text:
Abstract: In May 2010, the U.K. general election resulted in a hung Parliament from which emerged a Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition with Conservative leader David Cameron as Prime Minister. The experiment was widely justified by the evident need to cope with the economic crisis and, in particular, the unsustainable budget deficit inherited from the outgoing Labour government. Mr. Cameron and his Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, also claimed to be introducing a new and better kind of politics, one based on reasoned discussion and a rejection of "tribal loyalties." In practical terms, both sides then made a series of policy compromises.
It is now clear how this bipartisan model of governing has fared. First, little or no progress has been made in tackling either the budget deficit or the British economy's underlying weaknesses. Second, no credible, coherent, or convincing path toward national recovery has yet been presented. The latter is consequential, both in terms of the Conservative Party's failure when in opposition to think seriously about large policy questions and now in terms of the inability of a coalition, hampered by incessant compromise, to react to major changes in circumstances—as with the unresolved, and arguably unresolvable, euro-zone crisis.For the United States, with its different constitutional system and electoral cycle, the applicable lessons would seem to be twofold. The first conclusion is encouraging. In the United Kingdom, an electorate not dissimilar from that in the U.S. has proved to be stoical if not enthusiastic when convinced that unpalatable economic medicine is required. The second conclusion constitutes a possibly timely warning: Failure to devise and present a clear analysis of the country's ills before achieving power will leave even a well-intentioned and right-thinking government floundering as new, unforeseen challenges threaten to throw it off course.
Section I
In May 2010, the U.K. general election resulted in a hung Parliament from which emerged a Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition with David Cameron, the Conservative leader, as Prime Minister. Britain has a long history of coalitions that were not unsuccessful, but since the Second World War, British party politics has been sharply polarized. So the 2010 outcome was a novelty.
The experiment was, however, widely justified by the evident need to cope with the economic crisis and, in particular, the unsustainable budget deficit inherited from the outgoing Labour government. Mr. Cameron and his Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, also claimed to be introducing a new and better kind of politics, one based on reasoned discussion and a rejection of "tribal loyalties." In practical terms, both sides then made a series of policy compromises.
It is now clear how this bipartisan model of governing has fared.
The overall judgement must so far be a qualified negative, though the final outcome remains unclear. Certainly, the worst predictions have gone unfulfilled. Opposition to public expenditure cuts has been relatively muted; trade union protests and strike action have had little effect; and there is widespread public acceptance, in the short term at least, of the sharp pressure on living standards. Moreover, both the still-fresh recollection of the shortcomings of Gordon Brown's government and the perceived failings of the present Labour opposition have kept up the coalition's political ratings.
The problem is, first, that little or no progress has been made in tackling either the budget deficit or the British economy's underlying weaknesses and, second, that no credible, coherent, or convincing path toward national recovery has yet been presented. The latter is consequential, both in terms of the Conservative Party's failure when in opposition to think seriously about large policy questions and now in terms of the inability of a coalition, hampered by incessant compromise, to react to major changes in circumstances—as with the unresolved, and arguably irresolvable, euro-zone crisis.
For the United States, with its different constitutional system and electoral cycle, the applicable lessons would seem to be twofold. The first conclusion is encouraging. In the United Kingdom, an electorate not dissimilar from that in the U.S. has proved to be stoical if not enthusiastic when convinced that unpalatable economic medicine is required. The second conclusion constitutes a possibly timely warning. This is that failure to devise and present a clear analysis of the country's ills before achieving power will leave even a well-intentioned and right-thinking government floundering as new, unforeseen challenges threaten to throw it off course.
Section II
The Legacy from Labour and the Compromises Reached Between the Governing Coalition Parties
The Labour government had overspent under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.[1] An inherited budget surplus had become a regular budget deficit, predictions of economic growth were overly optimistic, and plans for public spending were unaffordable. When the financial crisis and recession of 2007–2009 hit, Mr. Brown, true to his prejudices and convictions, then spent much more. This dramatically worsened the state of public finances without avoiding recession.
On the eve of the 2010 general election, Labour finally promised to rein back the deficit, but without providing details. The Conservatives in the election campaign were equally—and deliberately—reticent, though they promised quicker action to curb borrowing. This urgency was amply justified. The U.K. budget deficit in Labour's last year rose to 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest in the country's peacetime history and the largest structural deficit in Europe.
An emergency budget introduced on June 22, 2010, by the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, promised to eliminate the U.K.'s structural deficit in 2014–2015. Debt was by then supposed to be falling as a share of GDP, with 80 percent of the deficit reduction to be secured by spending cuts and 20 percent by tax increases. This approach showed courage, but one should not exaggerate the severity of what was planned (let alone achieved). Total public spending in 2014–2015 would still have been higher in real terms than it was in 2008–2009. In any case, this announcement, with the underlying intent it signified, reassured financial markets. The confidence thus engendered has since kept down the cost of servicing existing debt and new borrowing.
But the Conservatives, in exchange for agreement from their coalition partners, also made a series of concessions. Here many of the current difficulties find their origin. Tax cuts were avoided or slanted toward groups favored by the Liberal Democrats. Upgrading of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent was postponed. Measures to check the inroads of the European Court of Human Rights were all but abandoned.
Of greatest current political significance, promises to curb the powers of the European Union (EU) were diluted. This, it should be noted, was very much in line with David Cameron's own tactical preference. In his 2006 Conservative Party Conference speech, his first as party leader, he had encapsulated his explanation of the party's failure to win the previous year's election in a telling sentence: "While parents worried about childcare, getting kids to school, balancing work and family life—we were banging on about Europe."[2] (Of course, the Prime Minister is now himself "banging on about Europe.") David Cameron also seriously damaged his credibility in the eyes of his Euro-skeptical party by failing to honor what was seen as a firm undertaking, made in opposition, to hold a referendum on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty.
The Prime Minister's compromises on other fronts have come back to haunt him.[3] His inability (in coalition with the Liberal Democrats) to press ahead with curbing the impact of European human rights law has led to a rash of embarrassing failures to deport serious criminals, including those linked to terrorism. Similarly, limiting the government's efforts to curb immigration—again in deference to Liberal Democrat sensibilities—has seen the government fail spectacularly to reduce net immigration to "tens of thousands." In fact, net migration is at a six-year high.[4] This is particularly unsettling, since recent figures show that migrants currently take nine out of 10 new jobs.[5]
The Liberal Democrats, naturally, made their own compromises. They achieved key Cabinet posts. In exchange, however, they accepted not just the program of spending curbs and deficit reduction, but both the introduction of university tuition fees—which they had promised to oppose outright—and their introduction at a high level. They thereby did themselves great and possibly irreversible electoral harm.
This has had a paradoxical effect on the politics of the coalition. The collapse in Liberal Democrat support made its leaders fearful of an early election yet even more disposed to criticize particulars so as to achieve a higher public profile. Generally, however, Liberal Democrat priorities have largely coincided with those of Mr. Cameron and the group of "modernizers" who control (but are unrepresentative of) the Conservative Party. As a result, priority within public spending was given to the National Health Service (NHS) and overseas aid over defense and the police. Priority was also given to reducing CO2 emissions and tackling climate change over industrial competitiveness.
Unfolding events have since demonstrated that these priorities were the wrong ones.
Section III
The Story So Far
Foreign and defense policy under the coalition have been bedevilled by strategic incoherence. In response to the "Arab Spring," Britain took the lead with France in an ambitious military initiative, under disputable U.N. cover, to bring down the Lybian régime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. This was a success, but the eventual outcome in Libya (as elsewhere in the Middle East, where differing degrees and brands of Islamism have benefited from the disorder) is far from clear. Certainly, the operation was begun with a very imperfect assessment of the risks and commitment required. In a number of respects, it served as a bad precedent.[6]
This forward foreign policy was and is being played out against very sharp cuts in defense spending and capability—cuts that went against what the Conservatives had pledged in opposition. Britain's defense spending fell to 2 percent of GDP. Substantial manpower cuts in all three services were made. The Navy was particularly badly hit. Britain's existing carrier, Ark Royal, is being scrapped; the Harrier aircraft have gone; and the country will have no carrier-borne strike force until 2020. These cuts are set to continue, as was confirmed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's 2011 Autumn Statement. Nor is the wider strategic environment neutral.
The problems of the euro-zone countries mean that the contributions of continental European countries to NATO may shrink still further, imposing more strain on Britain—and, of course, on America, where President Barack Obama has also announced a scaling down of commitment to Europe and a shift of strategic attention to the Asia–Pacific region.[7] The subordination of Britain's defense effort to government budget cutting has been accepted by British military chiefs, but the strains they face are now acute.[8]
Questions have even been raised about how the Falkland Islands would be defended in the event of a renewed conflict with Argentina, which Argentine sabre-rattling suggests is not beyond the range of possibilities.[9] It was recently revealed that last summer, because of the demands of the Libyan war and defense cuts, no warship was available to guard Britain's home waters for the first time in 30 years.[10] An unforeseen military crisis in some distant theater can never be ruled out. For example, it has recently been announced that in response to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, the Navy is deploying Britain's most advanced warship, the Type 45 Destroyer HMS Daring, to the Gulf.[11]
At the same time that it has been downgrading its defense effort, Britain has heavily increased its overseas aid budget—by 37 percent. Aid was not only protected against economies imposed elsewhere, but singled out as epitomizing the coalition's (and the Conservative Party's) values and priorities. The Prime Minister defends it robustly and has sharply criticized party doubters who object that it makes no sense to send aid to an upwardly mobile superpower like India, which is currently developing its own overseas aid program. There are even plans to legislate so that the internationally agreed target of 0.7 percent of GDP will continue to be met whatever the prevailing financial circumstances might be.[12]
In home policy, a similar incoherence has been evident, though there have been some successes. Far from shrinking the functions of the state and concentrating resources on basic tasks that cannot be performed well or easily by the private sector, the government has continued to increase spending on, for example, the National Health Service. There is, of course, no reason to consider most health provision a pure public good that requires delivery by what amounts to near monopoly provision organized by government.
Early plans for radical reform of the NHS had to be watered down in the light of pressure from vested interests and patients' groups, but the current reforms still depend on giving general practitioners (i.e., family doctors, the gateway to the system) much greater powers to purchase care for patients from a variety of providers. Unfortunately, as has occurred with other public-sector reforms in the past, a high price has been demanded by those who are expected to exercise more responsibility. In this case, it is envisaged that the pay for general practitioners, which rose sharply under the previous government, is to increase further—by a more than 25 percent.[13]
By contrast, expenditure on law and order has been cut, leading to a reduction in police numbers. The dangers involved were demonstrated by the shocking urban riots of August 2011, which involved several deaths, injuries to police and members of the public, and widespread looting and arson on a scale not seen in Britain for 30 years. More than 3,000 people were arrested. The police initially failed to gain a grip on the disorder, which then rapidly spread in classic copycat fashion. Although various theories circulated as to the root cause of what occurred, the most significant indicator is probably that three-quarters of those charged already had criminal records. Those with criminal records had, on average, committed 15 previous offenses.[14]
In other words, the riots were the unpleasant tip of a much larger and more menacing iceberg of criminality that the authorities have been unable to tackle. A long list of social policy measures was announced in reaction to these events, but the obvious response—lengthening sentences, increasing police numbers and enlarging prison capacity—would require reordering spending priorities in a way that is impossible while the Liberal Democrats, always enthusiasts for liberal penology, remain in the coalition.
In two areas of domestic policy where ministers have set out a guiding philosophy rather than embarked on a series of ad hoc measures, recognizably Conservative priorities are being reflected in policy. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has been seeking to ensure that it is always worthwhile to work rather than to live on welfare. Long-term welfare dependence has rightly been identified as a social scourge, not merely a burden on public spending and diversion from wealth creation. The Department for Work and Pensions has recently cast light on the well-known but rarely mentioned connection between welfare and criminality, releasing figures which show that a third of those claiming unemployment benefit have criminal records.[15]
The method adopted by Mr. Duncan Smith to achieve radical reform of the system involves replacing dozens of existing benefits with a single Universal Credit. There are, however, two significant problems with this radicalism.
- The first problem is inherent in what is proposed. Unless significant numbers of poorer people are to receive less in benefits than they do at present, then making it always worthwhile to work will involve at least short-term increases in public spending (or in tax revenues foregone). So there will be an adverse effect on the already swollen budget deficit. Naturally, the Treasury will resist or frustrate such measures—as has been the case in several instances.[16]
- The second problem is technical but no less serious. In order to give effect to the highly complex changes involving amalgamation of taxes and benefits, a new IT system is required. Past experience of such projects in the public sector has been far from encouraging. Already, Members of Parliament and others have voiced their worries about the timetable and practicability of what is now proposed.[17]
By contrast, headway has already been made by Michael Gove, the Conservative Education Secretary. Mr. Gove is engaged in a number of semi-public quarrels with his own officials and teachers' interests on a wide range of education issues, the outcome of which is still unclear. One area where progress has been swifter than many envisaged is in promoting a model of schools that are government-funded but free of most government—especially local government—interference.
So far, building on the previous Labour government's model of independent "Academies" (which itself resurrected the previously abandoned Thatcher government's concept of "Grant-Maintained Schools"), more than 1,500 existing schools have adopted independent academy status under Mr. Gove's initiative. The difficulty has been in trying to persuade new providers to start schools. In fact, fewer than 50 have done so. Yet this is crucial if the existing vested interests and the egalitarian ethos they encourage are to be challenged through competition. Supply has to exceed demand if parental choice is to be real.
A new "free schools" model, based improbably enough on Swedish experience, is also receiving the Education Secretary's quiet encouragement. These schools, in addition to being independent, could be run on behalf of parents by professionals, commercially and at a profit. The first—itself only a halfway house to the fully functioning free school—has long awaited Departmental approval. Liberal Democrat obstruction within the coalition, joined to bureaucratic inertia, is a problem. The fact remains that introducing some degree of profit motive is obviously the best way both to set new schools on a sound financial basis and then to help those that prove successful to expand.[18]
The country's and the coalition government's most serious worries, however, concern economic policy.[19] This is not, it should be noted, simply a question of the failure to achieve the planned budget deficit cut (itself dependent on growth and bedevilled by the lack of it). It is also the result of still-untackled structural problems. Britain remains hampered by high public spending. For three years, government has been spending 50 percent or more of national income. (See Table 1.)
Overspending is the root cause of the swollen government budget deficit. The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures show that on this score, Britain is relatively badly placed. (See Table 2.)
A further result of an excessive share of national income taken by government is usually low growth, because productivity is characteristically lower in the public sector than in the private sector. Yet another, of course, is that high public expenditure over time leads to high taxes, which again discourage wealth creation—as has happened in economically stagnating Britain. For example, the latest World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report finds that tax rates are viewed as the most problematic factor for doing business in the U.K.[20] Similarly, the most recent Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom marks down the U.K. on both government spending and monetary freedom.[21]
The 50 percent top income tax rate, introduced in 2010 by the Labour government but retained by the coalition, remains a significant disincentive to those who might be minded to locate to or stay in Britain. It is, with Japan's top rate, the highest of all the G8 countries. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that it is set to cost the government £1 billion a year in lost revenues by the middle of the next decade.[22]
No major progress on tax or deregulation seems possible, however, while the Liberal Democrats remain in the coalition. If, as expected, a Treasury report on the 50 pence rate this coming spring shows that it (even now) yields little or no revenue to the Exchequer, it is still likely to be retained. Even if it is ended, some equally socialistic and damaging measure—a "mansions tax" has been mooted by the Liberal Democrats—is likely to be introduced in its place.
Britain also suffers from a surfeit of regulation. Labor-market regulation currently inhibits job creation—something that is particularly serious at a time of high and rising unemployment. (A review of the current law relating to employee dismissal has been announced, but the Liberal Democrats are opposed to any far-reaching measures). Energy policy, where the Cabinet minister in charge is also a Liberal Democrat, is forcing up costs to industrial and private consumers.[23] This is another inhibitor of growth.
Finally, the flow of European regulation, which the government has been unable to check—despite the Conservative Party's earlier pledge to negotiate the return of social and employment legislation powers to Britain—is also reducing flexibility and pushing up costs. The Open Europe think tank, for example, has estimated the cost of EU social law to U.K. business and the public sector at £8.6 billion a year. The point is not, of course, that all these regulations could or should be repealed, but that the U.K. is currently effectively prevented from deciding what deregulation in these areas makes sense in order to make business more competitive and government smaller.[24]
Section IV
The Current Crisis
The Chancellor's Autumn Statement, delivered on November 29, 2011, confirmed that no progress has been made in either curbing the deficit or generating growth. To the contrary, the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), set up the previous year by the government to provide an authoritative and independent analysis of the public finances, radically revised its earlier estimates. (See Table 3.)
- The OBR cut its growth predictions from 1.7 percent to 0.9 percent in 2011, from 2.5 percent to 0.7 percent in 2012, and from 2.9 percent to 2.1 percent in 2013.
- It forecast that unemployment would rise from 8.3 percent today to 8.7 percent in 2012 but then start to drop back.
- It showed that public-sector net debt would peak at 78 percent of GDP in 2014–2015, which is 7.5 percentage points higher than forecast in the March 2011 budget.
- Most notably, given the high political importance the government has attached to it, the OBR forecast shows that the targeted reduction and elimination (by 2014–2015) of the cyclically adjusted budget deficit was way off track.
The OBR and the government blamed this failure and the lack of growth that explains it on three factors: higher than expected inflation driven by a sharp increase in global commodity increases, instability and uncertainty in the euro zone feeding through into domestic and international lending and consumer spending decisions, and a sharper than expected decline in the trend rate of growth resulting from the damage done by the 2008–2009 financial crisis. It should be noted, however, that these forecasts are also based upon what seems to many people an inordinately optimistic reading of future events. The OBR itself thus qualifies its projections with an obscure but unsettling observation:
The central economic and fiscal forecasts and judgements assume that the euro area finds a way through its current crisis, but a more disorderly outcome is clearly a significant downside risk. This risk cannot be quantified in a meaningful way, as there are numerous different ways in which such an outcome could unfold. Suffice to say, the probability of an outcome much worse than our central forecast is greater than the probability of an outcome much better than our central forecast.[25]
In any case, the question confronting the government was: What could be done to bring the deficit and debt reduction plan back on track? The answer it devised was fourfold.
First, the Chancellor rolled the deficit elimination target forward two years from 2014–2015 to 2016–2017. Had he simply done that, the government's strategy would have been rendered incredible, with dangerous implications for market confidence. So, second, he also pencilled into his plans £15 billion of spending cuts in 2016–2017, after the expected date of the next election.
The reaction of markets to these announcements was relaxed. Britain continues to borrow to finance its debt much more cheaply than most of the euro zone does. But, apart from the implications of what happens to the euro, there is another reason to worry. The politics of going into an election with the prospect of large spending cuts, and no tax cuts, after it, are so unattractive as to make it likely that the politicians'—especially Liberal Democrat politicians'—resolve may crumble.
Third, the government has announced specific measures intended to stimulate growth and jobs, but these are neither very far-reaching nor necessarily very well focused. There is a concentration on developing Britain's infrastructure. The Prime Minister is on the record as believing that, "in terms of future productivity [Britain's] infrastructure deficit is as serious as our budget deficit."[26] Accordingly, £5 billion is to shift from current to capital spending. This, though, is only part of what the Autumn Statement terms "a new strategy for coordinating public and private investment in UK infrastructure." The government hopes to persuade the U.K. pension funds, which currently are starved of investment opportunities giving savers a useful return, to channel billions of pounds into such projects.[27]
Questions remain, however. The actual rather than potential sums involved remain modest and will take several years to have an effect. The real economic benefits of such projects are notoriously difficult to judge, are often exaggerated, and typically have little effect on unemployment—as was exhaustively demonstrated when the same debates in similar circumstances occurred in Britain in the early 1980s. Perhaps most important of all for the pension funds managers, it is notoriously difficult to capture or privatize the returns to such investment having privatized some of the financing.
The government also wants to ease credit for business and would-be home buyers, but measures to make it easier for small and medium-sized firms to borrow, through a National Loan Guarantee Scheme, and to make it easier for people to obtain mortgages for newly built homes run the risk of once more encouraging companies and individuals to incur debts they cannot repay. In any case, to demand easier credit from banks that are also under pressure from increased tax and from planned new regulation is arguably to demand the impossible.
A series of other measures of varying benefit and importance were also announced. Reforming the terms of public-sector pensions (whose benefits are well out of line with their private-sector equivalents); bringing forward the planned change in the state retirement age (to 67); and reform of employment law (if pursued vigorously despite Liberal Democrat obstruction) may all contribute to improvements in economic efficiency but will have little or no impact in the immediate future. A new "Youth Contract" scheme worth almost £1 billion will fund employers to take on young people.
This may help provide employment to a population that is particularly at risk, but as government must borrow the funds to provide these jobs, thereby destroying other jobs in the private sector, this should not be confused as a net job creator. It is not. The Chancellor also announced a number of fiscal bribes to various vocal groups—cutting one region's water bills, restricting rail fare increases, and enlarging the scope of subsidized child care. These will have no effect on growth, but rather suggest a basic lack of seriousness reminiscent of Gordon Brown at his worst, as commentators have noted.
Finally, underpinning the whole approach to reviving growth is the continued commitment of the Bank of England, strongly endorsed by the government, to "Quantitative Easing" (QE). In 2009, George Osborne, then Shadow Chancellor, described printing money as "the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed." In office as Chancellor, however, Mr. Osborne has shown no such reticence and has repeatedly urged a continuation of the program.
The Bank of England has dismissed fears that QE will lead to future inflation (now standing at more than twice the official 2 percent target). However, the London-based Centre for Policy Studies notes that the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee has recently had a poor record of prediction, significantly underrating the actual inflation outturn.[28] High inflation, among other effects, redistributes wealth in favor of overindebted government and banks, and those on indexed benefits, and against savers and those in work. It also threatens consumer and business confidence, thus depressing the actions necessary for growth, and lays in the necessity of a growth-depleting subsequent disinflation. The strategy is, therefore, far from risk-free in the short run and inherently self-defeating after only a couple of years in practice.
The only sure way to generate growth in the current circumstances, in which demand at home and abroad is depressed, is through radical supply-side reform to increase efficiency. This is not currently occurring; nor is there any evidence that it can occur, given the political constraints of coalition.
Section V
The European Dimension
Britain's economic and, in the long run, strategic problems intersect with those of Europe in a number of ways. The reaction to the euro-zone crisis and specifically to the British Prime Minister's effective veto of a new treaty at the Brussels summit on December 9, 2011, highlighted some of these difficulties.
The fact that Britain is outside of the euro and thus able to set its own interest rates and pursue its own monetary policy, reflecting its own interests, is arguably the single most important guarantee of the country's economic stability. Monetary sovereignty is a necessary, albeit necessarily insufficient, condition for prosperity, which ultimately depends on selling goods and services that people wish to buy. This is because it allows Britain to respond to external shocks with flexibility and without the kind of endemic crisis that now afflicts even the stronger countries in the euro zone. The markets' perception of this advantage currently allows Britain to continue to borrow cheaply to fund its borrowing, despite the lack of progress so far in bringing down the budget deficit and the increases in debt.
By contrast, the AAA sovereign credit ratings of not just the weakest euro-zone members, but now France—joint leader of the pack with Germany—have been downgraded. Recognition of this divergence of fortunes with those of the euro zone has led in Britain to the wholesale discrediting of politicians and pundits who have argued over the years for closer integration with Europe. Indeed, their predictions have been held up to humiliating ridicule.[29] It has, similarly, led to acceptance of the fact that Margaret Thatcher was correct when she fought in 1990 to keep Britain out of the emerging euro and, indeed, when, 12 years after leaving office, she predicted: "The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially."[30]
On the other hand, the coalition government had not, at least until the Brussels summit, seriously grasped where events were leading and which options were opening—and which closing—for Britain. For months, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had publicly called on the euro-zone countries to move much closer toward a single economic government. While leaving the prescriptive details to others, the British government was also strident in its criticisms of European leaders' failure to create what was termed a "firewall" against speculation at the expense of the weaker members of the system. This tactic caused deep resentment among euro-zone leaders, as Mr. Cameron would later discover.
It was apparently assumed by Britain that the only risk to British national interests was to be found in a possible collapse of confidence, including a collapse of European banks, arising from the crisis. That eventuality, it was reckoned, would still further postpone British economic recovery. The government seems, however, to have given little or no serious thought to three other questions that should go to the heart of British strategic calculations in Europe:
- Is it compatible with British national interest to see a tightly controlled, German-dominated, single power bloc emerge in Europe in place of the malfunctioning but largely unthreatening European Union in its present form?
- If, for well-known reasons—above all, because of the difference in productive potential between member states—the euro simply cannot work, is it not a recipe for chaos rather than order to urge and support its retention?[31]
- Of most immediate significance, how can Britain's interests be safeguarded within the European Union under current treaty arrangements, which largely provide for majority voting rather than decision by consensus, if the euro-zone countries, joined by aspirant members and other dependents making up the great majority, henceforth act as a united bloc?
Such is the background of the diplomatic crisis in Europe that is now imposed on the economic crisis. Mr. Cameron went to Brussels in December poorly prepared in every sense. He had not resolved how he was to respond to the demands of his own party for a return of powers to Britain from Europe in exchange for agreement to treaty changes required for a European fiscal union. He had not prepared the Germans for the demands he was to make for a protocol to be added to the proposed new treaty so as to protect the interests of the City of London from damaging regulation and a proposed new tax on financial transactions.
He also had not reckoned at all, it seems, with French plans to force Britain out of the cockpit in Europe—plans that fit in well with President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire for a noisy coup that would help his re-election prospects and with a well-entrenched resentment in Paris at London's primacy in financial services. The British Prime Minister's own hope was, it appears, to strike a deal with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, then agree in principle to the treaty changes, and then return to the House of Commons and try to bulldoze through a compromise that his already rebellious backbenchers would certainly have regarded as a sellout. Luckily for him and for Britain, the plan did not materialize because Mrs. Merkel did not deliver, so he had no choice but to use the veto, which he did.
In France, the British Prime Minister's veto led to an outburst of undignified name-calling. President Sarkozy described him as a "stubborn child."[32] The French Finance Minister said that Britain was "marginalised" and attacked the coalition government's economic policy. The Governor of the Bank of France called for Britain's sovereign credit rating to be downgraded rather than that of France.[33] In Britain, the Liberal Democrats expressed various degrees of dissent from the Prime Minister's veto.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg first supported it, then criticized it, then modified his criticism. He absented himself from the House of Commons while Mr. Cameron justified himself.[34] Finally, he let it be known that on future occasions, he would attend such summits and conduct his own diplomacy.[35] By contrast, the Prime Minister was lionized by his own party in and out of Parliament. In the country, opinion polls showed overwhelming approval of his stance, and the Conservative Party achieved a significant lead over the Labour Party in an opinion poll.[36]
It is not yet clear where the euro zone, the European Union, or Britain goes from here. First, the Brussels diplomatic débâcle served to obscure how little progress was made by the euro-zone countries in resolving their own crisis. Commentators and markets have remained unimpressed by schemes that, in essence, center on reviving the now widely discredited approach of the Maastricht Treaty's Stability and Growth Pact without the European Central Bank adopting a much more active role in support of—and lender of last resort to—euro-zone member states.
Second, the European Union itself looks increasingly artificial—a framework of arrangements that emerged out of past events and (more or less) suited past requirements but no longer corresponds to today's global realities. The EU contains too many contradictions and states with too many incompatible interests to stay as it is. There has to be parting of several ways. One way or another, such a parting will certainly and crucially involve Britain.[37]
For political reasons, the Prime Minister is desperate to avoid any decisive shifts in the compromise policies adopted by the coalition. He fears that a referendum on Britain's future relations with the EU, demanded by much of his party and (as polling data show) desired by most people in the country, would open the road to Britain's exit and, more immediately, also precipitate the collapse of his alliance with the Liberal Democrats. Nor is he willing to press for a significant repatriation of powers from the EU to Britain, despite his previous pledges to do so. He knows that in present conditions, he has no goodwill to use with—and insufficient weapons to use against—the euro-zone bloc and its hangers-on (though, of course, there is still a possibility that several countries may shy away from the new fiscal union proposals when once the full details emerge).
Mr. Cameron would clearly prefer to continue the indeterminate policy he was pursuing before Brussels, yet this may not be viable. Other things being equal, Britain would clearly benefit from a resolution of the crisis in the euro zone. On the other hand, Britain's ability to influence events is extremely limited. It cannot, for example, afford to collaborate in large bailouts, whether through the IMF or otherwise. Its main focus has to be on preserving its own economic interests. But is this possible without fundamental change?
Decisive in making that assessment will be how Britain now fares in ensuring that the European Single Market provisions are not used against its economic interests. This goes to the heart of a long-standing complaint. But if a tightly controlled bloc of euro-zone members and others, deciding as a caucus, effectively uses European institutions and mechanisms to outvote Britain on a regular basis, the country's position will become impossible.
The immediate matter of dispute—and the one that precipitated the Cameron veto, on which Britain cannot afford to compromise—is taxation and regulation of the City of London. It is a battlefield that the government would certainly rather not have chosen. That is partly because, as an element of its "fairness" agenda, it has spent much time chastising financiers for their alleged misdeeds in the run-up to the banking crisis and recession. At the same time, a core element of European (and particularly French) ideology is that the root of all current problems is the excessive exuberance of unregulated Anglo–Saxon capitalism.
The Europeans will thus pursue this particular vendetta with relish. Significantly, in the wake of the veto, the EU's Economic Affairs Commissioner, Olli Rehn, commented: "If [Britain's] move was intended to prevent bankers and financial corporations of the City from being regulated, that's not going to happen."[38]
The economic facts speak for themselves, and they show that Britain cannot afford to see the City strangled.[39] In 2009–2010, the U.K. financial services sector made a tax contribution of £53.4 billion—11.2 percent of total tax receipts—to the Exchequer. Financial services accounted for a £35.2 billion trade surplus. Although it is fishing and agriculture that are always mentioned in domestic political discussion of powers abandoned to Brussels, these two sectors now account for just 0.7 percent of U.K. GDP. Financial services, by contrast, account for at least 10 percent.
In the past, there was a more balanced trade-off between accepting regulation from Europe and gaining access to European financial markets. London both influenced regulation within European countries and acted as the main entry point to the EU's single market in financial services. In current and likely future conditions, with the depressed outlook in the euro zone, British business—including financial business—will increasingly look elsewhere.
Accepting burdensome rules motivated by an increasingly hostile attitude to financial services as such becomes much less attractive. At least 49 new EU regulatory proposals affecting the City are either in the pipeline or being discussed. Notable specific threats are a proposed EU-wide financial transaction tax, possible short-selling bans, and the European Central Bank's insistence that transactions in euro-denominated financial products be cleared within the euro zone rather than in London.
More generally, and irrespective of the agonies of the euro zone, Britain clearly needs to rethink from scratch its relations with the European Union. This is an historic opportunity as well as an obvious necessity.[40] Such a review needs to take account of non-European opportunities as well as European-focused problems. The fact that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition will oppose it by all possible means may well suggest an early election—which also, of course, would allow the Conservative Party to rectify its economic program in the light of events and with a view to putting economic growth through supply-side reform at the head of a new mandate.
Section VI
The Future
A fundamental rethinking of Britain's relations with Europe is something that should be welcomed rather than, as hitherto, discouraged by the United States. The U.S. has its own large problems. Like Britain, it cannot do much to help solve Europe's. But in the years ahead, it should be a priority in Washington to reset U.S. relations with Europe. That reassessment will need to take into account the economic potential and stability of individual countries, not just treat all alike.
The assumption that has governed the U.S. view of European developments more or less since the Treaty of Rome in 1957—that countries will move, albeit at an uneven pace, toward "ever closer union"—no longer applies. Whether Europe splits into different currency zones, or countries reissue their own currencies, or some other new geometry of relationships emerges, nothing can ever be the same again after the euro-zone crisis. Moreover, whatever the shape of Europe that finally emerges over the next few years, the U.S. will be better served by having a British ally that is financially stable, economically prosperous, unencumbered by onerous obligations to support unsustainable arrangements in Europe, and clear about its priorities and its position in the world.
As for the immediate prospects for the U.K. coalition government, these will be determined by two short-term and two long-term factors. In the short term, it is not at all clear how the traditionally Euro-enthusiastic Liberal Democrats can be rallied to what amounts to a bitter war of attrition against the euro-zone core in defense of British interests. If they cannot, and despite the technical problem presented by the coalition's Fixed-term Parliaments Act, an early election could result.[41] The other short-term factor pointing in the same direction is the increasingly fragile position of Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, whose poor ratings might tempt Mr. Cameron—and certainly do tempt his backbenchers—toward an early poll.
An interesting opinion survey from last autumn is also relevant here. This suggested that in a referendum on EU membership, 49 percent would vote to leave against 40 percent who would vote to stay. This shows the depth of popular disillusionment with Europe, on which a Euro-sceptic Tory Party could draw. The same survey demonstrated, even at a time when Labour was four points ahead of the Conservatives (now reversed), that by 37 percent to 26 percent, voters preferred Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne to Mr. Miliband and his Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, to manage the country's economic affairs.
In the longer term, the two determining factors will be, first, the state of the economy—if there is no sustained improvement at least a year before the pencilled-in 2015 election date, the coalition parties will probably lose, whoever leads Labour—and, second, a possible intriguing, if intangible, long-run change in attitudes. This is the sort of thing to which political pragmatists, like those in charge of the three main parties, habitually attach small importance. But such transformations, as was demonstrated with the shift under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s against socialism and in favor of small-government individualism, can be seismic.
A recent report from the National Centre for Social Research suggests that, under pressure of economic austerity, underlying "Thatcherite" values in Britain may have resurfaced. Its British Social Attitudes Survey found a shift in sentiment against greater government intervention to rectify inequalities; a reduction in popular hostility to private health and education; a marked drop (to less than a third) in the number of people favoring tax rises in order to improve public services; another notable drop in the number willing to support high taxes to protect the environment; and a clear majority view that unemployment benefits were too high.[42]
This suggests a return to reality. Upon such changes—in whatever country they occur—conservative successes may be built. It remains to be seen whether they will be.


text:
Some how I wound up on Rosie O'Donnell's website last night which reminded me about her blog. Why reminded me? For some unknown reason I was watching some celebrity expose (I never watch biographies let alone tabloid TV so I am not quite sure why I was watching that show), any who, she said something about how a news show or magazine (not sure which) had quoted her from her blog. Well the quote happened to be lyrics from a song and not an actual quote from her. That's what I had remembered while poking around her site.
I was just about to click on the blog link to see if I could find anything of interest when I scrolled down the homepage and saw a little blurb about a movie I had seen a trailer for one night while watching a DVD. The movie is called Vier Minuten (or Four Minutes in English) it is a German film about a very talented and troubled piano player. The trailer floored me and I had written the name of the film down to remember it when it finally comes to DVD. That was month's ago. The only information I can find on the web for it is the art film scene last year and the original German release in 2006. When is it coming to the USA? I really want to see this film. Of course Rosie.com while telling us it is a good film does not say how or where we can see it. In fact when you click on the "more" link it only takes you to another listing of films and Vier Minuten is not even listed! Rosie help a girl out and tell me how to find this film. I realize that being a star you most likely were sent a screener (I get them too for my ScifiSlacker.com site, but since this is not a sci-fi film I can't see them sending me one). I just need details when or if this will be available.
Andy's Film World has a great write up on Vier Minuten and also posts the YouTube video trailer for the film. Head on over and check it out.
Any one with info on Vier Minuten / Four Minutes coming to DVD or where I can see this film please post it here in the comments. Thanks!

subset: commoncrawl


text: >>>>> "linker" == <firstname.lastname@example.com> writes:linker> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:>> > 2.) is there any movement to include GGI into the kernel>> distribution? if > not, why not? is it *bad code* (tm) ?>> >> It's not a question of good or bad code, it's a question of what it>> buys, and whether people are using it and whether it can be>> considered stable and generic enough to warrant inclusion in the>> standard kernel. So far I haven't heard enough of people using it>> to even consider it.[snip]linker> It is a bit unfair (IMHO) to give something not included thelinker> thumbs down because it has had little testing outside of it'slinker> creators.. If it's not included in your kernel then it'slinker> guarnteed to get little testing.. Catch-22..There is also the question whether GGI is the right approach or not!On the m68k we need to use framebuffers and thus framebuffer consoles,however I have not seen a lot of evidence that it will actually buy usa lot to tale the GGI approach rather than the nice and fairly simple`fbcon' style we use now. Bascially fbcon (and the abstract consolesystem) allows for framebuffer consoles, VGA-like text mode consoles,consoles on weird devices such as TIGA boards and it allows forscreen-mode switching in the kernel, which is necessary for theframebuffer devices. I can't see a lot of other graphics relatedissues that needs to go into the kernel.Hounestly, I do not follow the GGI development closely due to lack oftime, but what I hear from the m68k guys who have been spending timeplaying with GGI I have not been overly impressed. Things might haveimproved a lot but I still have the impression that GGI is not headingfor simplicity (no offense, I could be wrong), which I consider to beone of the key issues.Jes-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Nadal wins, rips Open's schedule
Seven-time champ unhappy with rainout changes
Published 8:38 am, Saturday, June 1, 2013
Rafael Nadal wanted to get a few things off his chest.
Not about the quality of his play Friday, which fell below his usual standards at Roland Garros — for the second match in a row, he dropped a lethargic opening set before winning.
What really bothered the usually affable Nadal was the way the French Open's scheduling decisions, and the weather, combined to force him to now play on consecutive days, while his third-round opponent Saturday, Italy's Fabio Fognini, was "watching the TV in the locker room" on Friday.
"That's not fair," Nadal said, his arms crossed, his voice stern.
"This is not right," the seven-time champion in Paris said moments later, shaking his head and arching his left eyebrow.
What flustered Nadal, basically, was that his 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 6-3 victory over Martin Klizan of Slovakia was supposed to be played Thursday but wound up being postponed because of rain — in part because it was the third match slated for its court.
The 27th-seeded Fognini's second-round victory over Lukas Rosol, meanwhile, was No. 2 on its court and finished Thursday. Nadal's point: When there's rain in the forecast, everything possible should be done to ensure that two matches whose winners will face each other next should be completed the same day.
Nadal also didn't like that while Fognini-Rosol followed one women's match — which, because they are best-of-three-sets, tend to be shorter than the men's best-of-five — Nadal-Klizan followed both a men's match and a women's match. His match should have taken priority on a day when showers made rescheduling likely, Nadal argued, because if women "have to play two days in a row, (it) is not a big deal."
Ana Ivanovic, the 2008 French Open women's champion, sided with Nadal on that point, saying men should "get more time to recover."
"Especially now, when he has to play day after day, I think he's right. They should play early," Ivanovic said after reaching the fourth round with a 6-3, 6-2 win against Virginie Razzano, the Frenchwoman who stunned Serena Williams in the first round last year.
Another complaint from Nadal: He said he was told by tournament officials they wanted to make sure Rosol got on court Thursday because, unlike Nadal, he also was in men's doubles.
"I am sorry, but that's a joke," Nadal said. "Why do you want to protect the player who has to play doubles? So I'm going to (sign up for) the doubles draw then, and I have the priority to play?"
A request for comment from tournament referee Stefan Fransson was declined by French tennis federation spokesman Christophe Proust, who said: "The federation does not want to respond. We don't want to get drawn into a controversy. It's not the first time that the scheduling has been criticized."
Now Nadal will need to win six matches over 10 days if he's going to be the first man to collect eight trophies at one Grand Slam tournament.
"Well, if I can win (Saturday), I'll have a day off, and that should be enough," the Spaniard said. "I don't think that will be a problem."


text:
RCMP Internal Review of Moncton Murders
Another response from the Commissioner that doesn't correspond with previous comments made to the media (CBC) when he said that the members had all the equipment they needed. Who is being superficial and incomplete ? Who is the monster here ? You decide. see below.
Internal Review of Moncton Murders
I want to inform you today that we've asked retired Assistant Commissioner Phonse MacNeil, the former CO of H Division, to lead a comprehensive internal review into the murders and attempted murders of our members in Moncton. The circumstances surrounding these offences require the immediate appointment of a competent internal authority with the supporting resources to do this review and analysis. All facets of this event need to be understood.
Ordinarily such examinations do take place in a variety of ways eventually but out of deference to the criminal investigation and the court proceedings we sometimes wait before an earnest review is completed. Clearly the death of our three members in the course of duty and the near deaths of many others demand that we seek to fully understand the facts, learn from them and if required, change our practices promptly. I am of the view that this can take place without interfering with the criminal justice path this accused will follow. Indeed, we must do this analysis and make any necessary changes long before the court process concludes. The safety and security of our members demand it.
There has already been some analysis done and distributed by people who – while perhaps asserting an interest in our members' well-being, health and safety – are being somewhat careless in how they are doing it. Our review must establish an authoritative account built from reliable information to permit an objective, professional and useful analysis.
These early discussions concerning the deployment of hard body armour and carbines are a very superficial, easy and incomplete effort to look for explanations and orient blame for what has happened. Our best information at the time that I write this is that J Div was in the early days of deploying the C-8: Codiac had four members trained and had six patrol carbines, all of which were otherwise deployed in training and therefore unavailable; and that each car involved in responding to this matter had hard body armour in it. We need to source and confirm this information before making any judgements but let's be clear, there is one person responsible for the murder and attempted murder of our colleagues.
That said, there are some reasonable and important questions to be asked. Chief among them is whether there is anything that ought to have been done differently which could have prevented these deaths? More practically: what must we now do – once armed with a complete understanding of what happened – to make sure this doesn't happen again? The scope of this review will be wide ranging and include such areas as whether the accused's actions could reasonably have been foreseen; our initial and longer term response; our training; our tactics; our support for our employees and families; and, our equipment. In short, all aspects of this terrible incident.
Phonse MacNeil is just the person to lead such a review. He is an operationally credible leader who will understand how to get the information, organize and conduct an objective analysis and provide some relevant and reasonable recommendations in short order, all while respecting and protecting the criminal justice proceedings. He will be provided with terms of reference which will orient his inquiries and analysis towards what happened, what went wrong, and how we can fix what needs to be fixed. As terrible as the outcome was here, there were incredible stories of bravery, cooperation, support and success in a massive national police mobilisation and we will want to fully understand and share the positive aspects of the overall response.
We – Canadians – need to understand and prevent our communities from producing more offenders like this, and if there are opportunities to get early warnings of this new form of radicalization from our communities we need to pursue them.
We – the RCMP – must objectively examine our response and preparation for this type of event. We will make whatever changes we must to our practices and policies to minimize the chances of this ever happening again.
Bob Paulson, Commissioner
Contrast what he says above with what he said to the CBC;
Paulson says RCMP have 'access' to proper tools
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has said what happened in Moncton is tragic, but not another Mayerthorpe.
He said the recommendations that came out of the Human Resources Skills Development Canada report in 2007 and inquiry in 2011 brought important changes.
"We've implemented them all, we have hard body armour, we have the weapons that we need. You know, we've revised all our policies. How do you guard against a monster like this?"
Paulson said his members have access to the tools they need.
While I applaud the effort to conduct an internal review PRIOR to any external (e.g. coroners inquest) investigation and report, I am unsure why they chose a retired RCMP A/Comm. to conduct the internal review; though I do not know of the fellow personally. Perhaps a better choice would have been someone outside the RCMP from another police agency – someone not necessarily constrained by RCMP mindset(s)/thinking.
In fact reach out to someone from Europe to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the matter. Just a thought.
I agree that a retired A/Comm is not best suited to conduct the internal review. There is little to no confidence in the competence and integrity of the commissioned Officers of the RCMP, Commissioner Paulson being the worst of the worst. Their history of corrupt actions and covering up to protect management failings is just too overwhelming. I suggest that a suitable expert on combat Police operations from a recognized United States Police Department would best serve the purpose of conducting a review of Police operations that occurred on that day. Major US Police Departments have a much greater deal of experience with combat occurrences and I believe they are best suited to conduct a meaningful review. I challenge Commissioner Paulson to request a USA authority to conduct the review but am certain he would never allow same for fear of the criticism that would follow when he and other senior manager's incompetence is revealed.
It is interesting to note that the Commissioner is entirely dismissive in acknowledging the early discussion around the Moncton matter; utilizing words like "careless", "very superficial, easy and incomplete effort to look for explanations and orient blame for what has happened." What he could have said was something like this:
Alternate message: As we mourn the death of our members in Moncton I acknowledge that many of you have hard questions around the implementation of the Hard Body Armour and Carbine program. While it is unclear at this early stage whether these would have mitigated a different outcome, it is clear we, as an organization, could have done more to introduce these programs more expeditiously. For that I apologize.
The RCMP hardly ever appears to be ahead of the curve, taking a purely reactive stance when tragic incidents befall the organization. We see this with equipment, training, mental health and the list goes on. Ottawa needs a shake up, and some of those officers need to be let go and reprimanded. It seems as if no one in Ottawa seems to be thinking ahead – where are the Ottawa Use of Force employing new training for front-line first response members for dynamic, open environment armed individuals?
ERT trains for this all the time – non-one thought that a uniformed/PDS member might actually encounter something like this? Could we not have extrapolated the ERT training for front-line members and implement it as part of a progressive, on-the-ball organization? Does anyone in Ottawa actually understand the dangers of day-to-day policing? Why are members still shooting at static paper targets? Can we not borrow some of the tactics from "active shooter" and translate them to the context of an armed subject in an fluid and open environment? Where are the enhanced tactical training tactics beyond "re-certification"?
Of course the answer to these questions are a rhetorical. The RCMP fails miserably as a 21st Century police organization. We have had a succession of "Leaders" over the last decade that have not measured up to expectation nor needs of making this a progressive organization.
I do not say this lightly – perhaps it is time to dismantle the organization and place it in a museum where it belongs – turn Contract policing over to the Provinces.
Roku3 permalink
I have yet to exhibit my frustration and disgust with the rcmp until now. Alphonse McNeil?????
Is he the right man for the job??? He suddenly retired and that his spouse did not attend his retirement function because he was too close to his young communications assistant should have raised some alarms!!!!!! Do you think someone appointed to lead a lead Province by Paulson now caught with his hand in the cookie jar is independent? Give your head a shake the force does not care about members it will only protect certain managers and the upcoming incompetent. The organization will continue to erode based solely on their arrogance to ignore the basic human rights of their employees to be treated fairly
DJ Motorcop permalink
Now he says there was hard body armour in the patrol vehicles? the ONLY vehicle that had hard body armour in it was the Dog handlers vehicle…………….. The RCMP took over policing the City of Moncton and Dieppe in 1998 (they were already policing Riverview at the time). The RCMP was awarded the contract to form the regional police force because they claimed they would do it cheaper ….. they did and still do it cheaper. I was a Moncton Police officer from 1976 until 1998 and then a member of Codiac in Moncton as an RCMP member from 1998 until 2012. I watched the RCMP come in and demonstrate how they would save the community money, firstly they reduced the number of officers from 176 down to 127, hose numbers have increased back up to 141 over the past 16 years. I watched as they disbanded the 12 man Moncton Police Force ERT trained by the RCMP and went to using the Provincial team. I watched as they got rid of our stores of weapons and hard body armour from both the MPF and Dieppe PD and never replace it. Yes we in Moncton had military grade emergency flak jackets, helmets and rifles and semi auto shotguns it was all taken away along with the ERT equipment and never replaced. I watched as they disbanded our Horse Patrol and sold off our motorcycles in complete ignorance to the value they added to policing our community. I watched as they gutted patrol section to form specialized "units de jour" in an attempt to impress the citizens while reducing the number of marked police cars on the streets. Patrol section got smaller as traffic section, court section PCR Community Policing and street crime and GIS and drug sections were formed. Now they have members working a call back unit calling back clients regarding files. I watched the Moncton community go from having a top notch police service with a kick ass patrol section putting 20 members on the street in Moncton during peak times to watching the RCMP put 9 members on the street at peak times in total for all three communities combined. The Moncton Polcie Force had 136 officers to police 65,000 people. The RCMP polices the tri community of 11,000 people with 141. You do the math, you get what you pay for, and now they police a City still with that rural mindset that each patrol member investigates each call they take and soon we became swamped and over whelmed and ask the Crowns office how the quality of work and conviction rate dropped from stellar and superior down to barely acceptable under the RCMP. I had a 36 year career in Moncton and went from safe honourable conditions to unsafe oh my god will I make it to retire conditions. My first 22 years were as a unionised police officer with rights and clear fairly negotiated working conditions, mandates, goals and objectives. So sure, Paulson go ahead and "investigate yourself" I imagine everyone on earth who has fucked up wishes they could initiate and control the investigation into their actions.
So here I sit sick and disgusted living with the aftermath of the murders of three young men whom with I spent years working with and knowing the shit storm of PTSD pain and sorrow that follows in the wake of these travesties, whilst Paulson ET Al sit ensconced in safety in the dream works factory in Ottawa spoon feeding the pablum and kool aid to the Gov't and Paulson's minions.
EFamia permalink
The latest change to the 2014-06-25 Internal Review email from Commissioner Paulson. It was updated on 2014-06-26 to his "Commissioner's Corner" site on the Infoweb. Interesting that it wasn't sent out in another email to the membership to notify them of the change;
Clarification on June 25th email
For the record, I would like to clarify one fact in my email of yesterday.
In it, I indicated that "each car involved in responding to this matter had hard body armour in it."
In fact, I should have stated that at the time of the incident in the Codiac Detachment all patrol vehicles and traffic cars, except three, had one set of HBA. I should add that in Codiac, on the night in question there were 22 HBA sets assigned to various vehicles and three tactical troop members had been assigned their own.
In addition, cognizant of the increased number of members involved in containing the suspect, 132 additional sets of HBA were flown-in to Moncton.
Buck permalink
The internal review (sanitization) will be written for Mr. Phonse from Ottawa and forwarded for his signature only. Don't be too surprised if they come up pointing fingers at the members, human error or decision making. I won't be buying anything Bobbo has a hand in or his PMO handlers.
Independent, outside inquiry and oversight. Nothing less will do.
Has anyone ever seen a final report or internal review on the Mayerthorpe incident. I am curious if there were findings of shortcomings and recommendations made regarding the deaths of the members that day.
Hello Old NCO – I recall reading the internal report but believe it was never made public (Protected); the report was leaked to CBC and others. Here are a few select pieces from the internet pertinent to the Mayerthorpe Tragedy:
RCMP March 2011
Link: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/speeches-stat-discours-decl/2011/20110328-mayerthorpe-eng.htm
The objective is to distribute more than 2,800 pieces of hard body armor before the end of March 2012.
Alberta Fatality Inquiry – Recommendations
Link: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Murder+four+RCMP+officers+near+Mayerthorpe+changes+procedure+equipment+protocols/9911418/story.html
"I conclude that this was a uniquely tragic event which could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented," Pahl wrote. "I find there were no failings in the training, experience or abilities of the officers who lost their lives."
The report does discuss a set of potential recommendations.
1. That there be a threat-assessment co-ordinator in RCMP detachments that gathers intelligence and keeps track of "individual and master threat assessment files."
2. That the RCMP establish national guidelines for securing crime scenes.
3. That officers be appropriately armed and trained.
4. Emergency response teams review their call-out procedures as they rely on newer technology to communicate.
5. That a standardized risk assessment for operations be developed, but with care taken to prevent unnecessary bureaucratization.
6. That an emergency medical team accompanies the emergency response team on operations.
7. That a national policy be developed on unintentional firearm discharge.
8. While Pahl did not specifically recommend body armour, he wrote that "(I) strongly endorse and encourage continuing research, development and deployment of effective body protection systems."
9. That justice departments consider whether or not information sharing between police, corrections and justice departments on threat assessments, akin to the sex-offender database, exists and, if not, if it could be created.
Fatality Report
Link: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/17687735/mayerthorpe-fatality-report-alberta-justice
RCMP Association Responds to HRSDC Report
"…the synopsis of events described in the HRSDC report mirrors almost word for word the synopsis in the RCMP report. The only difference is that the RCMP report, prepared in December 2006, says the "incident began quietly on March 2, 2005," while the HRSDC report cuts the word "quietly" and simply says the "incident began on March 2, 2005.".
"Because of the content of the report that has almost been torn out of the RCMP report, obviously we have doubts about the independence of it," said Staff Sgt. Gaétan Delisle of the RCMP members association.
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rcmp-association-questions-probe-of-mayerthorpe-killings-1.712331
Brown Task Force – Introduction
As the deaths of these young officers and others before them illustrate, police work is inherently dangerous and the organization and construction of the police service itself can have an impact on the risk officers face in the performance of their duties. Equally, the RCMP is frequently called on to investigate politically charged circumstances which necessitate measures to ensure the integrity of the police service is beyond reproach without hint of politicization from the bureaucracy into which it has unwisely been integrated.
Given the magnitude of these issues, it is clearly unwise to create an institution that is immune from internal or external transparency and accountability. To do so is to invite the promotion by management of what is perceived to be the "institutional interests" of the police service rather than the public interest or the welfare of the member officers. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened with the RCMP resulting in the circumstances that led to the creation of this Task Force.
Thank you Bob for the noted information. I detect that the persons responsible for the HRSDC report were not qualified with sufficient expertise to conduct a review of the Mayerthorpe shootings. As indicated by S/Sgt. Gaetan Delisle they simply mirrored the findings of the RCMP review. During my service I was attached to a support unit to ERT and have attended many ERT operations and training sessions. I have a great deal of respect for the members assigned to ERT duties. The training and equipment provided to these specialized units far surpasses that of general duty front line Police Officers. The planning and approach methods employed when tasked to a potential volatile crime scene also surpass the training provided to front line Police Officers. Over the years the value of a well trained ERT unit has been recognized by some Divisions and they are being deployed in a greater number of incidents. For example, they are commonly used at high risk drug raids and criminal motorcycle gang facilities when carrying out search warrants.
Although I was not there and may not know all the facts, I wonder to this day why ERT was not deployed to secure the perimeter of the farm property at the Mayerthorpe incident. A well trained ERT team could have provided a secure zone that prohibited anyone from either getting into or out of the said property. We all know now that the culprit was able to sneak his way back onto the property and positioned himself inside the barn. There appears to be sufficient information within the community and surely the local Detachment realized the potential danger that this man was capable of. From my estimation the members killed that day were sitting ducks as a result of little to poor deployment of resources.
This latest incident in Moncton, begs me to ask is there not a ERT team in a municipal Detachment as large as this? Had a ERT team been called they would have used their training and know how when approaching this scene. They would have formed a plan of approach which would have included a safe muster point. They would have seek further intelligence and begin devising a plan for deployment. Although ERT training requires Officers to have a high degree of physical capabilities that many front line Police Officers can not attain it is still possible and should be mandatory for them to receive deployment tactics training.
In no way do I criticize the members at either the Mayerthorpe or Moncton incidents. They acted with the equipment and training that was provided. What I do criticize is the commissioner and Administration of the RCMP for failures that have caused the deaths of members and may very well cause further deaths in the future. These failure include.
The failure to provide proper equipment
The failure to provide deployment tactics training to front line Police Officers for potential volatile incidents where weapons are suspected to be present.
The failure to include real professionally trained rapid deployment experts when conducting reviews of incidents such as Mayerthorpe and Moncton. I believe they are using a retired A/Comm to conduct the review of the Moncton incident. What are his credentials with respect to rapid deployment incidents?
The failure to recognize that the RCMP needs more full time ERT trained units and that they should be deployed on many of the calls now attended by front line general duty Police Officers. This one is a money issue, but it is also the cost of doing business and keeping our members safe.
Anonymous permalink
There has never been a dedicated ERT team for the Codiac Regional RCMP. And you are correct. Beyond popular misconception, the Moncton, Riverview, Dieppe communities makes up the largest regional municipality in New Brunswick. In fact, Moncton has been referred to as the "Hub" of the Maritimes. With a total population of approx. 140,000, (and more during working hours), it has been inconceivable the RCMP wouldn't have it's own ERT, needless to say a place for the front line members to park their personal vehicles. That's right, Codiac members have to find their own parking in the downtown area and pay out of pocket if they are lucky enough to find a spot.
Terry, the fact that a large Regional Municipally with the numbers you mentioned does not have a trained ERT Team in place is simply a failure of leadership by RCMP Management. This is a disgrace of the highest proportions and as we can see lives are at stake. The present leadership of the RCMP needs to be reviewed starting with the Puppet commissioner.
Thank you and I could not agree more with your reply. The ERT matter is just one of many shortcomings I have been lobbying. Below critical mass on shift (as low as 2 members and a Team Leader), An SUV dedicated to the Team Leaders to have "all the equipment necessary to handle any emergency" taken by the Watch Commanders for lunch and coffee breaks. Yes, the Oi/c was well aware this happen and he turned a blind eye. The only thing ever placed in the back was the spare it came with. I can go on and on my friend, which I plan to do with the media. We, and I say, we need to have a public inquiry to investigate the safety issues that recklessly fell on deaf ears and contributed to the perfect storm. It is one hell of a mess trying to play the political chess board to have this take place but I will continue to speak up for our active members, nationally, who cannot, the fallen, the injured and the public.
Thanks again Old NCO…..


text:
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Drying Sunflowers for Decoration
After Madeline asked, "Do you know if there is a way to dry sunflowers? Or do you think they would get faded?", I set off on a quest to find the best answers for her.
I have dried herbs many times in the past as well as roses but I have never dried sunflowers. I have seen dried sunflowers before for sale at the local Michaels Craft Store so I knew it could be done. The question then became how best to dry them? I investigated this matter through extension offices, craft groups, and countless websites to produce what I hope will give the best results.
The Hanging Method:
This is the most tried and true method out there for drying just about anything. 1. Cut the sunflowers leaving a long stem.
2. Bunch them together and tie the ends with string.
3. Hang the bunch upside down in a dry but dark place.
4. The sunflowers should be dry in a few weeks.
This method is the method that I regularly use with my herbs. The petals of the sunflower will become a little crinkly and fold around the seed pod. Their color will dull partially. All in all this is an easy way to dry the sunflowers. The look is a little rustic.
The Wire Rack Method:
This method is very much the same as the hanging method with the exception that the sunflowers will dry in an upright position and therefore have a more flat appearance.
1. Suspend an old wire clothes shelf, chicken wire, or other mesh wire that is framed in a dry dark place.
2. Cut the sunflowers leaving a stem.
3. Poke the stem of the sunflower through the holes in the wire and position the flower so it rests flat on top of the wire with the stem hanging below.
4. Give each sunflower enough space on the rack so that its petals do not touch another sunflower's petals.
5. The sunflowers should be dry in a few weeks.
This should produce a somewhat flatter flower when dry, but the color will still fade or brown a bit.
Cat Liter Method:
This method I have done before for roses and it works very well. I have always found the color of the dried rose to be very close to its original fresh color.
1. Poor a couple of inches of cheap clay based cat litter into a basin. Be sure to use a kind that won't clump.
2. Remove the sunflower from its stem and lay flat on top of the litter.
3. Carefully pour another inch of litter onto the sunflower.
4. The sunflower should dry in a few days.
I read in my research that some people have even had luck using this method with a microwave. They did steps 1 - 3 and then microwaved for two minutes. This sounds like it might be worth trying especially if you don't want to wait days or weeks to have dried sunflowers.
I hope this helps and happy planting!
Posted by Diana Kio at 6:43 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
- News
- Sports
- Obituaries
- Community
- Celebrations
- Opinions
- Public Notices
- Ads
- Submit News
Nikki Rollins of Deerfield, IL, daughter of Randy Rollins of Northfield and Mary Rollins of Woodbury, both formerly of New Prague, and Jordan Brown of Mundelein, IL, son of Jeffrey and Jody Brown of Ypsilanti, MI, announce their engagement.
Nikki is a 2004 graduate of New Prague High School and a graduate of Crown College. She is pursuing a masters of arts degree in counseling at Trinity College in Deerfield.
Jordan is a 2005 graduate of Washtenaw Christian Academy and a graduate of Crown College.


text: >> Now, it seems to me that on panic you _might_ be able to invoke the >> INT10 BIOS extension that XFree86 uses to reset secondary video cards >> and be able to get back to text mode ... but of course, you could never >> continue from DDB when you've done that. But ... "might be useful". > > Would you be able to continue on a text console? > Would it be feasible to implement something that would reset > the card then either cause the X server to exit when you resumed, > or somehow get it to reset the card back to graphical mode (as > if it was resuming from a text console). If that's useful ... but I'm not sure how useful it is. We're talking about switching back to text mode on a crash, right? It's not like you're going to be continuing after that happens ... --Ken


text:
It dies while driving to town. Found it had severely low oil. Put oil in, changed the plugs and boot. Put new coil pack, and ignition module on it. Even hooked up to a battery charger it will not start. It was misfiring when it died. I am needing ideas on what to try now. Just bought this car two months ago. It has a 2.4 twin cam
have the same problem?
Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 AT 1:24 AM


text:
I hope that you're all having a beautiful day!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Design Books I Need in My Life
I hope that you're all having a beautiful day!
6 comments:
Kendall- The Brooklyn Modern book looks up my alley, I will have to look for it!ReplyDelete
I'm reading The Distinctive House by Jeremiah Eck!
Nothing better than a book, sunlight and some time to read...
Hi Kendall! I have several on my list - I usually browse the Home section at Barnes & Noble on Saturdays.ReplyDeleteReplies
Thanks for the recommendations! I just picked up Design Sponge, and I'm still pouring over it. I'll have to check these out!Delete
I have zero design books :( I'll start with these! :)ReplyDelete
Sounds like these are great reads! Have a fabulous weekend, Kellie xxReplyDelete
They all look great, and I actually have the Jacques Grange book and can attest to it being wonderful. It seems like I get more inspired every time I look through the pages - definitely worth the investment. I can't get enough of design books (as my coffee table will tell you).ReplyDelete


text:
William Howard's voice is deep, smooth, and versatile. Upbeat and crisp with an Urban flavor. Hardsell or Soft-appeal.
His voice can be authoritative or gentle and understanding. Perfect for narration, imaging, telephone messaging, or spots.
English, English (North American), English (British)
British, North American
Special Skills
Audiobooks, Business, Cartoons, Documentaries, Educational, Internet, Jingles, Movie Trailers, Music, Podcasting, Radio, Telephone, Television, Videogames
Payment Terms
Hire William Neal as a voice actor. Payment is made through Voices.com SurePay, an escrow service that guarantees your work is done to your satisfaction. Send payment securely by Visa, Mastercard or PayPal through Voices.com then download your files from the website.
Watch a video to see how to make a payment
Next Steps
To contact William Neal Howard about your project, request a quote today. We'll walk you through the process step-by-step. It's fast and easy.
Hire William Neal Howard as a voice actor. Working with William Neal Howard is fast and easy. We'll walk you through the process step-by-step.
Request a quote for your project today.


text: That library appears to be from src/usr.sbin/sup/sup, which is a "helper / private" library and should not be being installed because it has LIBISPRIVATE=yes at the top of its Makefile. Are you able to provide more details about your build system? - Full OS version - Whether you're using case insensitive file system (default on OS X) to hold your source or objdirs - Any mk.conf or build.sh overrides you've set FWIW I've been doing builds on 10.5.3 (i386 box) of i386, and it gets all the way to complaining about mdsetimage not having a default target. This is with case insensitive default filesystem.


text:
Goodbye Puget Sound Plaza Starbucks. It's always a little sad to me when Starbucks closes one of their stores. It's been a long while since Starbucks closed a downtown Seattle store. The last one was the Smith Tower Starbucks. First off, I want to say that I am really glad that Starbucks found a place for every single partner. Nobody is losing their positions because of this store closure. Lori, the store manager of the Puget Sound Plaza Starbucks, will be taking over the Fifth and Columbia Starbucks location. Secretly, I am little happy she is going to that store - I do visit that store and it will be nice to see her there.
The Puget Sound Plaza Starbucks first opened on June 1, 1987. Actually, given that it's numbered as a 100-series store, that would suggest it was opened as an Il Giornale during that short time before Howard Schultz bought Starbucks. I mentioned a little bit of this very old Starbucks history in my old article on the Columbia Tower Starbucks (Store #101). It's pretty likely that it opened as Il Giornale on June 1, 1987, and then converted to a Starbucks on or about August 15, 1987. That's a pretty interesting store history!
The store will close permanently on February 22, 2013. It closes on a high note - with a whole team of great partners moving to other downtown Seattle stores. And, customers only have to walk across the street to Fourth and Union Starbucks to get to a close by Starbucks store.
If you're in the Seattle area, I hope you'll stop by and wish all the partners goodbye to their store, and welcome them to their new stores!


text:
Hi there, I'm having trouble with my blog displaying images I post in their preview on the main blog. If you head to my site http://www.thatartistcalledslam.com you can see one post 'politial graffiti' has a preview because I uploaded it from my phone as an image post. The one after, 'virgin media designs' has a preview too. The Virgin one and the next 2 I uploaded from my laptop either by directly inserting them in to a post from from the gallery, or just clicking insert picture in a new post and uploading it from my computer, and these are the ones that haven't got previews.
Am I doing something wrong when I'm uploading picture in to a post? Could it be to do with the theme?
The blog I need help with is thatartistcalledslam.com.


text:
Serves 16
One final note: You can probably substitute apple sauce for some of the oil (I'd recommend 1/4 C oil and 1/4 C apple sauce). However, it's going to change the texture of the cake. You're going to end up with something a little bit spongier, which isn't my thing in a cake. If it doesn't bother you and fat does, then go for it. If, however, you'd like less fat and to still have that almost crispy-edged cake that only oil and sugar can give you, I'd recommend you try reducing the oil to 1/3 C. And if you do, tell me what happens. (Pretty please.)
1/2 C oil
1 egg
6 T sugar (truly, I think you could get away with 4, but I haven't tried it)
1 1/4 C whole wheat flour
pinch salt
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp cinnamon
1 1/2 C apples (about 2 medium), peeled and chopped
Mix oil, eggs, and sugar. Sift dry ingredients. Add dry to wet. Add apples and mix well. Pour into greased 8x8 inch pan and bake at 350 degrees for 20-30 minutes.
Posted by The Tasty Cheapskate


text:
The World's Most Advanced OS?
A while ago Jenny bought herself a new laptop. There was no way we consider wasting money on a laptop running Windoze (you try buying a non-Apple laptop without paying Windoze tax!), so a MacBook Pro it was (I had some say in the machine's specs).
The Mac has some interesting features, and I like the way everything Just Works. MacOS is a bit different from Solaris, but it's really easy to pick up. So what's the point of this post? Apple touts Mac OS as "the world's most advanced OS", and that patently isn't so. Don't get me wrong: I like Mac OS (although I still find the idea of paying for an OS to be a bit grating), but the world's most advanced OS it isn't.
I'll raise just a couple of points to support my view.
1. Until the recent release of Mac OS Snow Leopard (10.6), Mac OS was a 32-bit only OS (Snow Leopard is apprently 64-bit--I can't confirm this cause I haven't got round to installing it yet). Colour me unimpressed: Solaris has been 64-bit clean the launch of Solaris 7, well over a decade ago! Also, Solaris' 64-bit kernel is quite capable of running brand new 64-bit apps and ancient 32-bit apps side by side. I don't know if Mac OS supports that.
2. Mac OS is based on (IIRC) FreeBSD. Not exactly the first OS that comes to mind for multithreaded scalability. How scalable is Mac OS? I guess we won't know because the biggest machine Apple sells is a piddly dual-socket, quad-core desktop. Big deal! Solaris scales from tiny single-core tiny laptops to massive 64-socket, quad-core behemoths that supports up to 4TB of RAM. And that's from the same OS binary.
3. Apple recently announced the dropping of ZFS, arguably the world's most advanced file system. If your OS doesn't support an adavanced file system like ZFS, then it is not a contender for the world's most advanced OS. It's just that simple.
4. Solaris has support for HW hot swapping that Mac OS can only dream of. In the right machine, if a CPU board dies, you can just replace it on the fly. No downtime, no interruptions.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Mac OS is a fine OS and is leagues ahead of Windoze, but the world's most advanced OS it isn't. That crown belongs to Solaris.


text:
Originally Posted by MrsPeele2B
There's a facebook page??? You guys are just going to get me all types of addicted and be non productive at work lol
Yes there is a FB page - BDW 2014 Brides Therapy Group - you have to request to join
I think everyone must be on there now because no one is posting here - I just stepped out for a couple of hours .. normally that would mean coming back to pages of new post.... tonight. . . Nothing : (


text:
Hissing Fauna is NOT the Destroyer
Last Monday, I conducted a brief interview with Of Montreal frontman and rising indie-pop darling Kevin Barnes via telephone, as he was then in Oklahoma at a stop in the band's current tour. I was told that I had ten minutes to conduct the on-air interview. I totally took fifteen. BOO-YAH! Over the course of those minutes, a largely uninterested/uninteresting Barnes and I chatted about Prince and his phallic guitar, the recent success of the band, the new album, and of course, the Outback Steakhouse commerical (much to Kevin's chagrin). Anyways, for those of you that missed it, you can download it here.
If you're interested, check out the new album, "Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer?" out now on Polyvinyl (and in XYC's playbox), and don't forget the band's stop in Chapel Hill on Monday, March 5 at the Cat's Cradle.
if you had waited another
Submitted by katherinedoe (not verified) on February 26, 2007 - 12:42pm.
if you had waited another week, cole, you could have gotten him to talk about this meathouse(that's probably not work safe)
this guy seems pretty lame
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on February 23, 2007 - 3:41pm.
this guy seems pretty lame


text:
Hop on The Career Ladder, Two steps at a Time
At Akraya, we like to spoil our consultants with options and are dedicated to supporting your professional and personal growth. Through our Fortune 100 client base, we provide you access to positions at some of the most exciting global brands. Our over 350 consultants truly make an impact on the technology of some of the leading business enterprises throughout the world. Whether in the technology, finance, health care or retail industries, our consultants consistently find themselves working on projects on the cutting edge of technological advancement.
Consultant training is a core element of Akraya's employee retention programs. We strive to enable you to grow professionally. Our new Akraya consultants undergo the Akraya Core Consulting Skills Training on managing client expectations and client etiquette.
All this training will help you prepare and succeed in your current and future assignments.


text:
Back in the silly '50s, when the monster movie ruled with a prosthetic iron claw, the catalyst for any given animal mutation was a hefty toxic burst from an atomic bomb test. Flash forward 40 years into a world that's temporarily holstered its nuclear warheads and the monster-making radiation has been replaced with the new scientific bogeyman - - genetic engineering. Otherwise it's business as usual in one of cinema's most enduring, easily most ridiculous genres - and Mimic expresses no intention of challenging such tried-and-tested familiarities.
Indeed, you could write the plot on a dwarf's napkin. Scientist inadvertently creates race of mutant cockroaches; 'roaches develop a taste for humans; scientist vows to destroy creation; scientist accidentally involves a group of strangers; strangers become monster fodder; scientist confronts creation; scientist survives for big splattery finale. But as any amateur food-heater knows, it's not the ingredients, it's how you lob them together that counts. So while the not entirely dissimilar Relic failed because it hiked gore above shocks, Mimic succeeds in creating the kind of unsettling atmosphere where mutants threaten to thrash out of the subterranean scenery at any time.
Having wowed indie audiences with his twisted vampire flick Cronos, Mexican auteur Guillermo Del Toro pulls off his American debut with considerable skill. His background in special effects ensures the swarm of monsters pack a punch, but more surprisingly he also displays a visual flair largely alien to such hokum: the textures of the tobacco-stained streets serve as a queasy contrast to the filthy indigo of the underground where objects hang in the shadows.
He also shows a talent for good ol' audience manipulation through a succession of arse-jumping shocks that are well telegraphed in advance but remain scarily effective, and even brushes brilliance during a seat-jerking set-piece in which the axe-pincered cockroaches assault a subway car.
Of course, it's still shamelessly derivative stuff: the central rogue-genetic theme is utterly Jurassic Park (at one point, F Murray Abraham even has the balls to croak: "Evolution has a way of making things survive!") and Mimic flashes more than its fair share of winks at the Alien series. The lair of bulging eggs, the evolving creature, the tell-tale sticky gloop and the claustrophobic tunnel chases are the stuff of Cameron and Scott. But in an age when cribbing is considered something of an art form, Del Toro's vision of a scary monster movie is way closer to the original jittery Alien ethic than the jokey, misguided mess of Alien: Resurrection. And Sorvino does a decent enough Ripley impersonation too.
But this is a stupid monster movie, right? Gore, shocks, slashing, screaming: all fitted as standard. So if you're willing to forgive plot holes you could steer Titanic through, then get ready to throw your brain out of the window, dig your fingernails into your arm-rest and prepare yourself for a satisfyingly nasty, but blissfully predictable, creature feature. After all, any movie that dubs the lead monster `Mr Funny Shoes' has got to have something going for it...


text:
Sorry about this, we are in read only mode. You can browse the site as normal but you won't be able to sign in or make changes.
11 conference presentations on PhoneGap.
See PhoneGap conferences.
Your current filters are…
from Using AngularJS and Phonegap to build hybrid mobile applications at ng-europe, 22nd-23rd October 2014
Added 3 years ago
from uMobile, I'm Mobile, We're all Mobile at Open Apereo 2014 Conference, 1st-5th June 2014
from PhoneGap 2.0 Dev and 3.0 Roadmap at GOTO Aarhus 2012, 1st-3rd October 2012
Added 5 years ago
from Cross-Platform Development - An Overview at MobileTech Conference 2012, 3rd-6th September 2012
from Hybrid Mobile App in Minutes, Not Days at JS.everywhere(2012) Europe, 16th-17th November 2012
from Mobile Web App Development with PhoneGap Build at JS.everywhere(2012) Europe, 16th-17th November 2012
from Device APIs - closing the gap between native and web at Web Directions Code, 23rd-24th May 2012
from Which Mobile Development framework should I choose? at RubyConf India 2012, 24th-25th March 2012
from Doppelbock 1. How PhoneGap got bought, and Apached all at the same time at RedMonk Brew London: The Monki Gras, 1st-2nd February 2012
Added 6 years ago
from Cross-Platform Web Development with PhoneGap at webOS Developer Day, 19th-20th November 2010
Favourited by Dan Eastwell, added 7 years ago
from Frameworks Landscape Survey at webOS Developer Day, 19th-20th November 2010
Favourited by George Goh, added 7 years ago
Browse and track events by topic
Follow @lanyrd on Twitter.
Lanyrd on Facebook
· Blog
· Services
· Colophon
+ Cookies · Email us