Zombie

Tim can also confirm that the Earth is a flat disc ... balanced on the backs of four elephants ... which, in turn, stand on the back of a giant turtle

A terrible event for those injured and killed, but that is stunning video. These events are not uncommon but rarely captured on video or film and never before, as far as I know, the whole event and in such high quality. A professional cameraman, knowing what was coming, could not have done a better job. Shame the Great Daylight Fireball could only be captured in such poor quality in 1972 - again pure chance a tourist happened to film it at Grand Teton. At the time this was claimed to be a UFO, but we now know it was probably a small asteroid a few metres in size - below what we can currently detect - and at such a shallow angle it just grazed the Earth's atmosphere before bouncing back into space. If it had impacted or exploded it would have done considerable damage. But it was only Canada so it wouldn't really have mattered

If this is going to be a free-for-all stabbathon let's not forget Sepp Blatter and his poisonous cronies with their corrupt stranglehold on world football [yeah, the proper "football" ]. Or, even better, include a new stabbathon event at the 2016 Games with the whole lot of 'em in the arena in a fight to the death. I'd pay good money to see that

Steve Jobs died in 2011 of a type of pancreatic cancer - in medical terms a neuroendocrine tumour [NET] in the pancreas. NETs can occur in all sorts of places in the body. Last year I read about a writer, Alexander Masters, who was trying to get Apple to support a new treatment that might have been able to save Steve Jobs. A guy in Sweden - Professor Magnus Essand - and his weightlifting assistant had done promising work on a virus, and tests they conducted showed this could "eat" NETs and offered the prospect of a cure. Apparently it's been known since the 19th century that viruses can destroy cancer cells and this was what Prof Essand was hoping to do but his tests were only in animals, he had no money and there was no commercial interest in backing the £2m clinical trial. So the virus he created was just sitting in the back of his fridge since 2010. This seemed a real shame. I've just caught up on a more hopeful article last month by Alexander Masters, this time in The Guardian, about the Swedish duo's persistence and inventiveness with crowdfunding and their plan to sell the name of the virus to anyone donating £1m. If this virus can be made to work, that person's name will live on, along with all those who might be cured. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9512505/Author-appeals-to-Apple-to-fund-cancer-hope-that-could-have-saved-Steve-Jobs.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9544400/Would-I-takean-untested-cancer-treatment-myself-Hellyes.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/2013-new-approach-fighting-cancer

Alex, as an English reader the dialogue worked well for me. It was sparse - told you what we needed to know - sharp and witty. You must read a lot of US pulp fiction or watch hours of trashy TV copy shows Don't get too hung up on the dropped letters - you need a few of 'em 'cos that's how folks speak. Just don't over-egg the puddin' And the meat processing plant setting. Couldn't be more current what with all that's going on in the UK and Europe at the moment Neat cover pic too - did you do this?

There's a serious point here. It's good idea regularly to waggle your legs up and down, get up from your seat to walk around every hour and drink water during the flight to avoid DVT [deep vein thrombosis] especially if you're in economy - like most of us Airlines don't do enough to tell passengers about this risk - I guess the crew don't want passengers walking around blocking the sales trolleys - but I know someone who died of this because they just sat more or less immobile during a flight. The blood clot that had formed during the flight only killed him after he'd got home.

Shame there wasn't an Orson Welles War of the Worlds type mass exodus of screaming terror-stricken citizens fleeing to the hills *which, of course, is where the zombies live ....*

Interesting question. I had to think about this! No, not now I've been able to accept who I am. But that took me a long time - before I accepted myself the answer would have been yes. But if the question was "if you could have been born straight would you wish to have been?" then my honest answer is yes. Because growing up would just have been so much easier. In the UK gays now have legal parity across the board including civil partnerships, adoption, employment etc so gays are not disadvantaged in any way. But that doesn't stop me being a little envious of the conventional family lifestyle with 2.4 kids I guess some won't like that answer but I'm just being honest.

Good start Unusual setting and funny dialogue. I know what sat means - if the story continues like this it will get tiresome. You need to mix in more conventional narrative and dialogue as the story develops, but comic scenes like this can be used very effectively to lighten the tone and enrich the story. As to the dropped letters, I think it's fine when the context demands it - specifically, is this how the character would speak? And would he speak like this all the time? In other words be true to the character. But where you drop a letter from a conventional word you need to put an apostrophe e.g. ''... there's a waiting list a mile long for your job, you know. Grand lads an' all, some of 'em." [A Kestrel For A Knave - Barry Hines]

Just been watching a TV doc on Britain's weather in 2012. It was a weird year. It started off with a drought then from June onwards it just rained and rained [we were lucky that the weather was so good during the London Olympics]. By the end of December, 2012 had become the wettest year on record in England. One feature has been the nature of the rain - often it has been severe and intense with monsoon type conditions occurring in many areas of the country, quite different to the "temperate" conditions we normally expect. Sometimes these intense events appear to have been caused by "super cells" generated where hot and cold air masses collide. A serious consequence has been the frequency and extent of flooding. In December the Thames Barrier flood protection system was used for the first time in two and a half years to protect London from flooding. Flood water is nasty stuff, because it's not just water. It's got mud and branches and all sorts of hazardous stuff and if it's fast flowing can be deadly. Worse, it includes raw sewage when drains back up into the main sewage pipes. Kids often play in this stuff but it's dangerous. So were any weather records broken in your country in 2012?

Oh no, what a bummer It used to be on British TV but was dropped because they said it was fixed and the audience was the wrong demographic - grannies goggling at the grunting, groaning, grappling and sweaty male bodies while they did their knitting and stuffed themselves with fruit cake and pikelets

Started well - at least the first half of the first sentence - then it was downhill all the way. No, "the internet" is not a "moral standard". It's just a bunch of wires, servers and other geek stuff And "rules" and "terms of use" are not "morals". Nor are they "like a religion". And Myr - much as he might wish to be - is not some kinda oiled Greek God, muscles rippling, looking for miscreants to smite And as for the "most people ..." this and "most people ..." that, it's just more fact-free tosh based on ... well, nothing really

I don't see substantive differences between my post and yours except when you say: "If a person('s) ... judgement is impaired by alcohol or drugs, legally they are unable to give consent." Alcohol will, of course, always impair judgment but not always to the extent that consent cannot be given. In the facts you gave us you stated that your friend said she was "more than a bit tipsy". Obviously there's a whole spectrum of intoxication but being in the area of "tipsy" doesn't seem sufficient. Consider the Crown Prosecution Service's latest policy statement on prosecuting rape cases: "People who have consumed alcohol may reach such a level of drunkenness that they no longer have the capacity to give consent." What does this mean? My interpretation - and you may disagree - is that this wording indicates that a serious level of intoxication is required in order to prevent capacity to give consent. But, as I said in my earlier post, alcohol affects different people in different ways so even if she had drunk a lot and was seriously intoxicated then this would also need to be evident in order to satisfy the reasonableness test. In which case your friend would have had to communicate at the time that she did not consent. You'll note I didn't say physical resistance was "required". I said that intercourse "become(s) unlawful if the person penetrated says "no" and communicates this sufficiently clearly (by) words and/or actions ..." and later on I merely gave scratching as an example of physical action. I could also have given examples of verbal communication, such as "no!" or "stop it!" or "get off me!" or any number of verbal responses but the phrase I used - "sufficiently clearly" - seemed to me to be sufficiently clear to cover this and if it wasn't then I trust it is now. The CPS policy statement actually considers this point in some detail: "Proving the absence of consent is usually the most difficult part of a rape prosecution, and is the most common reason for a rape case to fail. Prosecutors will look for evidence such as injury, struggle, or immediate distress to help them prove that the victim did not consent, but frequently there may be no such corroborating evidence. This does not mean that these cases can never be successfully prosecuted, but it does mean that they are more difficult. In the absence of any other evidence to help prove the victim did not consent, there is the possibility that some cases may fail to meet the evidential stage of the Code for Crown Prosecutors". In other words, such cases may never even get to trial. None of my posts is intended to pass judgment on your friend's experience or to play barrack room lawyer. I merely felt you might find it relevant to have some of the hurdles highlighted should your friend later decide to go to law. I'm also passing no judgment on the fairness or otherwise of current UK law or CPS policy. And as the thread was titled "Rape" I've only posted in respect of rape.

The Scottish Government published today a roadmap to independence which they are proposing could happen by March 2016 if they get a "yes" vote http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

Just in case your friend changes her mind, there is a UK government website she might find helpful [http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk]: "The word "rape" is often associated with a violent assault by a stranger, but the fact is that in most cases the attacker is someone who the victim knows and may even trust such as a friend, partner or someone from school/college/work." "Rape is when a male forces his penis into the mouth, anus or vagina of another person when that person doesn't want him to do so; the law calls this 'without consent'." There's also a short video "If you could see yourself would you see rape?" My understanding of the law is that intercourse could lawfully start but later become unlawful if the person penetrated says "no" and communicates this sufficiently clearly [words and/or actions] but the guy continued. However, if the guy was at the point where the physiological reflex has taken over then that probably would not apply. So, if this goes to law, two things would have to be proved by your friend to the satisfaction of the jury [well, by her barrister]: Did the act - intercourse - take place? [your friend now seems unclear on this] Did your friend revoke consent at the time and make this sufficiently clear? There are some difficulties: 1/ The burden of proof is on the person penetrated - and they must prove the above "beyond reasonable doubt". That is a very high hurdle. 2/ Drink affects people in different ways. It is a powerful drug that can seriously affect mood and personality. Or not. A few people exhibit very little change in mood and personality. But however alcohol affects you, it will impair your judgment, whether you are driving a car, making business decisions, or your interaction with others. And the more you have drunk the more seriously that judgment will be impaired. You said both your friend and the guy had been drinking. How much? And how was this drug affecting them at that time? 3/ The defence would also focus on: - your friend's communication of "no", for example did she physically resist? [scratch marks and traces of his skin under her fingernails would be key evidence here] - your friend's recollection and the veracity of her evidence [bearing in mind, in particular, the effects of alcohol and her memory "blanks"] - the fact that, as you said, this happened in front of other people - third party testimony would again be key evidence [for both your friend and the guy] as would be the absence of such evidence [defence would focus on why no-one noticed this if there was resistance]. - how alcohol affects your friend and how she was affected at the time - the potentially misleading signals you mentioned. Finally, if your friend reports this she has to be completely honest and consistent. What I mean by this is she will be asked a lot of intrusive questions by people wanting a level of detail that she might have difficulty with. If she is unable to answer a question - for example her memory "blanks" - she must make this clear. There must be no elaboration because she will be tested in court to the severest degree and any inconsistencies with previous statements will be used to undermine her. Sorry if this unhelpful but your friend needs to be aware. And if she needs more counselling than the love and support you can provide then the above website has lots of suggestions and contact details. Good luck to you both

The EU's a whole other ball game of course - wanna do a blog on that Paya And, unlike the Scots, the EUphobes haven't had 300 years to build up a head of steam As for "few", Paya, I don't have reliable figures for either [not sure anyone does] but in the case of Scotland it was certainly enough to put the SNP into power as the party in government - which indicates that the majority of those who voted do back the idea of Scottish independence [not definitive, I know, because under the "first past the post" electoral system it is possible that a majority of those who voted did not back the SNP and there were anti-Labour protest votes - but again I don't have the numbers]. Btw how does "@rustle:" work?

So Tim's now a believer

240 pounds of solid muscle is Manu Tuilagi, the 21 year old Samoan England team "wrecking ball" and sixth brother in his family to play professional rugby in England [for the magnificent Leicester Tigers]. The seventh brother doesn't play rugby. He's gay and likes dragging up but as Manu says "It doesn’t matter. He’s our brother and a great guy. He is just different." The biggest annual world rugby tournament, the Six Nations Championship kicks off tomorrow, playing every weekend through to March, with England playing old rivals Scotland tomorrow, Wales against Ireland and France against Italy [sunday]. Here's some of the French rugby players relaxing together after a hot shower and rub down for their annual calendar shoot - it sells quite well to girls and guys ... *coughs* in the unlikely event that you're interested in this type of thing then try googling "Dieux Du Stade" Matches will be shown worldwide so if you want to see fast flowing action between real men [ooo er Matron!] then check 'em out! Here's the TV station schedule: http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/broadcasts.php Match highlights will also be shown on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/rbs6nations01

I agree. But they've been griping and moaning about this for so long now it's just boring. So let 'em have their vote so they can put up or shut up. Better this way then going down the Irish route. That did NOT go well ...

OK, here's the place you can post the most unpleasant / horrific / terrifying / pant wetting flying experience you've ever had. I don't fly much so my risks are low, but there was one experience flying back from Portugal. We're more than half way through the flight at cruising altitude and thing's are ticking along nicely, trolley dolly's have finished flogging tat, passengers are snoozing, kids are laughing and kicking the seat in front [mine] - the usual stuff. Everything's just ticketyboo when suddenly, with no warning, there's a grinding, grating screeching noise from underneath, followed by a loud roaring noise and the plane suddenly jerks forward into a steep dive. Passengers screamed, someone was shouting "We're all gonna die!" [i kid you not] and there was mayhem. After about a minute the plane then leveled out and resumed normal flight. Not a squeak from the captain or flight crew. It was as if it had never happened. Talking to my brother afterwards he suggested there was a strong tailwind and lowering the undercarriage [the cause of the racket] meant the plane could rapidly lose height and speed in preparation for the approach to land. I guess this was cheap entertainment for the flight crew, or maybe they wanted passengers to test out the sick bags ...

Britain has direct experience of when to "let go" of territory. Many times over in fact And if any nation should be supportive of the right of self determination then it's the good old US of A. Heck you were the first guys to do it! As I said earlier I hope separation doesn't happen but I can't object to the right of the Scottish people to split away if that's what they want to do.

Heheh, guys, you do love talk of wars. But you overlook the fact that England and Scotland had their wars over 100s of years. We are now mature democracies with embedded institutions across all levels of society and robust, independent and highly effective legal systems recognised as such across the world. We're not the Balkans. There will be disagreements and I don't have details of the roadmap - no-one does yet - but these will be addressed by negotiation. Sure, bargaining positions will not be equal because England has a bigger population, more wealth and greater power but it would be in neither side's interests to create an unstable or unsustainable settlement would it, just as if you live in a house joined to your neighbour's with shared foundations neither occupant would wish their neighbour's house to be damaged or the foundations undermined. There has to be common sense as well as realpolitik not to mention both countries will still have the same Head of State

Good questions Graeme. As I understand it the referendum is just the first step in what will become a very complex process if the vote is yes. The various parties have got less than a year and a half to put together a roadmap for the stuff you've mentioned but the actual implementation will of course take a lot longer and will involve international entities like the UN as you mentioned plus of course the EU. There may also be implications for the Commonwealth countries too. More information I am sure will emerge this year as the debates get going. If the vote is "yes" then it's inconceivable the SNP would not go full steam ahead for separation - that is what they were set up to do

Bad news: this has had to be moved from The Lounge Good news: you can now say what you like Next year Scottish residents will get to vote in a referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country. For this process to work you have to have an appropriate question. One that is simple to understand and neutrally worded. Responsibility for coming up with a suitable wording was delegated to an independent body, the Electoral Commission, and has been accepted by the UK and Scottish governments. The question the Scottish National Party wanted was “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country”. Language is a complex thing and the subtlest choice of words can influence behaviours. After extensive testing it was decided that "Do you agree" has innate bias because it tends to incline neutral voters to a positive view i.e. to support whatever is being proposed. So the question that Scottish voters will be asked next year will be: “Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes / No.” The commission has also proposed arrangements for campaign funding so that both "sides" have equal spending power. Scotland has always had its own distinct identity, including a distinct legal system, but joined with England in 1707, under the Acts of Union, to create a new nation Great Britain. Under these acts Scotland retained its identity and legal system but the new nation combined national functions like treasury, defence and foreign policy. Interestingly it was assumed that "England" included Wales - a Principality - but legally this was not watertight. So 40 years later a further Act was passed to confirm this. Even more curious, it specifically included the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed. This town had swapped backwards and forwards between England and Scotland so many times that no-one was quite sure where it belonged! So, just to be on the safe side, they bunged it into this Act as well - the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 In Britain we don't have referendums on laws, only on constitutional matters. That's because under our Parliamentary system of government we elect a representative - a Member of Parliament [called an "MP"] - to act on behalf of constituency voters and use his / her judgment when voting in the legislative chamber [the "House of Commons"]. But where there is an issue concerning the nation state at the highest level convention has developed that these matters are put to the nation. That's what happened in 1975 when Britain was negotiating to join the European Common Market [which is what it was then - an international free trade area on agreed terms], and we may get another referendum on whether we want to leave [recently promised by the Prime Minister - yeah, right, government promises heheheh]. And that's what's going to happen next year - because for some time more and more people in Scotland have been seeking separation. At some point a tipping point is reached where politicians have to decide how to respond. In some countries this can lead to fighting and insurrection. But the UK is a mature democracy and the referendum process is obviously a more democratic and humane response So now it's up to the Scottish voters. Personally I hope they vote to retain the Union because I think Great Britain is a more viable entity than two separated nation states, and disentanglement will be a complicated and expensive business. As the song says "Breaking Up Is Hard To Do" but if the Scottish people decide to part company then so be it.

This is fact. Educational if you like. This is essentially a US site and a lot of Americans have Scottish ancestry. Most likely they will be aware of what is happening but coverage in the US - from my experience of US TV news and current affairs - is unlikely to cover this kind of thing in great depth. But if you prefer a diet of Beiber and Birthdays then I won't bother posting here again Edit to add - oh, and One Direction too of course. Gotta have a daily diet of that ...