tzijlstra

No, just getting fed up of the stale argument that 'so and so fought for our freedom of speech, so I can say what I want'. You can say what you want, nobody needs to fight over that. Also, painting the UK as a haven of freedom of speech as a result of a war where freedom of speech was heavily restricted by the UK government is a bit ironic.

There is a number of interesting, and predicted, consequences developing right in front of our eyes. Lack of workforce - blocking labour from Eastern Europe (in particular) for tasks such as HGV driver, agricultural seasonal employees and low-skilled production tasks as well as retail and hospitality is creating enormous pressure on the existing workforce. It is pretty clear now that British workers tend to be well employed as they are not 'shifting' into the newly created vacancies fast enough. This has two marked effects: 1. Wage inflation is about to kick in, HGV drivers are already being paid upto 20% extra at places like Tesco and Aldi (two of the largest HGV employing organisations in the country). This will have a short term boost to lower incomes as a result, which is good and probably what Johnson labels as 'Levelling Up'. Question marks remain about the long term viability and the effect on the GBP. 2. Productivity is throttled. With lower productivity the internal economy will shrink, resulting in an increase in (expensive and inconvenient) imports where non existed before. The trade deficit will likely grow over the coming years as a result, impacting on the GBP. Combined the blossoming of the economy post-Covid is boosting the value of the GBP against the Euro/Dollar, but will it stand up long term? If the government can find a way to keep GBP relatively high than that will have a positive effect for import but harm export. if it devalues (as I think it will) than everything in the country will become more expensive at pace, inflation will be difficult to control and although people will see increased income, costs will probably rise faster.

There are specialist companies out there for real crises, which charge a pretty penny. So realistically, yes, but only at very high cost. I've worked somewhere that lost a drive on a server with a big ongoing project on it, the backup had failed some time before without the sysadmin realising. We got it repaired for over 300 euros.

My Dutch grandfather lost a brother fighting for the SS. Not because he religiously believed in the cause, but because the government at the time didn't leave them much of an option. Freedom of speech does not equate defending the governments' faults, nor does it give you a wildcard to pull each time someone points out you are wrong.

I quite agree, in fact, the people most responsible for the situation the Afghans are in is... the Afghans. At the same time, the situation has been exacerbated by meddling from 'The Great Power that is NATO'. Which therefore means the nations that decided to land their merciful benevolence in the form of smart bombs now have at least a partial duty to make sure the mess they created is tidied up in a humane and correct effort. Where are the refugees being housed in Sheffield HumbleNarrator?

You clearly have too little. Not to mention the displaced already in neighbouring countries. One thing the UK should be doing is negotiating with Pakistan to set up refugee capacity there.

Hmmm... 'We owe them???' - This question stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next. A bit like saying Keir Starmer is just like Adam Peaty because they are both British. The vast majority of Afghans had nothing to do with the one or two Al-Qaeda training camps that were allegedly based in Afghanistan. It suited the narrative of the warmongering Americans to point to 'evidence' nobody has ever seen, likely obtained in Guantanamo Bay (or similar torture camps) under illegal (Under international law) circumstances. 'what after 911?? london? and many other atrocities across the world' , - The 9/11 perpetrators were Saudi/Egyptian/UAE and Lebanese. Of the 19 there were 15 Saudi nationals. Yet the Americans invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Almost like they only wanted to pick on 'weaker' and 'non-allied or aligned' nations, don't you think? Ever wondered why Saudi wasn't targeted? The overwhelming majority of the London attacks were... British. But it would have been a bit rich to target the Brits, wouldn't it? Easier to use the narrative to continue the 'war on terror' on territories far away, as long as the arms producers can continue the wheels turning! Most atrocities around the world are committed by nationals of the nation where the atrocity takes place. They are not generally considered 'Taliban sympathisers' but do believe that Muslims were targeted by 'the West'. Just like most atrocities committed by right wing terrorists are committed under a similar veined reason. Simple fact is that terrorism is the result of a feeling of being wronged, truth and fact is irrelevant. 'and hate the west and all we stand for until they hold their hand out.' Again, this stems from the simplistic view that one Afghan is the same as the next, a mindless trope. Let's look at that 'owed' factor. When NATO wrongfully invaded Afghanistan most people there were living in relative peace under their own set of rules. We do not agree with those rules as they do not align to ours. Upon invading a lot of Afghans that also did not agree with the current rules decided they would side with NATO and help them in a variety of roles, we hear of Translators a lot, but there were many thousands of functions carried out in name of NATO. Most of these roles were carried out by men, a result of Afghanistan not allowing women to be educated for decades. 'we occupied it for a reason the same reason thats happening now.' - NATO occupied under false pretences, as explained in the second paragraph. NATO claimed to want to eliminate Al-Qaeda, truth is that we haven't got a clue why. Once Osama Bin Laden was killed Al-Qaeda ceased to exist, no problem though, other similar anti-Western organisations will have already spawned since. The best way to keep these at bay is through intelligence and financial repression. This was already well known before 9/11 and many insisted on using this route, but Bush buckled under the pressure of the arms-lobby and decided he wanted 'boots on the ground'. There was nothing altruistic or humane about occupying Afghanistan, if there was than why is NATO not occupying North-Korea? Cuba? Turkmenistan? Saudi? If you are going to be vehemently against Afghan immigrants to the UK, be angry with the UK for following the US like the lapdogs the government are, not the refugees. That anger is also why so many take up negative ideas towards the NATO, an estimated 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi and Afghan nationals were killed during the Iraq/Afghan wars in the last two decades, that is a multiple of the total civilians died in the UK in WW2. Can you imagine the anger in the UK if, let's say the Russians, killed a million Brits? Look a bit past your own rhetoric and apply some critical thinking about cause and effect.

Now that I'm in Scotland and have an interest in my local teams, I have to say that my preconceptions were both right and wrong. Yes it is a different standard, much less money and indeed, unfortunately, dominated by two clubs. That said, the league below those two clubs is exciting and real fun to watch, probably because a lack of money. Cheering on local lads that are fighting every inch for the pride of their hometown is ace. I missed that, a lot, in England.

Yep, Twitter has already pointed that one out in all its glory 🤣

It's not exactly Dutch, so no clue! Although the Dutch pronunciation of Sow would definitely be as in Oats (elongated o).

Resident Dutchman chipping in, not a great signing. No real track-record of anything special, a bit of a chequered history when it comes to injury/loyalty though... I don't think he has the skillset or mindset to be effective in League One. He'll be kicked across the pitch like a cardboard box as I don't think he is particularly strong. I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't count on him being anything other than a fourth option up front.

Cummings, the architect of Brexit states clearly he doesn't know what to expect from Brexit, he also admitted that the 350 million and Turkey joining the EU were tricks to mobilise the people. He makes clear he convinced Johnson to switch to Leave. NI Border is still a huge sword of Damocles and now Gibraltar is entering the fray again as well. There are shortages of fresh fruit and veg in supermarkets all over the country. Covid put a halt to things, but the consequences of Brexit are about to come crashing into the news cycle again.

All true, completely overused!

I would argue that one of the reasons for the referendum being desired again by Scotland is exactly because of Brexit taking Scotland out of the EU against the wishes of the Scottish population. Over 62% of Scots wanted to remain vs 38% wanting to leave, but because the country is part of the UK it got dragged out of the EU. So not quite sure how you see the two as conflicting.

Someone asked me what I would vote now that we are moving to Angus and a referendum came up in the next few years... Here are some of the points I have in my head that I think are relevant to understand: Scotland isn't half as dependent on England as it is often made out to be by the English. This is illustrated very simply by looking at the main roads between England and the UK, it is genuinely a long distance, unlike for example Wales, where there is little to no economic activity. That physical distance means that the Scottish Central Belt (which is the economic powerhouse of Scotland) is pretty independent in terms of economic activity from the UK. Scotland also benefits from having its own distinct economic profile, this extends beyond oil. It is already big on renewables, the whisky/distillery industry is significant enough to carry on contributing to the Scottish economy independently from England, Tourism in the more remote areas won't stop just because of a Leave vote and it has a well established engineering manufacturing base it can build on. If it can control its own finances, independently from Westminster it can pursue a more common Northwest European strategy of slightly higher taxes and more social infrastructure. It can also re-apply to the EU and hopefully Scotland will rewrite its constitution to further develop the fairer democratic system in place there. The negatives are quite small in comparison, loss of military influence, although it would still be a NATO member, a border between Scotland and England (which is a hell of a lot easier to achieve than a border between NI and ROI due to the geography around the border) and loss of the Barnett Formula. The latter will probably be the most significant barrier, but the freedom to develop its own government finances once independent offset this. So pragmatically speaking, yep, all for independence.

I'm not surprised there are no recent comments. Very poor result, although not unexpected. 4 points behind, two games to go. Yes Forest are poor and on a bad run and yes Derby has to play Swansea before facing us, but... Rotherham have four shots at getting there and I know they are even worse than we are, yet this puts them in the driving seat.

/etc/samba/smb.conf but I highly recommend checking documentation before you do anything next!

My point was that if the NAS runs MS, it is likely to be Samba, not that it can't be Samba if it uses another FS

Yep, pretty much the above. If it is Samba (very likely if the NAS is running one of the Microsoft File Systems) than you need to ensure you have r+w rights from your laptop. Been ages since I did this stuff though, so make sure to check the most recent documentation available for both Mint/Ubuntu and Samba.

An American bank apparently came up with this plan. They believe there will be 3,5 billion euro per club to take part, they say this would cover 'corona costs'. No wonder the English clubs jumped at the chance, they are all ran by corporates that want to squeeze as much out of the game as possible. This is genuinely a move to screw the fans over, they will charge VERY significant money to see this new league. Worst of all: Hardly any promotion/relegation possible from this new construction.

I think European football is ripe for an overhaul, frankly I have no interest in the Champions League and even less in the Uefa league or whatever it is called these days. Creating a super league isn't the way forward though. I think they should do the reverse, go back to Champions only for that league and the numbers 2 of each league going for the European Cup.

The Mauritanian on Amazon Prime Video Story: A real life story about a civil rights lawyer campaigning on behalf of a prisoner of Guantanamo Bay who is held without charges. The man is from Mauritania, hence the title. Rating: 9/10 Why you should watch it: We've all heard of Guantanamo Bay, it still exists to this day, detaining 40 'prisoners' without charges. It was due to close but Obama signed an order to continue it, as did Trump. The horrendous treatment of the prisoners is something we've heard about, but this film really brings it home. To me it is a must watch, emotional, strong and very confident delivery. It has Jodie Foster and Benedict Cumberbatch if you are drawn to 'star power'.

I think the real question is: Should the UK be properly federalised. Do away with the daft discrepancies between the national (Wales/Scotland/NI) governmental rights and make the whole country up out of ten federal states united under a clear constitution. (The nation states and six federal parts of England) Each area its own federal government, with the national government in charge of defence, national infrastructure, monetary policy, international affairs. Just campaigning for the North to have its own 'assembly' doesn't really solve the underlying issues.

For any of you who want to see how the US/NATO actually ended up on the wrong side of the fence, I highly recommend you watch The Mauritanian on Amazon Prime.

How did China and Russia react when the NATO invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't want to come across as facetious, but it is important to keep that perspective in play. Since the nineties the NATO has 'ruled the world' and that is now being countered by advancing economies. That doesn't mean I would approve or condone or indeed not speak out loudly against either of those events. It does mean that the picture isn't as simple as expecting the US to counter with its own aggression.