There will be no second referendum on an in/out basis, simple reason when you think about it, if Westminster allowed one, the SNP could legitimately demand a re-run and nobody wants that, except of course the SNP. Any new referendum would be on to accept the details of the divorce or not, and that could open a bigger can of worms and is extremely unlikely.....Both the Conservatives and Labour have rejected petitions calling for a second EU referendum to be held.It would be entertaining to watch Corbyn justify voting for Remain on a second referendum.....
Well at least I'm finally clear on Labour's policy on that score.
I suspect he would not be delighted to be faced with that all over again. So let’s just not go there, eh?
Remove gas, refill with explosive made using one of the recipes available on the Internet, anarchist handbooks or in university libraries. Detonators made with a 9 volt battery, an alarm clock and a couple of other easily available things. It is the metal case of the canister that firstly constrains the explosion and then, a fraction of a second later, the sharpnel that does the damage.There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.I have no idea. But the gas canisters in the house in Alcanar, north of Barcelona, did explode destroying the house. So it must be possible. Let's hope it is not at all easy, eh?
Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?
Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.
So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?
Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...
Sorry to interrupt, but finding this is an interesting conversation. I do know that they were slightly later (from 1096) than the period you are talking about, but, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the mass migrations caused by the crusades and the religious pilgrimages?I think you go a bit far in saying there is surprisingly little evidence of an invasion. It would be more accurate to say there is at best limited evidence for a mass migration.Probably not as we are mostly genetically identical with our supposedly celtic ancestors rather than continental saxons. There is surprisingly little evidence of conquest by Anglo-Saxons at all. Read "Britain AD" by Francis Pryor full the full story, but this article covers a lot of the ground:Actually it was originally the other way round; Anglo-Saxons slaughtering the resident Celtic population, particularly the men.I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.EXPEL ALL MUSLIMSI used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
However you cut it, it is fairly clear that there were major invasions of the British Isles by the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans. What has been argued (and that article puts forward) is that this only changed the elites, much as the Roman invasion caused not an ethnic cleansing but a transfer of power and an imposition of a foreign army and government.
I am not sure I would go as far as Pryor on language, for instance, speaking as somebody who knows Welsh and English as well as some Irish. There is to my mind a clear difference between them that can't easily be explained without a fairly dramatic foreign importation from somewhere. But, as with French, that may have been imposed from above rather than raised from below.
It is also worth noting that in the last fifty years historians have become less enamoured of mass migration theories for antiquity even as mass migration has taken off around them like never before. The ancient Celtic migrations were first to go - these just follow the set pattern.