Maggie Tate

And that is relevant how to civilian casualty figures?

If someone is registered as a donor then where do the NoK come in? I don't want presumed consent at all. I want actual consent or otherwise from the actual deceased. And I don't want NoK to be bullied or emotionally blackmailed into it either. If there is no specific consent, they shouldn't be allowed to touch you. The NoK shouldn't need to come into it. By all means more people need to be encouraged to give or deny consent, but even then let's be honest, there are countless ways that someone who wants to donate can make their wishes known. Even through the DVLA for Christ's sake. None of that would be necessary though if they could reach the obvious solution which is to attract more people to donate in the first place. This seems a trivially easy task to me yet one that is apparently beyond the NHS.

Yes they do. Some media agency got the answer from the MoD last month. And Cameron said so in his speech to the Commons yesterday The answer was that is not one report of British inflicted civilian casualties in Iraq in fourteen months of activity. Which is obvious when you consider the level of precision a drone can achieve as opposed to the still-extremely-high-but-not-as-high-as-a-drone-precision a Tornado can achieve.

Erm no ta. My body does not belong to the state thank you very much. And once you admit the principle that it does by presuming or even forcing consent on NoK, you open up a very wide range of bad options, the like of which we have already seen at Alder Hey. Those lobbying for this will lobby for something else once it is granted. What, I wonder? And for what it's worth I have given my consent for them to take whatever they may find useful. But I plan for that to be not much by the time I peg it.

They weren't asked to. No-one asked specifically for French help. The 45 minute claim aside, the information in the dossier reflected what everyone, not just the British, thought at the time. Including the French, who knew more about Saddam's arms than anyone due to supplying quite a lot of them. It was even Hans Blix's view that the WMD were there, he just asked for endless time to find them. It was impossible to conclude on the available evidence of the day that he did not have them. No-one argued before the war that he did not have them. And as we know Saddam did everything possible to convince the world he had them. Why is that assumed when we haven't even injured, never mind killed, an innocent person in Iraq over the last fourteen months? On the other hand of course our activities in Iraq have helped save countless Kurds and possibly saved the Yazidis from extinction. It was obvious he meant Corbyn and McDonnell and we all know he was right. And he would have said so in the house yesterday if he wasn't so keen to see them both keep their jobs for as long as possible. The dozen or so MPs who asked a question about their feelings being hurt rather than the debate itself should be ashamed.

They already are and anyway, so what? No one ever opposed action against the Nazis for fear of what they might do to us in retaliation. The argument that we should do nothing because they might get upset does not have a happy ending logically. Us existing the way we do is enough for them. And no one is talking about streaming in, but expanding by a couple of hundred miles a campaign which is already well under way.

So if you're against expanding the strikes against IS into Syria you must have been against the strikes against IS in Iraq, yes?

About five rows behind looking at the seating plan! Good job Bill Werbenuik isn't playing, I;'d die of smoke inhalation

I remember Ken Doherty missed the last black in a TV final years ago. I've got a day ticket for the Thursday at the Masters at Ally Pally in January. Our peg says it's divorce if I'm seen on the television.

I only saw the 3rd quarter but yep, that was a pretty odd way to win a game. Though the QB has got to get used to the idea of throwing the ball to the lads in the same colour clothes as him. Hey ho. Gotta take em how they come when you're trying to ascend to the heights of finishing 5 and 11...

If you swap Steelers for Ravens and put the full stop after players you're bob on.

Free vote apparently. So the opposition has no formal position on whether or not to extend a military campaign into another country or not. Extraordinary, but we should be bombing IS in Syria within a week. Excellent, and the more of them we kill the safer we will be. Interesting how it is the left who make this glib assertion that the opposition is just as bad as IS as if Muslim countries are simply incapable of producing moderates. This is what they call the racism of low expectations.

Prince Charles is IN PARIS, two weeks after what happened IN PARIS. And what he tells the audience, IN PARIS, is that climate is bigger threat than terrorism. IN PARIS. For all our sakes I hope he dies before his mother does.

And don't sing ole ole ole fuck the pope and the IRA We were young squaddies, we were foolish. It was summer.

I don't know about that Malcolm. I can see why Cameron is cautious. Don't forget it is in his interests to preserve Corbyn as far as possible, till the election preferably. He needs 326, he probably has 300 from his own benches plus ten NI unionists. He needs aroundabout twelve or fifteen Labour, which yes he would get with a free vote but if Corbyn won't allow one he is gambling on Labour MPs doing the decent thing rather than voting with its leadership. And so far only Umunna has broken ranks. Many will abstain in either case. The SNP, Libs, UKIP, SDLP, the Green woman and Welsh nats are against no matter what it seems. Labour is the problem insofar as Labour is a problem. A free vote and Cameron is home and hosed, if they are whipped he has a bit - just a bit - more to worry about.

Just there a fortnight ago. Better than I remembered. Basically avoid Temple Bar and you'll enjoy a perfectly serviceable time. Really good pub called The Porterhouse just on the edge of Temple Bar does all its own ale, just nearby is a big Lebanese sort of cafe place for a good cheap feed. Keep to the pubs that look like normal people might be in them and aren't full of English and it ain't the worst place.

Yes, these protestors in Paris look really concerned about the climate to me.

For gouging someone's eye out. Well he is I think the worst heavyweight world champ since Oliver McCall, as well as being a thundercunt. There is a chap called Deontey Wilder who he may wish to avoid at all costs for now but down the line him and Joshua are probably on collision course.

Well there always was a lot of support for action against IS in Syria as well, but Paris has obviously brought it to the fore. Good question, but Assad has broken all the rules too and hasn't won. Militarily I think a ground invasion would be over quite quickly and successfully. But ultimately this is about killing an idea. IS will die not because of some Zulu style encounter against the Paras, but because its own people will give up on it, its leaders will be killed by drones and Apache helicopters one by one and the recruits will stop flowing in. Then once you reach this conclusion it seems inadequate to leave the wiping to others, especially when they want our help.

The amount of oil Syria produces is very very very small. In fact I've just looked and it is 68th in the world. Iraqi oil production has recently reached an all time high, granted some of this is to recover losses to Islamic State but its ability to produce oil is not affected by the loss of territory.There is no oil in Bosnia or Kosovo, or Sierra Leone, or Afghanistan, all countries where the UK has sent troops in the very recent past. It seems to me that the following arguments are being favoured by those against extending air strikes into Syria: a. It won't make any difference b. They will hate us more c. Lots more innocents will die d. It's too confusing It will not make that much strategic difference, that is right, but logic alone dictates the complete lack of military sense in targets being safe from our air assets just so long as they cross a border which only one side of the argument recognises. They already hate us and will not hate us more for expanding an already existing mission. The argument that we should not upset them has a very concerning logical end. It is not reasonable to use the argument that our contribution will be small and insignificant, then argue that we will increase the number of innocents being killed. Incidentally I have not seen reports of any major civilian casualty events in Iraq or Syria by western hands since the campaign against IS begun. There is every sign that it has been conducted with extreme precision. Yes it's confusing and it is not obvious which is our horse. My answer is so what? It is not more confusing that the former Yugoslavia was. It is only with hindsight that we see how complex Iraq was beneath the surface. Rwanda was complex. Anyone think in hindsight we perhaps ought to have stopped the genocide there? We and our allies should be doing this for selfish reasons. The destiny of Syria is not the international community's responsibility, not yet anyway. It is self evidently necessary and in everyone's interests to destroy Islamic State. Everything else is secondary. The other point to note is that Jeremy Corbyn would oppose action of any kind, anywhere, at any time and against any enemy. What he thinks is relevant only as far as internal Labour Party politics is concerned.

Second best city in the UK after Belfast. Lived right in the centre of Edinburgh for eight months and moved away on getting married, the bitch. One of those cities where you can't get bored, no matter what you do in your spare time. Though it obviously is not as good as Leigh.

Imagine the gates of hell which would open if George Osborne read from Mein Kampf - in any context. Mind you it is successfully deflected attention from the speech being dross and dreck apart from the intervention of Chairman Mao.

I'm sorry but have I just seen that with mine own eyes live on Sky News??? I'm not convinced I have. 'Now then Shadow Chancellor, it's your first big speech. All eyes on you today. It will be a good opportunity to show people that you're not too left wing.' 'Yes, quite. I know what I'll do. I'll read a passage from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.' It's entertaining, I'll give these crazy bastards that.

Bloody heck, Bruce Tulloh in Barnstaple. Boxing day is a Saturday, might do that if it's on, or on 2nd Jan.

Never mind Ron Hill, does Bruce Tulloch turn out? I am signed up for Barnstaple but never been. There isn't one in Kabul.