On Jun 19, 8:58*pm, wrote:
And Stalin wasn't exactly fond of Hitler. Just because 1 evil person or g=
roup
hates another doesn't give the former any more moral high ground than the
latter.

So presumably you'd have voted Churchill out for meeting with Stalin?

That was an expedient arrangement to prevent the annihilation of europe.
Churchill had little choice. Couple of slight differences - ken livingstone
wasn't a prime minister fighting a war, Qaradawi has no way of preventing
al quaeda doing anything and being a hypocrite its unlikely anyone on either
side would listen to him anyway so therefor the whole exercise was pointless
with livingstone yet again grandstanding with some fairly unpleasent people
just to get noticed.

You seem to be using 'hypocrite' to mean 'person you don't like'.

Qaradawi's views are consistent, although I disagree with them: he
believes that the Israeli settler population is directly committing
war crimes against the Palestinians [which is true - settling
civilians in occupied areas is banned under the Geneva convention] and
therefore a legitimate military target.

At the same time, he believes that terrorism against people who aren't
committing war crimes is bad, wrong and un-Islamic. He's an extremely
popular figure among the hardline end of Muslims - so yes, of course
people listen to him, and it's likely that his words have deterred
militant Muslims here and abroad from becoming terrorists.

Its good to see you're as biased as all the rest of the political polemicists.
I wonder if you'd be so sanguine about it if Boris invited a member of the
jewish national front over for a public debate. Somehow I think not.

Not entirely sure what the Jewish National Front is - but if there was
a small but genuine problem in the UK with disaffected Jewish kids
drifting into extremist forms of Judaism, and one form of extremist
Judaism supported blowing me up on the Tube, while the other form of
extremist Judaism condemned blowing me up on the Tube, then damn right
I'd want Boris to engage with the leaders of the second group.

(yes, even if they also supported Israel's war crimes in the occupied
territories, which is a fair parallel to Qaradawi's support of suicide
bombers in the occupied territories)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Tony Polson wrote:

"Richard J." wrote:

Very few people seem to pay cash these days (outside the central area
where you can't do so anyway), so I think that's a non-issue. I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform. The whole thing seems to be an ill-justified
populist gesture.

... one that was suggested by an ill-justified populist!

An ill-justified populist jester, even.

tom

--
They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:12:33 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

Either way,
there would then be an opportunity to give suitable warnings and/or
spurn any really dangerous locations for opening the doors at, which a
permanently open platform wouldn't allow for.

Or you deal with the infrastructure/enforcement issue that London
*still* has (Oxford Street is a good example[1]) so it isn't
inconvenient having to use stops.

[1] The stop layout, in relation to the road and what buses stop
where, is confusing and illogical. This wasn't a problem in RM days
as you didn't use the stops anyway, but now you do it's a pain.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 20 June, 22:40, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:12:33 -0700 (PDT), MIG

wrote:
Either way,
there would then be an opportunity to give suitable warnings and/or
spurn any really dangerous locations for opening the doors at, which a
permanently open platform wouldn't allow for.

Or you deal with the infrastructure/enforcement issue that London
*still* has (Oxford Street is a good example[1]) so it isn't
inconvenient having to use stops.

[1] The stop layout, in relation to the road and what buses stop
where, is confusing and illogical. *This wasn't a problem in RM days
as you didn't use the stops anyway, but now you do it's a pain.


There are many places in London where stops had to be moved and
swapped to accommodate bendy buses on certain routes. Presumably
they'll be able to swap back to a more sensible arrangement as routes
debendify.

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:40:37PM +0000, Richard J. wrote:
I don't
really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly reduced by
having a rear platform.

Every passenger who can get on or off *between* stops is one who doesn't
have to do so at a bus stop.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing
in the English language doesn't mean it should be done

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:49:39PM +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Well obviously if he was in power by means other than democratic
election then he /would/ be a dictator! Obviously that isn't the
case, so perhaps "not-a-dictator" would be a more helpful description.

It is possible for someone to be elected and to then become a dictator.
Churchill's /History of the Second World War/ contains several pages of
him worrying about whether some of the emergency powers the government
granted itself had transformed the UK into a dictatorship.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Suffer the little children to come unto me, as
their buying habits are most easily influenced.
-- Marketroid Jesus

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:39:04PM +0000, wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:31:40 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
I wonder if so many people would have voted for Boris if they had
realised that once in office, he would be completely ineffectual - apart
from getting rid of Ian Blair, of course. His finest hour.
I voted for him, can't say I've been too impressed so far. OTOH he seems
fairly harmless unlike Ken.

I voted for him, and don't yet think I did the wrong thing. Even if
he's ineffectual, that's better than being an evil corrupt New Labour
stooge, which is what Mr. Livingstone turned himself into.

Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the
only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was
really no choice.

Good. I get fed up with people who want london artchitecture to be frozen in
time as some sort of historic theme park. Skyscrapers are the cathedrals of
the modern era.

Hear hear!

--
David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive

David Cantrell wrote:


Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the
only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was
really no choice.


Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? Remind me of Boris and Ken's
respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you?

tom

On 26 June, 11:47, Tom Barry wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:

Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the
only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was
really no choice.

Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? *Remind me of Boris and Ken's
respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you?

tom

When Ken decided that he needed New Labour's resources for his second
campaign, he rejoined and became born-again New Labour. That's got to
be a stronger statement than simply staying in Labour through inertia.

Also, from that point onwards, he ceased expressing political opinions
on most things, restricting his pronouncements to things like
reliability of buses, encouraged strike-breaking, ceased appearing at
anti-war rallies etc.

Voting with his feet, basically.

On Jun 26, 12:00*pm, MIG wrote:

On 26 June, 11:47, Tom Barry wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:

Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the
only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was
really no choice.

Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? *Remind me of Boris and Ken's
respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you?

When Ken decided that he needed New Labour's resources for his second
campaign, he rejoined and became born-again New Labour. *That's got to
be a stronger statement than simply staying in Labour through inertia.

Get the history right at least. He left the Labour party after failing
to get selected to be the Labour Mayoral candidate in 2000 - but that
was the result of a total stitch-up of the selection process by the
Labour leadership. Leaving the party you've been a member of for your
whole political life is hardly inertia.

He spoke of wanting to rejoin the Labour party *even before* he'd won
the first ever election - this story is from Friday 28 April 2000,
less than a week before the first Mayoral election on Thursday 4 May:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...yor/729269.stm

His first attempt to rejoin the party was rejected in the summer of
2002 - his application...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2075257.stm

....and the NEC's rejection...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2145796.stm

He was eventually successful in rejoining the party in January 2004,
before going on to be selected as their candidate ion the 2004
election a month later:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3452363.stm

So he wanted to rejoin Labour long before the second election
campaign. And most London Labour activists and members wanted him to
be the Labour candidate in '04 - indeed, a great number of them wanted
him as the candidate the first time round in 2000, but the stitch-up
excluded him.


Also, from that point onwards, he ceased expressing political opinions
on most things, restricting his pronouncements to things like
reliability of buses, encouraged strike-breaking, ceased appearing at
anti-war rallies etc.

Not true.

March '05, calling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "war
criminal":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4319879.stm

February '05, ignoring the PM, Tony Blar, and many other senior Labour
people who were strongly urging him to apologise for the "German war
criminal" jibe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4269979.stm

September '05 - ok, so it was a statement read out by Kate Hudson of
the CND, but Livingstone voiced (or had voiced) his views on Iraq at
an anti-war protest in London:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4275542.stm
(was he perhaps away on business, I dunno, I've googled but failed to
discover more)

The 'encouragement' of strike breaking, as you put it, showed that he
wasn't in the pockets of the unions.


Voting with his feet, basically.

Livingstone always made clear that he was a Labour man, and justified
going it alone as an independent in 2000 by referring to the strenuous
efforts made by the Labour leadership to exclude him (and he was
expelled, rather than resigned his member ship, of the Labour party in
2000). The idea he could carry on standing as an independent candidate
in future elections is hopeful, to say the least - most commentators
appear to agree that Mayoral candidates need a party machine behind
them to be a success, and continually running as an independent is not
really feasible. His election in 2000 as an independent candidate was
the result of special circumstances, specifically those of his dodgy
exclusion from being the party's Mayoral candidate.

The other thing that people continually fail to take proper account of
is the fact that Livingstone was 'back in the fold' he was able to get
a far better deal out of central government than were he to have
remained an independent - for example, TfL gained the ability to
borrow on the money markets in summer 2004 which enabled them to fund
the ELLX project, as detailed in this Mayoral press release - note
that Ken is hardly being complementary about rail privatisation and by
implication the government's policy on the railways (note that by this
time, saying such things was no longer simply just a criticism of the
Tories and their pre-97 actions):
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...releaseid=3903

Livingstone came to an accommodation with the 'way of the world' -
markets, private finance, the City etc - he certainly always said
"this is not the world as I would have made it", but instead stated
that he was being a pragmatist and doing the best that he could given
the way the world worked. From a transport point of view, I think he
was very effective, though my broad support for Livingstone was
certainly not without reservations. But he wasn't ever "born-again New
Labour".