Newbie

The problem is that the predominant view amongst ordinary Palestinian citizens (at least those who speak out in the media) seems to be that they reject a 2 state solution. Not all, but the majority. When they talk about the occupied territories, most of them are referring not only to the West Bank and Gaza, but to the State of Israel. When asked what should happen to Israeli citizens living there, in the event that the land was returned to the Palestinians, the typical response is that they should return to the countries they are from. Many ordinary Palestinian citizens cannot see themselves living in a Palestinian State alongside Israel. Unfortunately, this happens to fit quite well with the views held by many of the current right wing Israeli administration, although for entirely different reasons. In fairness, there are many historical events that make the view held by Palestinian citizens perfectly understandable, and it seems probable that the current Israeli actions will have done nothing to soften those views. However, it does ignore the fact that there is a long history of Jewish people living in that part of the world, and that many others who moved there were themselves fleeing persecution. Unfortunately, given the views of both the current Israeli administration and the majority of Palestinians, a 2 state solution seems further away than ever. Whilst the comments from the Israeli Ambassador to the UK were ill-judged and unhelpful given the current situation, she would probably argue that she is just facing up to the reality of the situation. It is hard to know what the answer is, but the removal of Hamas (if that proves possible) would help, as would a change to a much more moderate Israeli administration.

And then I woke up. It was all a dream.

I suppose that if you are a terror group dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and the killing of Jews living there, having control of the land both to the east and west of Israel is a good starting point for your "From the river to the sea" aspirations. Whichever way you look at it, Hamas are Palestinian. They may not enjoy the support of all of the Palestinian people, but to say that none of them support Hamas would not be true. They were after all voted in to power by the Palestinian people, albeit some years ago.

There will never be peace whilst it is the core belief of Hamas (and Hezbollah) that the state of Israel shouldn't exist and that all the Jewish people living there should be killed. How can you negotiate with someone who doesn't believe you have the right to exist?

If only it were that straightforward. You conveniently forget to mention that the West Bank was annexed by Jordan 75 years ago at which time around 17,000 jews were murdered or displaced. It isn't all down to Israeli policies. They are going after the local Hamas leaders in Gaza, or are you suggesting they should also start operations in Qatar where many of the leaders live luxurious lives? Do you think that might end up in a far more widespread conflict in the Middle East?

So in your view, in response to Hamas' actions on October 7th, Israel shouldn't have launched military action against them? They should have said, fair enough we will stop occupying the West Bank if you return the hostages. Apart from being naive and unrealistic, that would surely have encouraged Hamas to commit further atrocities in order to extract further concessions from Israel. So not less motivating for terrorists.

I have no idea. Clearly it is a risk, but I guess that it will be a while before Hamas has the capability to inflict significant damage on Israel again. What are the options when the stated aim of Hamas is the destruction of your country, and they consider that any Jewish citizens living in Israel should be killed? Containment clearly hasn't worked, and I have no idea how you would go about negotiating with people who's core belief is that you don't have a right to exist.

Well that is straightforward then. Since Hamas had the wisdom and foresight to embed themselves so completely within the civilian population of Gaza, they should be considered off limits, and immune to any military action taken against them because of the risk to innocent people. Israel should just turn the other cheek and wait for the next onslaught of rockets, or terrorist incursion. They can always keep their fingers crossed that Hamas will have a change of heart and return the hostages of their own accord.

I am not sure that I buy the coercion argument. I can see why people might believe it to be a potential problem, but in that case they should surely also be concerned about suicide, which prior to 1961 was illegal. Why would the same people not be concerned that an elderly person might come under undue pressure from unscrupulous relatives to end their own life without assistance.

Let me be clear, the Police ridiculing people for whatever reason isn't acceptable. I didn't say it was. However your comparison with the TT isn't giving the full picture . The TT Organizers do assess risk to spectators are far as it is possible to do so, and as a result they make certain areas restricted or prohibited. If a spectator stands in one of those areas even though they have been warned about the dangers, and they get injured, surely they would have to take responsibility for that? If you think that warning people about the potential dangers of certain activities is the same thing as telling everyone to stay at home the whole time, I am not sure that we will ever agree.

I wouldn't argue with that. I was responding more to the comment about the Police moving people on from the War Memorial because of the weather, and the idea that their actions were just designed to shift the blame onto individuals, rather than the initial issue with the two teenage girls. In my book, if an individual is warned not to do something because it is potentially dangerous, but they choose to do it anyway, the fault for any adverse outcome (including potential harm to rescuers/responders) lies firmly with that individual. People should take responsibility for their own actions. However, that wasn't the situation (as far as I am aware) with the two teenage girls, as I don't believe they deliberately put themselves in a risky situation despite being warned. Clearly the response from the Police was inadequate, and the subsequent social media post was misguided in the extreme. The fact that the person posting seemingly couldn't forsee the backlash is also concerning.

If you put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation, despite being warned, and something happens that requires the intervention of the emergency services, who's fault is it then?

I think MR have reported it slightly incorrectly. The plan for the backs of the houses towards the Shore Hotel end of Glen Road is to rebuild the wall so that it is 1.2m above ground level (rather than an extra 1.2m above existing level). Apparently it doesn't need to be that high in some parts of the river purely for flood defence (based upon their calculations), but if they build a wall at all, it has to be a minimum of 1.2m above ground level for Health and Safety reasons.

Surely if there are concerns about reaction time, or for that matter peripheral vision or cognitive decline etc., the answer is to check those things (for all competitors) rather than setting an arbitrary age limit. There are some 70yr olds fitter than some 50yr olds. The effects of ageing can be measured. If they don't meet the standard they shouldn't get a licence irrespective of age.

Placing an arbitrary age limit seems a bit....well, arbitrary. Surely the issue is whether they are fit to compete, and the medical examination that is required in order to get a Mountain Course licence should include assessments of things like reaction time, peripheral vision, cognitive decline. There would likely be some 50yr olds who would fail and some 70yr olds who would pass. The point is it wouldn't be based on their age but on an objective assessment of their abilities.