As you all will know, I like to make my opinions known. The other week, I put pen to paper and wrote a letter to the Editor of a National Daily here in NL about Brexit and to my amazement, it got published.
This set me thinking. As there has has not been much serious discussion about current affairs onsite recently, I thought it would be good to start a thread where we could share our thoughts about what was going on in the world that is likely to affect us.
I thought we might call it the ‘Weekly Wail’ and it would be like a wee weekly newspaper like a mini blog, where the editor (me) would give his views on something topical and the readers would write letters to the editor shooting it down or, even possibly, agreeing with it.
We tried something akin to this a while back, but it died the death as personalities got in the way.
The idea is to address our views to an anonymous ‘Dear Editor’ who is unable to reply or get into any discussion. All posts would start with ‘Dear Editor’ and may only refer to any previous writer’s name and date of any letter written by him/her, (see below). Hopefully, this will avoid any escalations, while letting us express our views.
We can only cope with one topic per week, otherwise we would get snowed under. Please restrict letters to 200 words max.
Every week, we will have a new topic and the previous one gets put to bed.
The ‘Wail’ would get published every Sunday.
To kick us off, here is the letter I sent to the Algemene Dagblad.
Dear Editor,
R. Bosman from Uden stated that the British took a democratic decision in a binding referendum to leave the European Union. (Letters 20/10/2018).
This is pertinently not true. The British Constitution does not recognise any binding referenda, only advisory ones. On 23rd June, 2016, the British electorate made a recommendation to the government. This is a perfect example of fake news which is used on a daily basis by the government which regularly states that, ‘the people have spoken.’
It reinforces the absurdity of the whole debacle. The referendum was ‘won’ with a majority of 52-48. Any self-respecting village table-tennis club has a clause in its constitution that any change to the constitution requires a two thirds majority of the votes cast at a general meeting for a motion to change the constitution.
The United Kingdom has taken the most important constitutional decision in hundreds of years based on an advice with a four percent majority. The referendum had one simple question, ‘in or out,’ with absolutely no idea of what the potential actual consequences could be. The campaign was conducted based on vague prognoses and ‘facts’ which were often misleading and which were sometimes downright untruthful.
Yours, John Donnelly.
The Weekly Wail
Forum rules
Please familiarise yourself with our Board Rules and Guidelines
Please familiarise yourself with our Board Rules and Guidelines
-
John Donnelly
- Mega Heid Poster
- Posts: 2955
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:31 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: The Weekly Wail
Dear Editor,
Re the letter sent to the Algemene Dagblad.
I begin by saying that I voted to stay in the European Union.
However that aside, the democratically elected parliament of Great Britain took the decision to ask the population, through a referendum, whether they wanted to stay in the European Union. This referendum was promised by the Tories in their manifesto, saying that if their then leader was unable to secure certain changes to the European Rules etc. that the British people would be offered a referendum. They were re-elected by a larger majority than they had before, on this manifesto. Due to the intransience of the union the changes that were sought were not achieved and so the referendum was triggered. Before that could happen the democratically elected parliament had to agree to the public 's advice being sought, which it did with an overwhelming majority. This is not fake news
I believe that the small majority result, although it may not be constitutionally binding, was and is difficult for the government to ignore, as they would be condemned if they went against "the will of the people". This process through all it's stages is called democracy.
The difficult stance that the European bully boy negotiators have been taking despite Britain importing more from Europe than it exports to them is another example of their intransient attitude to change. Otherwise known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Again not fake news.
Do I agree with the decision the majority of British citizens arrived at? Absolutely Not.
Would I want to change it ? In spite of the feeling of always being bullied by European bureaucrats yes I would.
Do I think the referendum should be repeated until a favourable result is arrived at ? No!
best regards Meekan.
Re the letter sent to the Algemene Dagblad.
I begin by saying that I voted to stay in the European Union.
However that aside, the democratically elected parliament of Great Britain took the decision to ask the population, through a referendum, whether they wanted to stay in the European Union. This referendum was promised by the Tories in their manifesto, saying that if their then leader was unable to secure certain changes to the European Rules etc. that the British people would be offered a referendum. They were re-elected by a larger majority than they had before, on this manifesto. Due to the intransience of the union the changes that were sought were not achieved and so the referendum was triggered. Before that could happen the democratically elected parliament had to agree to the public 's advice being sought, which it did with an overwhelming majority. This is not fake news
I believe that the small majority result, although it may not be constitutionally binding, was and is difficult for the government to ignore, as they would be condemned if they went against "the will of the people". This process through all it's stages is called democracy.
The difficult stance that the European bully boy negotiators have been taking despite Britain importing more from Europe than it exports to them is another example of their intransient attitude to change. Otherwise known as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Again not fake news.
Do I agree with the decision the majority of British citizens arrived at? Absolutely Not.
Would I want to change it ? In spite of the feeling of always being bullied by European bureaucrats yes I would.
Do I think the referendum should be repeated until a favourable result is arrived at ? No!
best regards Meekan.
-
John Donnelly
- Mega Heid Poster
- Posts: 2955
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:31 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: The Weekly Wail
Editorial; 2/12/18
On Thursday last, a bottle of 60 year-old Macallans whisky was auctioned for ₤1.2 million at Christies in London. It had been in the hands of a collector for nearly 20 years. Tim Triptree, Christie’s International Director of Wine, described it as ‘the most collectable single malt of the 20th century.’ A standard measure of this whisky, would cost you ₤42,857 down the local pub.
Bottles from the same cask, number 263, are dubbed the ‘Holy Grail’ for collectors. The whisky was laid down in a sherry cask in 1926 and was bottled in 1986. A single bottle was commissioned and bottled earlier and went on sale in 1999 in Fortnum and Masons in London for an undisclosed price. Last month a similar bottle was auctioned by Bonhams in Edinburgh for ₤848,750. This was the previous record for a bottle of single malt. To date, 37 bottles have been filled from cask 263. One of the bottles was sold in 2007 for ₤75,000.
Mr. Triptree, speaking after the sale, said that, after 60 years in the cask, the whisky would be coloured ‘amber with a bit of mahogany.’ He went on to say that the taste would be ‘incredibly complex,’ such that ‘each time you tasted it, you would be tasting a different flavour.’
Quite how a Director of Wine would consider himself competent to give an opinion on a rare whisky raises questions in my mind. My biggest question is however, having always been led to believe that, whisky did not get any better beyond 16 to 18 years in the cask, the only change would be the ‘angel’s share’ due to evaporation and not any improvement in the taste, why would Macallans bottle it after 60 years? The only reason I can think of is a simple marketing ploy to get a better price. There is no mention about how many of the actual 37 bottles they sold onto the market. Did they perhaps hold onto some of them, to be able to make a killing now the rarity value has gone through the roof?
My final thought is that who ever bought it will never open the thing, as that would render the thing worthless. I cannot see any-one drinking a glass of anything that cost ₤42,857, especially as every mouthful, according to Mr. Triptree, is likely to taste different.
What a waste of a good drop of the malt.
The Editor.
On Thursday last, a bottle of 60 year-old Macallans whisky was auctioned for ₤1.2 million at Christies in London. It had been in the hands of a collector for nearly 20 years. Tim Triptree, Christie’s International Director of Wine, described it as ‘the most collectable single malt of the 20th century.’ A standard measure of this whisky, would cost you ₤42,857 down the local pub.
Bottles from the same cask, number 263, are dubbed the ‘Holy Grail’ for collectors. The whisky was laid down in a sherry cask in 1926 and was bottled in 1986. A single bottle was commissioned and bottled earlier and went on sale in 1999 in Fortnum and Masons in London for an undisclosed price. Last month a similar bottle was auctioned by Bonhams in Edinburgh for ₤848,750. This was the previous record for a bottle of single malt. To date, 37 bottles have been filled from cask 263. One of the bottles was sold in 2007 for ₤75,000.
Mr. Triptree, speaking after the sale, said that, after 60 years in the cask, the whisky would be coloured ‘amber with a bit of mahogany.’ He went on to say that the taste would be ‘incredibly complex,’ such that ‘each time you tasted it, you would be tasting a different flavour.’
Quite how a Director of Wine would consider himself competent to give an opinion on a rare whisky raises questions in my mind. My biggest question is however, having always been led to believe that, whisky did not get any better beyond 16 to 18 years in the cask, the only change would be the ‘angel’s share’ due to evaporation and not any improvement in the taste, why would Macallans bottle it after 60 years? The only reason I can think of is a simple marketing ploy to get a better price. There is no mention about how many of the actual 37 bottles they sold onto the market. Did they perhaps hold onto some of them, to be able to make a killing now the rarity value has gone through the roof?
My final thought is that who ever bought it will never open the thing, as that would render the thing worthless. I cannot see any-one drinking a glass of anything that cost ₤42,857, especially as every mouthful, according to Mr. Triptree, is likely to taste different.
What a waste of a good drop of the malt.
The Editor.
Re: The Weekly Wail
Personally if I could afford it I'd buy it and drink it. These people have money and want to make more. £1.2m will double in value sooner than you think. Bonzo sitting in ma living room wae a £40 bottle of Glenfiddich , slanj. 
Those wimin were in the nip.
Re: The Weekly Wail
Dear Editor,
here is my view for what it's worth. Whisky malt or blended was made for drinking not for storing. It is my understanding that the colouring in the whisky comes from the sherry impregnated into the cask it is stored in, and I would guess that stored long enough the transfer and taste from the sherry barrel would become limited. I don't think the bottling of it would affect the taste or the colour, unless exposure to the air or light has an effect.
Anyway its a wee bit like paying millions for a painting and keeping it in a darkened cupboard where no one can enjoy it.
I recently bought a perfectly acceptable single malt in Aldi's for £16 and need I say it is long since gone the angels never got a sniff never mind a share.
Best regard,
Meekan
here is my view for what it's worth. Whisky malt or blended was made for drinking not for storing. It is my understanding that the colouring in the whisky comes from the sherry impregnated into the cask it is stored in, and I would guess that stored long enough the transfer and taste from the sherry barrel would become limited. I don't think the bottling of it would affect the taste or the colour, unless exposure to the air or light has an effect.
Anyway its a wee bit like paying millions for a painting and keeping it in a darkened cupboard where no one can enjoy it.
I recently bought a perfectly acceptable single malt in Aldi's for £16 and need I say it is long since gone the angels never got a sniff never mind a share.
Best regard,
Meekan
-
morag
- Mega Heid Poster
- Posts: 11337
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:29 am
- Location: Stevenston. now in S. Cal
Re: The Weekly Wail
I can get a good single and blended (double size) for under $20, enjoy a dram in winter, hmmm, must get some Drambuie..rusty nail weather coming up! Usually a wino though, she said sipping her Shiraz. 
"You don't have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."
C.S.Lewis
C.S.Lewis
-
John Donnelly
- Mega Heid Poster
- Posts: 2955
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:31 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: The Weekly Wail
Editorial, Sunday, 9/12/18
An article in the Dutch press this week, reports that Judges in Holland always award damages to a football player who brings an action because he has suffered an injury as the result of a tackle from an opponent in the course of a game. Judges have awarded damages in all cases where a red card has been given for the foul. Recently, a Judge dismissed a claim as the foul had not been the result of a sliding tackle.
A report this year by Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Insurance Brokers of London, shows that, since the 2011/12 football season up until season 2016/17, there have been 846 serious injuries in 524 matches, giving an average of 1,6 injuries per match to professional footballers in the English Premier League over the 524 games in all competitions.
A report published in 2017, by the English Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project, covering all English professional Rugby Union clubs from 2002 till 2017, reports that there were 9956 injuries in the course of 5432 matches, giving an average injury per match of 1.8. Prorate this by 90/80 to account for the different durations of the match times, gives an equivalent average of 2.0 injuries per match.
Putting this better in perspective, the Association Football statistics are for the elite and highly trained Premier League players, while the Rugby Union statistics are for all levels of English professional rugby clubs.
Watching football on television, one must often ask, what is the difference between a sliding tackle, designed to take the ball away from an opponent, which is often set in motion several metres away from the opponent, and a rugby tackle designed to bring the opponent down. In both cases, whether the ball is touched first or not, the opponent is violently floored with the danger, which is often the case, of an injury.
One often hears that the sliding tackle is acceptable as Association Football is a contact sport. This needs some explanation, as the rules only allow a ‘fair’ shoulder charge.
In the past, shirt-pulling and other misdemeanours were not unusual, but today, it seems to be a normal part of the game to which referees turn a blind eye. On Saturday last, there was an incident where an opponent was held back by his long hair, without any intervention by the referee.
The beautiful game seems to be turning into an anarchist free-for-all which is starting to make Rugby Union look like a game for wimps. The statistics quoted earlier in this item, would seem to bear this out.
Perhaps it is time for the rules of Association Football to be amended such that all players should at all times endeavour to remain upright with both feet on the ground. Obvious exceptions would of course be the goalkeeper and players jumping to head the ball.
The Editor.
An article in the Dutch press this week, reports that Judges in Holland always award damages to a football player who brings an action because he has suffered an injury as the result of a tackle from an opponent in the course of a game. Judges have awarded damages in all cases where a red card has been given for the foul. Recently, a Judge dismissed a claim as the foul had not been the result of a sliding tackle.
A report this year by Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Insurance Brokers of London, shows that, since the 2011/12 football season up until season 2016/17, there have been 846 serious injuries in 524 matches, giving an average of 1,6 injuries per match to professional footballers in the English Premier League over the 524 games in all competitions.
A report published in 2017, by the English Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project, covering all English professional Rugby Union clubs from 2002 till 2017, reports that there were 9956 injuries in the course of 5432 matches, giving an average injury per match of 1.8. Prorate this by 90/80 to account for the different durations of the match times, gives an equivalent average of 2.0 injuries per match.
Putting this better in perspective, the Association Football statistics are for the elite and highly trained Premier League players, while the Rugby Union statistics are for all levels of English professional rugby clubs.
Watching football on television, one must often ask, what is the difference between a sliding tackle, designed to take the ball away from an opponent, which is often set in motion several metres away from the opponent, and a rugby tackle designed to bring the opponent down. In both cases, whether the ball is touched first or not, the opponent is violently floored with the danger, which is often the case, of an injury.
One often hears that the sliding tackle is acceptable as Association Football is a contact sport. This needs some explanation, as the rules only allow a ‘fair’ shoulder charge.
In the past, shirt-pulling and other misdemeanours were not unusual, but today, it seems to be a normal part of the game to which referees turn a blind eye. On Saturday last, there was an incident where an opponent was held back by his long hair, without any intervention by the referee.
The beautiful game seems to be turning into an anarchist free-for-all which is starting to make Rugby Union look like a game for wimps. The statistics quoted earlier in this item, would seem to bear this out.
Perhaps it is time for the rules of Association Football to be amended such that all players should at all times endeavour to remain upright with both feet on the ground. Obvious exceptions would of course be the goalkeeper and players jumping to head the ball.
The Editor.
Re: The Weekly Wail
John
I've often said that if I were a referee there would be at least 20 penalties an half a dozen red cards in a game. Probably a penalty at every corner.
I've often said that if I were a referee there would be at least 20 penalties an half a dozen red cards in a game. Probably a penalty at every corner.
Re: The Weekly Wail
As far as 'damages' awarded to footballers are concerned I suspect you're alluding to players who've suffered possible career ending injuries which were covered by club insurance policies written into their contract, hence the insurance company would need to pay out. As in most other walks of life that's just normal practice.John Donnelly wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:42 pm Editorial, Sunday, 9/12/18
An article in the Dutch press this week, reports that Judges in Holland always award damages to a football player who brings an action because he has suffered an injury as the result of a tackle from an opponent in the course of a game. Judges have awarded damages in all cases where a red card has been given for the foul. Recently, a Judge dismissed a claim as the foul had not been the result of a sliding tackle.
A report this year by Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Insurance Brokers of London, shows that, since the 2011/12 football season up until season 2016/17, there have been 846 serious injuries in 524 matches, giving an average of 1,6 injuries per match to professional footballers in the English Premier League over the 524 games in all competitions.
A report published in 2017, by the English Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project, covering all English professional Rugby Union clubs from 2002 till 2017, reports that there were 9956 injuries in the course of 5432 matches, giving an average injury per match of 1.8. Prorate this by 90/80 to account for the different durations of the match times, gives an equivalent average of 2.0 injuries per match.
Putting this better in perspective, the Association Football statistics are for the elite and highly trained Premier League players, while the Rugby Union statistics are for all levels of English professional rugby clubs.
Watching football on television, one must often ask, what is the difference between a sliding tackle, designed to take the ball away from an opponent, which is often set in motion several metres away from the opponent, and a rugby tackle designed to bring the opponent down. In both cases, whether the ball is touched first or not, the opponent is violently floored with the danger, which is often the case, of an injury.
One often hears that the sliding tackle is acceptable as Association Football is a contact sport. This needs some explanation, as the rules only allow a ‘fair’ shoulder charge.
In the past, shirt-pulling and other misdemeanours were not unusual, but today, it seems to be a normal part of the game to which referees turn a blind eye. On Saturday last, there was an incident where an opponent was held back by his long hair, without any intervention by the referee.
The beautiful game seems to be turning into an anarchist free-for-all which is starting to make Rugby Union look like a game for wimps. The statistics quoted earlier in this item, would seem to bear this out.
Perhaps it is time for the rules of Association Football to be amended such that all players should at all times endeavour to remain upright with both feet on the ground. Obvious exceptions would of course be the goalkeeper and players jumping to head the ball.
The Editor.
Football and Rugby - in Europe- are two completely separate sports so I don't really get your point re. the different sets of rules.
Sliding tackles, provided the ball is won fairly are allowed in football, likewise full on body slams to stop an opponent are perfectly acceptable on the Rugby field.
Re: The Weekly Wail
Football is a contact sport where players coming together is pretty normal, maybe pretty is not a good description as sometimes the contact can be brutal. Trying to cut out bad tackles is difficult because some players, for want of a better description lets call them cheats, pretend to be seriously injured when contact has been minimal. Rolling about in fake agony, only to make a remarkable recovery when the ref. takes action.
-
John Donnelly
- Mega Heid Poster
- Posts: 2955
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:31 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: The Weekly Wail
Editorial, Sunday, 16/12/18
James Keir Hardie, born on 15 August 1856, a founding member of what today is the Labour Party, has connections to our Three Towns. He wrote articles in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald under the name of ‘Trapper,’ a job he had done, aged ten years, in a pit in Newarthill in Lanarkshire. Self-educated, he grew to be a formidable public speaker through his experience as a preacher in the Evangelical Union Church in Hamilton.
He rose to become a Member of Parliament, co-founder and leader of the Labour movement. He spoke to an audience in Saltcoats Town Hall on 21st September 1906. His association with the A&S Herald came through his work at the Cumnock News, a sister-newspaper of the A&S Herald. He took on this position to augment his income as the local miners union organiser in Cumnock.
As a Marxist, he operated from his principled conviction that the common working man should have a fairer share of the wealth he created through his efforts while in employment. It was due in great part to his efforts that, through the Union movement, the workers did share in the wealth created. Admittedly, ICI was a good company to work for, but there was no strong Union presence there. When the Ardeer plant was run down and eventually closed, there seems to have been no great effort from either the Unions or the local authorities to force ICI to put any kind of plan in place to alleviate the effects of the ensuing unemployment in the area.
Looking back to post-war North Ayrshire in the 50’s and 60’s, with its healthy economic state, caused mostly by ICI, Ardeer’s healthy order-book and the house-building boom fuelling the economic recovery, should we perhaps not be feeling angry and/or ashamed of where North Ayrshire is economically today? Should we, the workers/local population not have taken a leaf out of Keir Hardie’s book and made a stronger stand against the closing down strategy of the company instead of cravenly standing by and watching it happen? Other areas have done so, admittedly with variable success.
Is it too late for us to stand up and insist that the economic wasteland that is North Ayrshire today be given the assistance it deserves. Never forget that during both wars, the munitions that poured out of Ardeer were top quality goods which contributed immensely to the victory that was achieved. On the other side of the coin, is it too late for the population of North Ayrshire to stand on their own two feet and do the job ourselves? We had enough risk-takers and hard workers in the past. Our history shows that clearly.
The Editor.
James Keir Hardie, born on 15 August 1856, a founding member of what today is the Labour Party, has connections to our Three Towns. He wrote articles in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald under the name of ‘Trapper,’ a job he had done, aged ten years, in a pit in Newarthill in Lanarkshire. Self-educated, he grew to be a formidable public speaker through his experience as a preacher in the Evangelical Union Church in Hamilton.
He rose to become a Member of Parliament, co-founder and leader of the Labour movement. He spoke to an audience in Saltcoats Town Hall on 21st September 1906. His association with the A&S Herald came through his work at the Cumnock News, a sister-newspaper of the A&S Herald. He took on this position to augment his income as the local miners union organiser in Cumnock.
As a Marxist, he operated from his principled conviction that the common working man should have a fairer share of the wealth he created through his efforts while in employment. It was due in great part to his efforts that, through the Union movement, the workers did share in the wealth created. Admittedly, ICI was a good company to work for, but there was no strong Union presence there. When the Ardeer plant was run down and eventually closed, there seems to have been no great effort from either the Unions or the local authorities to force ICI to put any kind of plan in place to alleviate the effects of the ensuing unemployment in the area.
Looking back to post-war North Ayrshire in the 50’s and 60’s, with its healthy economic state, caused mostly by ICI, Ardeer’s healthy order-book and the house-building boom fuelling the economic recovery, should we perhaps not be feeling angry and/or ashamed of where North Ayrshire is economically today? Should we, the workers/local population not have taken a leaf out of Keir Hardie’s book and made a stronger stand against the closing down strategy of the company instead of cravenly standing by and watching it happen? Other areas have done so, admittedly with variable success.
Is it too late for us to stand up and insist that the economic wasteland that is North Ayrshire today be given the assistance it deserves. Never forget that during both wars, the munitions that poured out of Ardeer were top quality goods which contributed immensely to the victory that was achieved. On the other side of the coin, is it too late for the population of North Ayrshire to stand on their own two feet and do the job ourselves? We had enough risk-takers and hard workers in the past. Our history shows that clearly.
The Editor.