TV in Tripoli

Martin wrote:

Yes, l know, but it hasn't got any better
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/...ures_1_3128154

Jobless figures


Published on Monday 28 February 2011 16:07

Latest unemployment figures show that 5.5 per cent of people in
Doncaster are claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance.


Doncaster hasn't been a mining town for a long time. I was commenting
more about the Dearne Valley.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

Because she stuck to her guns she polarises opinion to this day.

The problem is that she did it right or wrong...


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Bill Wright wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Maybe the social housing program would
not have been so damaged, and there wouldn't be such a housing problem
now.

There's a housing problem now because Labour let all the immigrants in.
And it's going to get much worse. We're going to have to build on our
green belt land because of that.

You are a silly arse at times Bill. Do you really believe all this Daily
Mail propaganda?


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Jim wrote:
On 05/09/2011 09:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
If you know the rail line from Edinburgh to Fife you''d know that the
existing rail line runs right past the end of the Edinburgh Airport
runway.
So it would have been far cheaper to just build a station there on the
existing line and have some trains stop at it.


I'm pretty sure there was once a "Turnhouse Station". Even better would
have been a spur right into the terminal, with direct shuttle trains.


http://www.railbrit.co.uk/imageenlarge/imagecomplete2.php?id=17325

I suspect the reason this didn't happen is that the politicians got
themselves into a tangle in which they couldn't support the eminently
sensible rail scheme without undercutting the case for the trams. They
were hoping the airport tram link would provide a base for something
that would grow much bigger.

Unfortunately, the plans were as badly laid as the tram-lines.

Watching the end of "The Shootist" at the weekend, I was struck by how
charming the horse-drawn trams featured in that film (set in 1901) would
have looked running back and forth along Princes Street. Much nicer for
the tourists (and safer!) than "light trains".


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Bill Wright wrote:
Albert Ross wrote:

Once he started acting in a manner contrary to US interests eg
invading Kuwait, he suddenly became the enemy. Before that,
people like Donald Rumsfeld were only too happy to shake the
hand of a butcher and dictator.

And of course the oil had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

Defending our oil supplies is defending our national interest. That's
what we have armies for.

Gosh, it just goes to show doesn't it, just what you can miss if you're
not paying attention at all times. Just refresh my memory please Bill,
who was it that invaded the North Sea? And how did we defeat them?


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Jim wrote:
On 04/09/2011 18:38, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 02:01:45 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:04:40 +0000 (UTC), J G
wrote:

And Iceland which was invaded and occupied by the English.

English? Quite apart from it being British you mean, I was under the
impression the Yanks were big on invading Iceland and keeping hold of
it, or a part of it, as an essential air ferry port. This certainly
led to the Yanks on the airbase there being despised and getting no
co-operation from the local populace for decades afterwards.

Britain seized Iceland before the USA joined he war.

And then handed it over immediately after.

Iceland in 1941 was ruled by the Danish monarch, who chose to remain in
Denmark during its occupation, leaving the country vulnerable to German
influence, if not occupation.

And, IIRC, the government in Iceland [such as it was] turned down
suggestions from the UK that their security ought to be boosted to avoid
German invasion and it was this that lead to the occupation of Iceland

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:45:18 +0100, Jim wrote:

Watching the end of "The Shootist" at the weekend, I
was struck by how charming the horse-drawn trams
featured in that film (set in 1901) would have looked
running back and forth along Princes Street. Much
nicer for the tourists (and safer!) than "light trains".

Didn't Princes St have tramlines back as far as that, anyway?

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Britain seized Iceland before the USA joined he war.

And then handed it over immediately after.

Iceland in 1941 was ruled by the Danish monarch, who chose to remain in
Denmark during its occupation, leaving the country vulnerable to German
influence, if not occupation.

Iceland became an independant kingdom in 1918, sharing a king with Denmark,
but the rule of the Danish monarch was only notional (much as the role of
the Queen in the UK of today) so the danger of German influence was limited.
The danger of German occupation was greatly feared at the time, though it
has since been shown to be much exagarrated as the Germans had lost so much
of their naval strength in their Scandinavian invasions.

"David Kennedy" wrote in message
o.uk...
Iceland in 1941 was ruled by the Danish monarch, who chose to remain in
Denmark during its occupation, leaving the country vulnerable to German
influence, if not occupation.

And, IIRC, the government in Iceland [such as it was] turned down
suggestions from the UK that their security ought to be boosted to avoid
German invasion and it was this that lead to the occupation of Iceland

The government in Iceland was the government of a sovereign state, there was
no "such as it was" about it................

In article ,
Jim wrote:
Not much more than half a century ago, the Tories
(under various guises) had 50% of the Scottish vote in
Westminster elections, and more than half the MPs.
Today, polls show the SNP with 49% popular support,
and they have a majority of MPs in the Scottish
Parliament. That's not entirely Mrs T's legacy, but
you can see why Alex is so grateful.

My mother, who lived in Aberdeen, was as true blue a Tory as you'd find -
until Thatcher.

Mother was very much in favour of the poll tax - she was a widow living on
her own in her own modest house, with little more income than the OAP. So
thought it only fair those households with multiple incomes should pay a
larger share of the costs of local services than was the case under the
rates.

And in practice? The poll tax cost her more than her rates did with her
rate rebate...

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.