Some timely words of wisdom in the light of Troy Davis' execution -
"Spencer Lawton, the district attorney who secured Davis’ conviction in 1991, said he was embarrassed for the judicial system — not because of the execution, but because it took so long to carry out. “What we have had is a manufactured appearance of doubt which has taken on the quality of legitimate doubt itself. And all of it is exquisitely unfair,” said Lawton, who retired as Chatham County’s head prosecutor in 2008. “The good news is we live in a civilized society where questions like this are decided based on fact in open and transparent courts of law, and not on street corners.""
So, at worst, a mixed day - yes, a man who is highly likely to be innocent has just been put to death, but on the plus side one of the people responsible for that happening can now cretinously feel less "embarrassed" as a result. Also intriguing to discover that "civilisation" seemingly resides in the act of strapping an innocent man to a gurney and then pumping toxic drugs into his body until his heart stops, and not in the act of protesting against such an outrage on "street corners". You learn something new every day.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
A free choice to make the 'right' decision?
Remember Sophie Bridger, the young Liberal Democrat candidate in the Inverclyde by-election who made the soon-to-be-MP for the constituency look about two feet tall in one of the TV debates? Well, I just happened to stumble across a blogpost of hers from a few weeks ago, on the subject of the Icelandic bans on strip clubs and the purchase of sex -
“'I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale.' It’s hard not to be won over by such emotive words from Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an Icelandic campaigning organisation against sex work. I would love to live in a country without strip clubs, lapdancing or prostitution...
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that legislation of this nature is illiberal. Whose rights are being infringed by a cheap lapdance? Not the buyer – he’s paying for a service. If the lapdancer is providing that service willingly, and not being coerced into her work, then she’s not having her rights infringed either. There are sex workers who do it because they enjoy it – not because they are being coerced, or to pay for a drug habit. So why should we prevent them from doing their work?
It’s not that simple, of course. People are being forced into prostitution, through trafficking and addiction and that is not acceptable. But criminalising prostitution will just push it underground, putting already vulnerable sex workers in danger...
...Liberalism means letting people make their own decisions. All we can do is ensure that those who engage in sex work do it because they want to, not because they have to. I hope that one day, I will live in a society without prostitution – not because it is illegal, but because women have decided that they are not for sale."
I think the last point is naive and unrealistic - giving people a free choice, but ultimately expecting every last one of them to exercise that free choice in conformity with the values of just one section of society, is a contradiction in terms. Human beings are made differently from each other - and the fact that many people find prostitution incomprehensible or morally objectionable is neither here nor there to the minority of women and men who take the opposite view and make a free choice to become sex workers. By the same token, there are many other much more 'legitimate' jobs that, if we're honest, a lot of us would never dream of doing and wouldn't want members of our families to do - but the idea of wanting those jobs to literally cease to exist on the basis of those subjective feelings is silly.
However, I agree with the main thrust of Sophie's argument. The current Icelandic government is the first majority left-wing administration the country has seen in its history - and it's a great shame that such a welcome development has almost inevitably been accompanied by the customary pigheadedness of the Nordic left in relation to sex work, refusing to see the industry in its true complex form, and instead reducing everything in infantile fashion to 'male exploitation of women'.
UPDATE (12:50pm) : A final little flurry in the Total Politics Awards - this blog has been voted the 95th best political blog in the UK (having failed to make the top 300 last year), and I've been voted the 143rd best political blogger. Thanks again for all your support.
“'I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale.' It’s hard not to be won over by such emotive words from Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an Icelandic campaigning organisation against sex work. I would love to live in a country without strip clubs, lapdancing or prostitution...
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that legislation of this nature is illiberal. Whose rights are being infringed by a cheap lapdance? Not the buyer – he’s paying for a service. If the lapdancer is providing that service willingly, and not being coerced into her work, then she’s not having her rights infringed either. There are sex workers who do it because they enjoy it – not because they are being coerced, or to pay for a drug habit. So why should we prevent them from doing their work?
It’s not that simple, of course. People are being forced into prostitution, through trafficking and addiction and that is not acceptable. But criminalising prostitution will just push it underground, putting already vulnerable sex workers in danger...
...Liberalism means letting people make their own decisions. All we can do is ensure that those who engage in sex work do it because they want to, not because they have to. I hope that one day, I will live in a society without prostitution – not because it is illegal, but because women have decided that they are not for sale."
I think the last point is naive and unrealistic - giving people a free choice, but ultimately expecting every last one of them to exercise that free choice in conformity with the values of just one section of society, is a contradiction in terms. Human beings are made differently from each other - and the fact that many people find prostitution incomprehensible or morally objectionable is neither here nor there to the minority of women and men who take the opposite view and make a free choice to become sex workers. By the same token, there are many other much more 'legitimate' jobs that, if we're honest, a lot of us would never dream of doing and wouldn't want members of our families to do - but the idea of wanting those jobs to literally cease to exist on the basis of those subjective feelings is silly.
However, I agree with the main thrust of Sophie's argument. The current Icelandic government is the first majority left-wing administration the country has seen in its history - and it's a great shame that such a welcome development has almost inevitably been accompanied by the customary pigheadedness of the Nordic left in relation to sex work, refusing to see the industry in its true complex form, and instead reducing everything in infantile fashion to 'male exploitation of women'.
UPDATE (12:50pm) : A final little flurry in the Total Politics Awards - this blog has been voted the 95th best political blog in the UK (having failed to make the top 300 last year), and I've been voted the 143rd best political blogger. Thanks again for all your support.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Israel, and circular logic
I just spotted this comment from a user on the Sky website -
"Surely the world can only recognise a sovereign Palestinian state when they and the rest of the Arab world recognise Israel."
Leaving aside the minor quibble that the Palestinian president and much of the rest of the Arab world do indeed recognise Israel, I'm guessing the vast majority of American politicians would regard that statement as plain common sense. But what if it were to be reversed, and precisely the same standards applied to Israel and the US that are applied to the Palestinians and the Arabs...
"Surely the world can only recognise Israel's right to exist when they and their American allies recognise Palestinian statehood."
Now that would be considered utterly outrageous. But what exactly is the difference? Unless of course Palestinians are considered to be of intrinsically less worth than Israelis.
On a vaguely similar theme, I also spotted this at AmericaBlog -
"Bachmann and her ilk are pretty disgusting people. But her latest argument is truly revolting. Bachmann thinks that Obama did too little to save the dictatorship of Mubarak. According to the National Review:
In a speech to about 400 Republicans gathered for the state party’s fall convention here, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman blamed President Obama for “the hostilities of the Arab spring” and expressed regret that “we saw (Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak fall while President Obama sat on his hands.”
Just what is so special about Israel that the populations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, a total of over 100 million people should have to live under brutal dictatorships just in case democracy might be a threat? Margaret Thatcher believed the opposite, pointing out to Gorbachev that two democracies had never gone to war against each other."
What's so special about Israel? Well, one thing that always used to be cited (I remember Melanie Phillips fuming when the Question Time audience spontaneously laughed after she brought the subject up) is the very fact that it was "the only democracy in the Middle East". But that claim became somewhat more problematical when you remembered that Israel and its allies have for decades been moving heaven and earth to keep the situation that way, against the wishes of the people in neighbouring countries.
UPDATE : And another pearl of wisdom from a Yahoo user -
"Can you imagine the Palestinians running the country on their own? No!"
Dear heavens, the Palestinians sound almost as useless as the Scots.
"Surely the world can only recognise a sovereign Palestinian state when they and the rest of the Arab world recognise Israel."
Leaving aside the minor quibble that the Palestinian president and much of the rest of the Arab world do indeed recognise Israel, I'm guessing the vast majority of American politicians would regard that statement as plain common sense. But what if it were to be reversed, and precisely the same standards applied to Israel and the US that are applied to the Palestinians and the Arabs...
"Surely the world can only recognise Israel's right to exist when they and their American allies recognise Palestinian statehood."
Now that would be considered utterly outrageous. But what exactly is the difference? Unless of course Palestinians are considered to be of intrinsically less worth than Israelis.
On a vaguely similar theme, I also spotted this at AmericaBlog -
"Bachmann and her ilk are pretty disgusting people. But her latest argument is truly revolting. Bachmann thinks that Obama did too little to save the dictatorship of Mubarak. According to the National Review:
In a speech to about 400 Republicans gathered for the state party’s fall convention here, the three-term Minnesota congresswoman blamed President Obama for “the hostilities of the Arab spring” and expressed regret that “we saw (Egyptian) President (Hosni) Mubarak fall while President Obama sat on his hands.”
Just what is so special about Israel that the populations of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, a total of over 100 million people should have to live under brutal dictatorships just in case democracy might be a threat? Margaret Thatcher believed the opposite, pointing out to Gorbachev that two democracies had never gone to war against each other."
What's so special about Israel? Well, one thing that always used to be cited (I remember Melanie Phillips fuming when the Question Time audience spontaneously laughed after she brought the subject up) is the very fact that it was "the only democracy in the Middle East". But that claim became somewhat more problematical when you remembered that Israel and its allies have for decades been moving heaven and earth to keep the situation that way, against the wishes of the people in neighbouring countries.
UPDATE : And another pearl of wisdom from a Yahoo user -
"Can you imagine the Palestinians running the country on their own? No!"
Dear heavens, the Palestinians sound almost as useless as the Scots.
Doing a Portillo?
It's a sure sign of just how completely I managed to switch off from Scottish politics while I was in Italy that I've only just caught up with the news (from fifteen days ago!) that Murdo Fraser wants (seemingly, possibly, ambiguously) to replace the Scottish Tory party with a new, autonomous, unashamedly pro-devolution centre-right force. This, it should go without saying, is the first semblance of strategic sense we've heard from a leading Scottish Tory since...oooh, about 1982, and is also a very rare instance of the interests of the Tories and of Scotland coinciding. The fact that the idea has brought Alan Cochrane out in a rash is testament enough to that.
But initially I couldn't help wondering if Fraser was making the same fatal mistake that Michael Portillo made ten years ago, ie. expounding his radical plans for change during the leadership campaign, rather than following the more cynical Blair path of saying nothing very much during the campaign, and then bouncing the party into an internal revolution immediately afterwards. However, that comparison doesn't quite work - the leader of the Scottish Tories isn't the master of all he or she surveys in the way that a UK party leader is, and therefore Fraser needs his clear-cut mandate for a new party from the word go. So he's doing the right thing, and for all our sakes we can only hope that Kate Higgins' confident forecast from a few weeks ago that Ruth Davidson was near-enough certain to win was wrong. Personally, I think Ms Davidson is a touch on the insufferable side anyway, but when has that ever been a barrier to rising to the top of the Scottish Tory ranks?
But initially I couldn't help wondering if Fraser was making the same fatal mistake that Michael Portillo made ten years ago, ie. expounding his radical plans for change during the leadership campaign, rather than following the more cynical Blair path of saying nothing very much during the campaign, and then bouncing the party into an internal revolution immediately afterwards. However, that comparison doesn't quite work - the leader of the Scottish Tories isn't the master of all he or she surveys in the way that a UK party leader is, and therefore Fraser needs his clear-cut mandate for a new party from the word go. So he's doing the right thing, and for all our sakes we can only hope that Kate Higgins' confident forecast from a few weeks ago that Ruth Davidson was near-enough certain to win was wrong. Personally, I think Ms Davidson is a touch on the insufferable side anyway, but when has that ever been a barrier to rising to the top of the Scottish Tory ranks?
Monday, September 19, 2011
A heartfelt plea to First Bus
If you really must insist on 'exact change only', is it too much to ask in this day and age that you put a comprehensible list of fares on your website so we can actually have the exact change ready before we step on the bus?
Could you possibly advertise your fare changes a bit more prominently and for a bit longer, so that I don't get caught out every single time I come back from holiday?
Could you possibly make your fares a bit more logically consistent, so that a single fare after 9 or 10pm (or whenever the cut-off point is - another mystery) doesn't somehow end up costing more than a return normally would?
Thankyou for your inattention.
Could you possibly advertise your fare changes a bit more prominently and for a bit longer, so that I don't get caught out every single time I come back from holiday?
Could you possibly make your fares a bit more logically consistent, so that a single fare after 9 or 10pm (or whenever the cut-off point is - another mystery) doesn't somehow end up costing more than a return normally would?
Thankyou for your inattention.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Tavish : the bitterness lives on
I genuinely expected to come away with a more favourable impression of Tavish Scott after reading his candid confessional about the Lib Dems' catastrophic election campaign in Scotland on Sunday, but...I didn't. His legendary irrational bitterness towards the SNP leaks out again and again -
"Money was an enormous problem. Business either backed the SNP or was frightened to back anyone else publicly. The Nationalists' approach of public charm and private threats - the intimation (sic) of anyone who is against them - had paid off."
And how exactly was this supposed "intimidation" so effective when everyone and his granny (including me, if I'm honest) thought Labour were highly likely to win just a matter of weeks before polling day? A party seemingly heading into opposition is hardly in a position to "threaten" anyone.
"The BBC's leaders' debate in Perth went fine. Iain Gray looked like the world was about to fall in and Salmond who, as usual, knew the audience was stacked with Nationalists, was himself."
The audience stacked with nationalists? Nonsense. I vividly recall the Daily Record's authoritative account of that debate, and there can be no doubt that Iain Gray was cheered to the rafters, while Salmond was left a broken man.
And the SNP aren't the only targets for Scott's bitterness. Unsurprisingly, the man who had the temerity to put up a stiff challenge in Fortress Tavish itself comes in for a special mention -
"But what told me how bad it might be was a late March afternoon campaigning in Shetland. Having won 67 per cent of the vote in the 2007 election the only way was backwards. I faced an unpleasant local campaign led by an anti-wind farm campaigner masquerading as an independent, egged on by the local media."
Ah, is that a bit like Jo Swinson masquerading as "Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats", but magically turning into an English Lib Dem when she votes on tuition fees just to get Tavish off the hook? Oooh, for heaven's sake, Gordon, go and ask her about that.
"Money was an enormous problem. Business either backed the SNP or was frightened to back anyone else publicly. The Nationalists' approach of public charm and private threats - the intimation (sic) of anyone who is against them - had paid off."
And how exactly was this supposed "intimidation" so effective when everyone and his granny (including me, if I'm honest) thought Labour were highly likely to win just a matter of weeks before polling day? A party seemingly heading into opposition is hardly in a position to "threaten" anyone.
"The BBC's leaders' debate in Perth went fine. Iain Gray looked like the world was about to fall in and Salmond who, as usual, knew the audience was stacked with Nationalists, was himself."
The audience stacked with nationalists? Nonsense. I vividly recall the Daily Record's authoritative account of that debate, and there can be no doubt that Iain Gray was cheered to the rafters, while Salmond was left a broken man.
And the SNP aren't the only targets for Scott's bitterness. Unsurprisingly, the man who had the temerity to put up a stiff challenge in Fortress Tavish itself comes in for a special mention -
"But what told me how bad it might be was a late March afternoon campaigning in Shetland. Having won 67 per cent of the vote in the 2007 election the only way was backwards. I faced an unpleasant local campaign led by an anti-wind farm campaigner masquerading as an independent, egged on by the local media."
Ah, is that a bit like Jo Swinson masquerading as "Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats", but magically turning into an English Lib Dem when she votes on tuition fees just to get Tavish off the hook? Oooh, for heaven's sake, Gordon, go and ask her about that.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Will the independence referendum provide another 'stupid answer to a stupid question'?
I didn't catch PMQs yesterday, so I'm grateful to Cynical Highlander for drawing my attention to David Cameron's apparent belief that the aspiration of 68% of the Scottish electorate to control North Sea oil revenue can be casually waved away as "a stupid answer to a stupid question". This sneering dismissiveness towards the people of Scotland is becoming a bit of a habit for Cameron at PMQs - in particular, it's reminiscent of his 'hilarious' observation a year ago that "if you had an independent Scotland, you wouldn't be flying planes, you'd be flying...(snigger)...by the seat of your pants!!!!". In other words, Scots just can't cope without Old Etonian assistance from Whitehall. We'd get ourselves into such a muddle, dotty wee things that we are. And the idea of Scotland controlling its own natural resources...now, let's be grown-ups about this, shall we?
I wonder if Dave will see the SNP's referendum question on independence as a 'stupid' one. If so, he might just get another 'stupid answer'. He's forever telling us that he wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and not just England - curious, then, that when push comes to shove at the despatch box, this supposed priority always melts away in favour of the irresistible impulse to indulge in some Bullingdon Boy 'humour' at Scotland's expense.
Just keep doing what you're doing, Dave. You can't seem to help yourself anyway.
I wonder if Dave will see the SNP's referendum question on independence as a 'stupid' one. If so, he might just get another 'stupid answer'. He's forever telling us that he wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and not just England - curious, then, that when push comes to shove at the despatch box, this supposed priority always melts away in favour of the irresistible impulse to indulge in some Bullingdon Boy 'humour' at Scotland's expense.
Just keep doing what you're doing, Dave. You can't seem to help yourself anyway.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Hame is the sailor, hame frae the sea
Not a reference to Labour Hame this time (although of course Bomber Admin is never far from my thoughts), merely an announcement that I'm back from my travels, after an epic four-hour ferry crossing from Calais to Dover on Monday in the midst of the remnants of Hurricane Katia. I finally arrived at my hotel in Newcastle at 4.45 on Tuesday morning, and the woman at reception gave me a wicked smile, announced she had just released my room, before adding "You're very late". Well, there was no real arguing with that, was there? I took some pictures of the sea at Calais, but I'm still in the photographic dark ages, so I'll have to wait to get them developed.
Anyway, I should have made it clearer that I was heading off for a little while - the Rugby World Cup post was pre-scheduled, albeit cunningly written as if it wasn't! In particular, apologies to Stuart Dickson that I wasn't able to blog on the polling alerts he sent me by email.
And many, many thanks to all of you who voted for this blog in the Total Politics Awards. Irritatingly (and inexplicably) they appear to have scrapped the Scottish section of the awards altogether, so it'll be difficult to make a direct comparison with previous years. Jeff Breslin's masterplan for finally displacing Tom Harris from the number one slot may also have been cruelly thwarted as a result! However, I was delighted to spot that Scot Goes Pop does appear on the list of the UK's top 75 left-wing blogs, at number 48. I won't be able to add a 'vanity badge' to the sidebar this time, though, as they only have one for the top 10!
UPDATE (3pm) : It seems I spoke too hastily - although they didn't appear to be 'slated in', the Scottish and Welsh lists were suddenly published today. Scot Goes Pop is eleventh on the Scottish list - which means I've missed out on the top 10 badge by one place! Aaaaargh! Seriously, though, I'm really thrilled with that result, and thanks again for all your votes. Warm congratulations to everyone who features on the list, and especially to Tris and Munguin on the success of Munguin's Republic, which has rocketed twenty-nine places up the rankings to eighteenth.
Anyway, I should have made it clearer that I was heading off for a little while - the Rugby World Cup post was pre-scheduled, albeit cunningly written as if it wasn't! In particular, apologies to Stuart Dickson that I wasn't able to blog on the polling alerts he sent me by email.
And many, many thanks to all of you who voted for this blog in the Total Politics Awards. Irritatingly (and inexplicably) they appear to have scrapped the Scottish section of the awards altogether, so it'll be difficult to make a direct comparison with previous years. Jeff Breslin's masterplan for finally displacing Tom Harris from the number one slot may also have been cruelly thwarted as a result! However, I was delighted to spot that Scot Goes Pop does appear on the list of the UK's top 75 left-wing blogs, at number 48. I won't be able to add a 'vanity badge' to the sidebar this time, though, as they only have one for the top 10!
UPDATE (3pm) : It seems I spoke too hastily - although they didn't appear to be 'slated in', the Scottish and Welsh lists were suddenly published today. Scot Goes Pop is eleventh on the Scottish list - which means I've missed out on the top 10 badge by one place! Aaaaargh! Seriously, though, I'm really thrilled with that result, and thanks again for all your votes. Warm congratulations to everyone who features on the list, and especially to Tris and Munguin on the success of Munguin's Republic, which has rocketed twenty-nine places up the rankings to eighteenth.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
My (very detailed) prediction for the Rugby World Cup
Once again, a member of my family has handed me a prediction form to fill in for her work, this time for the Rugby World Cup. I seem to recall falling flat on my face four years ago after sticking to the form guide too closely, but then I'm never one to depart too far from a losing strategy. As ever, though, I'm erring on the side of pessimism with Scotland - on paper the crunch game with Argentina could go either way, so I'm naturally taking it as read that we'll lose. It was of course Argentina that knocked us out last time, after an intensely frustrating quarter-final that with a bit more confidence we could possibly have salvaged at the death.
Anyway, here is what I've come up with -
Group A
New Zealand to beat Tonga by 15 or more
France to beat Japan by 15 or more
Canada to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Japan by 15 or more
France to beat Canada by 15 or more
Japan to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat France by less than 15
Japan to beat Canada by less than 15
France to beat Tonga by 15 or more
New Zealand to beat Canada by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. New Zealand (Q)
2. France (Q)
3. Japan
4. Canada
5. Tonga
Group B
Scotland to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Argentina by less than 15
Scotland to beat Georgia by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Georgia by 15 or more
England to beat Romania by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Scotland by less than 15
Georgia to beat Romania by less than 15
England to beat Scotland by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Georgia by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. England (Q)
2. Argentina (Q)
3. Scotland
4. Georgia
5. Romania
Group C
Australia to beat Italy by 15 or more
Ireland to beat USA by 15 or more
USA to beat Russia by less than 15
Australia to beat Ireland by less than 15
Italy to beat Russia by 15 or more
Australia to beat USA by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Russia by 15 or more
Italy to beat USA by 15 or more
Australia to beat Russia by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Italy by less than 15
FINAL TABLE
1. Australia (Q)
2. Ireland (Q)
3. Italy
4. USA
5. Russia
Group D
Fiji to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Wales by less than 15
Samoa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Fiji by 15 or more
Wales to beat Samoa by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
Samoa to beat Fiji by less than 15
Wales to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Samoa by 15 or more
Wales to beat Fiji by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. South Africa (Q)
2. Wales (Q)
3. Samoa
4. Fiji
5. Namibia
Quarter-finals
Australia to beat Wales by less than 15
England to beat France by less than 15
South Africa to beat Ireland by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Argentina by 15 or more
Semi-finals
Australia to beat England by less than 15
New Zealand to beat South Africa by less than 15
Third place play-off
South Africa to beat England by less than 15
Final
New Zealand to beat Australia by less than 15
FINAL STANDINGS
Winners - New Zealand
2nd - Australia
3rd - South Africa
4th - England
New Zealand easily won the inaugural World Cup way back in 1987, but since then it's fair to say no-one has got rich by backing the All Blacks. Their semi-final loss to Australia in 1991 wasn't unexpected, but in subsequent tournaments they have suffered some truly jaw-dropping defeats, most notably in the bizarre games against France in 1999 and 2007, and the legendary final against South Africa in 1995. However, with their current form, and with the tournament on home soil, it's very hard to see past them.
Anyway, here is what I've come up with -
Group A
New Zealand to beat Tonga by 15 or more
France to beat Japan by 15 or more
Canada to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Japan by 15 or more
France to beat Canada by 15 or more
Japan to beat Tonga by less than 15
New Zealand to beat France by less than 15
Japan to beat Canada by less than 15
France to beat Tonga by 15 or more
New Zealand to beat Canada by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. New Zealand (Q)
2. France (Q)
3. Japan
4. Canada
5. Tonga
Group B
Scotland to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Argentina by less than 15
Scotland to beat Georgia by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Romania by 15 or more
England to beat Georgia by 15 or more
England to beat Romania by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Scotland by less than 15
Georgia to beat Romania by less than 15
England to beat Scotland by 15 or more
Argentina to beat Georgia by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. England (Q)
2. Argentina (Q)
3. Scotland
4. Georgia
5. Romania
Group C
Australia to beat Italy by 15 or more
Ireland to beat USA by 15 or more
USA to beat Russia by less than 15
Australia to beat Ireland by less than 15
Italy to beat Russia by 15 or more
Australia to beat USA by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Russia by 15 or more
Italy to beat USA by 15 or more
Australia to beat Russia by 15 or more
Ireland to beat Italy by less than 15
FINAL TABLE
1. Australia (Q)
2. Ireland (Q)
3. Italy
4. USA
5. Russia
Group D
Fiji to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Wales by less than 15
Samoa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Fiji by 15 or more
Wales to beat Samoa by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Namibia by 15 or more
Samoa to beat Fiji by less than 15
Wales to beat Namibia by 15 or more
South Africa to beat Samoa by 15 or more
Wales to beat Fiji by 15 or more
FINAL TABLE
1. South Africa (Q)
2. Wales (Q)
3. Samoa
4. Fiji
5. Namibia
Quarter-finals
Australia to beat Wales by less than 15
England to beat France by less than 15
South Africa to beat Ireland by less than 15
New Zealand to beat Argentina by 15 or more
Semi-finals
Australia to beat England by less than 15
New Zealand to beat South Africa by less than 15
Third place play-off
South Africa to beat England by less than 15
Final
New Zealand to beat Australia by less than 15
FINAL STANDINGS
Winners - New Zealand
2nd - Australia
3rd - South Africa
4th - England
New Zealand easily won the inaugural World Cup way back in 1987, but since then it's fair to say no-one has got rich by backing the All Blacks. Their semi-final loss to Australia in 1991 wasn't unexpected, but in subsequent tournaments they have suffered some truly jaw-dropping defeats, most notably in the bizarre games against France in 1999 and 2007, and the legendary final against South Africa in 1995. However, with their current form, and with the tournament on home soil, it's very hard to see past them.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Time for a bit more factual accuracy from Francesca Preece
The last day of August brings a completely random Jock-bashing rant from Francesca Preece at Total Politics, entitled "It is time for Scotland to stand on its own two feet". Where to begin?
"This September, students will be packing their pots and pans to live in university digs. But while some will beg, steal or borrow the £9k-a-year fees, others will get it for free - simply because of their place of birth."
No, they won't. They'll get it because of their place of residence.
"Yet while help is at hand in the Highlands, there is little assistance for English students, despite there being no guarantee whatsoever that any single English student is better able to pay the fees."
Well, here's a thought, Francesca - if free education is as much a priority for those south of the border as it is for Scots, what is preventing them from electing a government that actually reflects that priority? No-one forced Middle England to vote Tory or New Labour.
"Don’t get me wrong, I think this is fantastic for Scottish students and I can’t criticise money being used in such a beneficial way – but how is it fair that a minority is receiving this at the expense of a majority?"
They aren't receiving it at the 'expense of the majority'. Scotland receives a fixed block grant and the money cannot be spent twice - so free tuition is actually coming at the expense of other areas of Scottish public spending, not English students.
"...give First Minister Alex Salmond his wish: independence. If Wee Eck truly believes he can achieve the same results without the contribution of the Treasury, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?"
Well, this is a novel suggestion - unilateral expulsion from the UK without a referendum. Suits me - let's see if the Treasury can stand on its own two feet without Scotland's huge contribution of natural resources, shall we?
"You may accuse me of being a Little Englander but the favouritism and preferential treatment Scotland receives hasn’t gone unnoticed south of the border."
It certainly hasn't gone uninvented south of the border, Francesca.
"This September, students will be packing their pots and pans to live in university digs. But while some will beg, steal or borrow the £9k-a-year fees, others will get it for free - simply because of their place of birth."
No, they won't. They'll get it because of their place of residence.
"Yet while help is at hand in the Highlands, there is little assistance for English students, despite there being no guarantee whatsoever that any single English student is better able to pay the fees."
Well, here's a thought, Francesca - if free education is as much a priority for those south of the border as it is for Scots, what is preventing them from electing a government that actually reflects that priority? No-one forced Middle England to vote Tory or New Labour.
"Don’t get me wrong, I think this is fantastic for Scottish students and I can’t criticise money being used in such a beneficial way – but how is it fair that a minority is receiving this at the expense of a majority?"
They aren't receiving it at the 'expense of the majority'. Scotland receives a fixed block grant and the money cannot be spent twice - so free tuition is actually coming at the expense of other areas of Scottish public spending, not English students.
"...give First Minister Alex Salmond his wish: independence. If Wee Eck truly believes he can achieve the same results without the contribution of the Treasury, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?"
Well, this is a novel suggestion - unilateral expulsion from the UK without a referendum. Suits me - let's see if the Treasury can stand on its own two feet without Scotland's huge contribution of natural resources, shall we?
"You may accuse me of being a Little Englander but the favouritism and preferential treatment Scotland receives hasn’t gone unnoticed south of the border."
It certainly hasn't gone uninvented south of the border, Francesca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)