretty insensitive of Dawkins, isn't it?