Jump to content

Ghostrider

Members
  • Posts

    9,385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    364

Ghostrider last won the day on November 21 2022

Ghostrider had the most liked content!

About Ghostrider

  • Birthday 01/01/1921

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oot-a-daeks.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,823 profile views
  1. The EU is a poor partner to have for energy security, seeing as they're as much a conduit for Chinese energy, and up until earlier this year, were for Russian energy, as they are a producer. Defence, yeah, well, its an arguable point whether mutterings about an 'EU Army' was the final straw when added to all the Yank military shenanigans in Europe that convinced Putin it was time to do a bit of sabre rattling. Twice in just over 200 years Russia has been invaded, once by the French and once by the Germans, is it any wonder that when the two get in cahoots and start appearing to be organising an army, that ole Russki gets a bit miffed and puts on an attempted show of strength with a sacrificial neighbour. Unwise, probably, but surprising, no. The UK lacked labour pre-EU, the so-called hospitality industry was rattling full of Philippinos back in the day, as was the NHS, along with an ever increasing number of Indian Doctors. EU labour just filled a gap that was caused by the EU preventing those nationalities working in the UK any longer. We don't necessarily need to source people from the EU, there are numerous nations worldwide who have crowds of people who'd give their right arm to be able to come here and work, even for half the posted salary, we just need to facilitate capable people to come here, their nationality is irrelevant.
  2. No, I didn't believe it would end up like that, too many people have established relationships within Europe out of necessity of the UK being an EU member for nearly 50 years for them to abandon as long as they have any profitability left in them. I did have a little bit of forlorn hope though, that we might get at least a noticeable amount towards it though, unfortunately our politicians cannot even achieve that despite all their hot air. The benefits of being rid of anything EU is that the EU in common with most socialist organisations has an obsession with governing from the top down to micromanaging proportions and a similar fixation with adhering to 'one size fits all' policies. Both, IMHO leave those subject to them hamstrung and at a disadvantage compared to those operating under more governed from the bottom up and able to create bespoke policies on a situation by situation basis.
  3. Has it worked out well? No, not yet. Because its not been done yet. Brexit was supposed to involve closing doors, cutting strings, and ignoring the demented ramblings of commie continentals. Not the tweak here and tweak there we've managed so far. It was supposed to revert back to the 21st C. version of how things were pre-'73, back when we paid no attention to or had any interaction with Europe unless they sent plane loads of bombs our way. Would I vote the same way again. Unquestionably, but this time try and make sure something existed in Westminster to do the job that didn't run away, or lie through their teeth, or be all soundbite and no action.
  4. Just like Labour and the Unions in the 70's then. Politics and opinions are just sideshow distractions for the masses, the problem is in the system of so-called 'governance' and the people it allows to wheedle their way to the top of the heap. For it matters none what party banner they stand under, they all ultimately end up going unceremoniously ass first in to the same cesspit every time.
  5. Copyright is a thorny issue with those pics..... As George says, where copyright is known, the copyright holder can transfer it to the Museum. Simple. Problems start to arise when the copyright holder isn't known. To get around this, the story I've been told, is that as the image displayed on their site and any copy anyone may obtain from the Museum is from the Museum's scan of an original negative/copy/print, it is their own scan they claim copyright on rather than the original. How kosher it is for that to be done when the original copyright holder isn't known, is open to debate.....but likely something they can get away with without any real risk of challenge. Actual example. The collection contains two images we have in a family collection of old photos, which were around long before the Museum, let alone the photo collection was ever dreamed off. Did a long dead family member take them - Don't know. Do we hold the only original copies - Don't know. How did the Museum obtain the prints/negatives they were scanned from - Don't know. What is known is that back in the 70's a neighbour borrowed a number of photos from our collection to have copies made for their own collection. Which we were fine with. Then years later that same neighbour allowed the Museum take copies of some photos from their collection. Were the two photos in question ones we loaned to that neighbour to take copies for their own use - Don't know, the family members who loaned them are long gone. If they were, did that neighbour in turn allow the Museum to take copies of their copies - Don't know, that neighbour died before the Museum published their collection online. Obviously there's every possibility the Museum could have obtained the negatives/prints they scanned from another source and its all very legit, but it just illustrates how sketchy things can get very quickly.
  6. I see the Museum photos have 'vanished' completely now (again?). All you get is a holding page saying they're down for 'review', and they hope to have them back up again in 'early 2023'. What exactly may be requiring 'reviewing' that needs or justifies the whole site to be taken offline for a minimum of several months, I'm not going to waste my time trying to guess, even though the potential explanations seem very few..... Dare we hope that when (if?) they come back that the site will be more functional and the images actually large enough to see anything worthwhile on......Probably similar odds to the 'Pilot Us' steaming through the harbour under her own power sporting a fresh coat of paint.......
  7. ^ Scotland can do anything they please, on one condition. That, in the event of Scotland holding a referendum, and the result is in support of Scottish Independence, that they then give Shetland and/or Shetland and Orkney the opportunity to hold a referendum to decide whether Shetland and/or Orkney goes with Scotland as an independent country, stays with the UK, or something else. Exactly the same reasons pro-independence campaigners cite as being the 'problem' with Scotland being part of the UK exist for Shetland being part of an independent Scotland. Shetland is approx equally physically distant from Edinburgh as Edinburgh is from London, and while Westminster is generally run by those from south of Watford, Scotland is run by Central Belt Socialists. We are neither, so are 'outsiders' to both. If the Scots are willing to let us have that referendum, they can do what they please with what's between John o' Groats and Hadrian's wall, I really don't care about what goes on there. However, if they're not willing to agree to a referendum for us, then we should be blocking their's at any opportunity on the grounds they're hypocrites. I won't argue about what Westminster may or may not have done post 2014 that has affected Scotland's relationship with the Union, need a crystal ball and all that. However, had the Nat's 'independence' proposals in the run up to the last referendum been genuine plans for independence, some of us 'No' voters might have been tempted to go with 'Yes' instead. Independence is wholly incompatible with sharing/retaining the Monarchy of another separate nation, and it is financial suicide to share/retain a common currency with another separate nation, especially when the currency remains 100% within the control of the other separate nation. At very best that's 'Devolution Max', not independence. Regardless of whether Scottish Independence would be a good or bad thing, that 'mis-selling' of what they were asking people to vote for was more than enough to make some of us drop it like it was red hot and acquire an eternal deep suspicion and distrust of the people trying to sell it.
  8. I predict +/- 2030, if the Nats don't implode in to there own quagmire before then.
  9. It may not be going to go away, but is it going anyplace either. The last twice, the Nats, the main and loudest proponents for Indie have only been able to legitimately claim an overall majority by selling out and getting in bed with the Greens. Hardly a resounding endorsement of their flagship policy. Dissention for the union/indie has always existed as long as the union has been in existence, just not enough to force it's dissolution, and that doesn't seem to be growing of declining with time. The only change has been a bunch of wannabe central belt socialist who've hijacked it as a potential easy ride to personal glory and blaring about it from a bullhorn these last two or three decades.
  10. It would seem that Nicola's 'Boris hate' ace up her sleeve may well have turned in to a ratty looking Joker overnight. Imagine that. Hey ho, I'm sure there will be many more scenes of shambles and the rise and fall of many characters in both Westminster and Holyrood before Oct '23. Who'd care to put money on even the SNP still mattering come then......
  11. Hardly ironclad, maybe barely brown wrapping paper clad at best. You're assuming that the electorate deemed Scottish Independence and holding another referendum for it was something they deemed important enough that it was a deal breaker when deciding whom they gave their vote to. There's an equal chance that the electorate didn't give a stuff one way of the other for Independence and a referendum and voted the way they did for other reasons entirely, and the outcome of who got elected would have been no different if independence and a referendum hadn't been in anyone's manifesto. The same mandate to hold a referendum existed last time they had one, and the outcome didn't exactly go the way those who wanted one hoped or predicted. We shall see, come 2023, *if* the threatened referendum actually materialises, a week is a long time in politics let alone 15+ months....... Things have moved on a bit for sure, no argument there, however I'd say public opinion now has far less stomach for independence than at the last referendum, but who knows. This close to the last one though, is always going to attract accusations of 'Keep on voting until you vote the *right* way'. If Nikki is relying on 'Boris hate' to give her extra oomph, she'd best also keep a wadder ee on the more obvious too. The Nats are a one trick pony party, were it not for independence they have nothing in their policies to distinguish or elevate the fro any other Socialist outfit, and keeping on chasing independence while making no progress towards it has only a limited shelf life, which is running short now. she needs to win a referendum, and relatively soon, or she and her party are history. So, suppose she has her referendum, and wins this time. What then? Unless Westminster recognises and accepts the result, which they may or may not do, nothing changes. She could declare UDI, or go whinging to the UN, neither of which is going to have any odds in her lifetime, or she could station her military along her border......Ahhh.....that's maybe not that easy for her.
  12. To be serious for a minute. The regrettable thing about this is not what has been decided will be, going forward, but the way that decision has been taken. Something of this magnitude should really have gone in front of a Mass Meeting and been voted on, not decided by the elder statesmen. UHA for over a century has been a pretty good example of a working democracy in action, the Committee were organisers, overseers and spokespeople, who brought any matter beyond housekeeping issues before a Mass Meeting for instruction. With taking it upon themselves to make this decision in isolation the Committee have effectively added the role of dictators to their duties, which is almost never a welcome or beneficial step for any organisation. The Committee's apparent confidence that they are on the wavelength of the ranks and have the backing of the majority is admirable, lets just hope its not arrogance and foolhardiness in disguise. As Spinner72 points out, if there is to be change, now, after a two year hiatus is probably the best time for it. However, there is a flip side to that coin, and that's few if any participants have worn their UHA hat seriously or actively gotten together with their squad specifically for 'squad business' in two years either. Who knows who will turn out and what opinions they may express when squad meetings restart and people re-engage UHA mode. *If* the Committee has indeed gauged the majority opinion within the ranks accurately, and the ranks are happy they took it upon themselves to make the decision how and when they did, then all good and hunky dory. If not, there could well be a quite 'lively' Mass Meeting (or two), and the Committee put in a spot where saving face is going to be very difficult for them to achieve.
  13. I'm just surprised that nobody has asked 'How will we tell the difference', considering some past suits have been quite convincing.
  14. ^ In your opinion attaching a bicycle to a lamp-post isn't vandalism. In my opinion it is vandalism. We disagree as we hold polar opposite opinions. You point? Whether or not anyone has, or hasn't be prosecuted for vandalism for attaching a bicycle to a lamp-post is irrelevant. Prosecutions only follow where something can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to have occurred that is specifically legislated against. The applicable legislation only defines what the meaning of the terminology is in the context of what is is prohibited under the statute, it does not specify an all encompassing definition of any given term. Just because an act is not specifically prohibited under statute as 'vandalism' doesn't necessarily prevent it from being defined as 'vandalism' (albeit vandalism folk just have to live with with ill grace as the state does not permit them to seek redress), any more than an act specifically prohibited by statute as 'vandalism' is necessarily vandalism (its just something folk have to live with with ill grace, as having made their minds up the powers that be don't give the first flying fig for any other opinion).
  15. ^ We're going in circles here....... Attaching a bicycle to a lamp-post is vandalism, damaging a bicycle, whether it is attached to a lamp-post with a chain, or not, is vandalism. Just the same as attaching electioneering material to a lamp-post, or damaging electioneering material already attached to a lamp-post are both vandalism.
×
×
  • Create New...