I have enjoyed The Detectorists as well. I like the way they are portrayed....could easily just poke fun at them as wierdos, but doesn't. The humour can be very dry and the actors make each character unique and likeable.
Seems a bit strange they're making a program about the last hours of his life. I'd prefer to remember some of the 90 minutes he spent on a football pitch than the time he spent on an operating table.
This is a long and somewhat complex article, but also (in my mind) an incredibly important one to read about what ISIS are, where they've come from, and what they want. It's particularly important for people to read who are somehow convinced that this is all some elaborate government conspiracy (and there are plenty of those out there). Call me mad, but I think it's critical to be educated and understand this stuff (unless you're taking the head-in-the-sand approach, which in all fairness, I do also understand). http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
It was great wasn't it? Particularly loved that early demo of Comfortably Numb (nearly as much as Postman Pat!) Thought they both came across well actually and it's an honest snapshot of what they're both like - David is quite reticent (unless he's talking about music) and Polly is always very garrulous. It's interesting and may have come across, but their house in Brighton is very much Polly's sanctuary - the busyness and excitement of the city along with the ability to walk along the beach every morning etc. David doesn't much like it, and far prefers being out at The Farmhouse in the tranquility.
I haven't watched that film in years, I remember the first time I watched it with my dad and enjoying the novelty of Chaplin but not really getting it until watching it again many years later. Wouldn't mind watching it again soon, and perhaps Duck Soup by the Marx brothers to make it a double bill (no pun intended, honestly).
Thanks LTL. That was a long read. I think I am a little more knowledgeable, but also equally still lacking understanding I had always thought that they were looking for some kind of return to a medieval society. There are a lot of fractions within this and related religions still jostling or pushing their own ideology; a dangerous situation in itself. The map was interesting. With a non-military mind, it looked to me like they were trying to take control of areas and then moving around the outside of larger areas to close them off. Maybe for further inward control? Having read that once (probably needs a few reads) if they are wrong in what they want, or they try to do it across whole lands, and if my understanding is correct, then the only way to halt them (if the 'rest of the world' wanted to halt them) is total obliteration of them and their lands. It's a headache to understand and a headache to know what to do.
It does need a few reads to really get your head round, but it's well worth it. In some strange ways, from our position in the West and the fear of a huge amount of occurrences of what happened in Paris, it's oddly reassuring. As he states, those attacks don't tend to be funded or directly (operationally) supported by IS - attacking the West isn't their priority right now, and those attacks tend to be done by people who are frustrated by their inability to join the caliphate. To have done so, and then leave the caliphate (to make such attacks) is although not quite apostasy, isn't actually a real strategy. Their focus at the moment is the obliteration of local Shia populations (who they consider apostate), and then the local government states. It's hideous to the extreme, but it's not focussed as things stand on 'us' (and by that, I mean Paris, London, the United States). They'll applaud these attacks against the infidel, of course, but it's not (yet) a sustained strategy. They'd absolutely love us to become engaged in an all out war (preferably in Dabiq) and will try and goad the West into doing so (in order to fulfil the prophecy) so in a LOT of ways, resisting that is the correct course (unless we're prepared to go def-con on it and go full obliteration - the issue with that being by lending ourselves to the prophecy we boost their recruitment tenfold). As the guy says in the article, the caliphate will probably burn itself out in time through it's fundamentalism, which just isn't sustainable realistically. But that's a long-haul approach and relies on elements of the prophecy being shown (in this instance) to be false. As soon as that happens, they lose their grip. Honestly though, I think that article is the most important thing I've read in years. It should be compulsory reading for every American, British and western politician.
All Governments have advisors who are on the ground and know far more than we ever will, though these advisors won't always agree. People often seem to believe that those who have to make decisions are ignorant of what is going on. However, there is never just one right answer as long as you are dealing with human beings...life isn't a computer game. Avoid knee jerk reactions is always good advice...in other words, don't just jump in as Americans did after 9/11. I understand the emotions behind it, but giving someone a bloody nose isn't always successful in dealing with people seeking martyrdom (or rather seeking it for others).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rome-chauris-charged-over-alert-a6735096.html Man arrested at Gatwick identified as a Frenchman, Jerome Chauris. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/isis-britain-undercover-sas-patrolling-6835174 Article about undercover work trying to keep our streets safe. Also pointing out that part of our protection is the high level of CCTV coverage is in this country. Good...the government can watch me all they like and read all my e-mails if it helps keep us safe. Interesting point is the suggestion that 'ordinary' gang members are more likely to report any strange activity as there is little support from the underworld for jihadists in this country.
Like so many of your posts, i totally agree Fran. I dont mind our govt watching me on or reading my emails either, its only the sods that have something to hide that needs to worry.
Especially when you bear in mind that the initial screening of e-mails and other traffic is by computer..not a load of nosy wotsits laughing at your correspondence.
I've always been an advocat of allowing this. I know many people won't agree, but hey I've nothing really bad to hide. If the government want to see what I look at online, that I call my mate a tosser most days by text, or that I've seen naked ladies on the Internet, fine. I might even tell Mr Cameron where the good ones are My only concern is if we'll end up looking in the right place. Surely we need to have more money spent having people working undercover in The Dark Web.
Fran, would you not be worried they'd find all those anonymous, sexually harassing emails you send to Jose?
I'm not mad keen on the idea of handing ever greater power to government in the name of protecting the very civil liberties the terrorists want to destroy. It all seems a bit upside down to me. And no, at my time of life I don't have much to hide. But I don't particularly want my political affiliations, trade union membership or religious beliefs to be the subject of government scrutiny. Previous generations of Britons fought hard for the freedoms we enjoy - while in France they had a revolution to overthrow injustice; surrendering our hard won freedoms to government is, in a sense, also a surrender to terrorism.
