Thursday, November 26, 2015

The Sp. military contribution; The Sp. timetable; Odd Sp. airports; Corruption; & The Sp. timetable.

THE SPANISH MILITARY CONTRIBUTION: A week or so ago, the Spanish government announced it had offered to take over patrol duties from France in Mali, so that French troops could be used back home against terrorists. Then came the incident in Mali and the offer was suddenly withdrawn. The French government says it's surprised and that it's awaiting clarification from its Spanish counterpart. Well, I think we know what this will amount to. Especially as there's a general election imminent 

ODD SPANISH AIRPORTS: I mentioned the 'ghost airport' of Castellón yesterday. Reader Sierra has cited a facility up in the Galician hills near the city of Lugo which I didn't even know existed. This is an airport built by the Nazis during WW2 in which the regional government is investing €55m to convert it into an 'Aero Transport Centre'. Some this total may well get to be used for this purpose. It will, it seems, be dedicated to the development of drones. And I thought we had quite enough funccionarios in Galicia.

CORRUPTION: The left-wing, campaigning judge, Baltasar Garzón, gives these as the perfect recipe for the appearance of skulduggery:-
  • A local planning officer with low ethics. (Hardly a rare creature)
  • A businessman with good connections to a political party
  • A city that's developing rapidly
  • A property market that's taking off
Well, he should know, having been in charge - until relieved of his responsibilities for being over-zealous - of at least a couple of the major cases of recent years.

FINALLY . . . THE SPANISH TIMETABLE: My elder daughter has visited me for a couple of days, en route to a tango session in Oporto. Taking her to the bus station this morning, I was surprised to see the number of people out and about at 7.30, given that this is the equivalent of 5.30 in other countries. I apologise, by the way, for writing 'the number' of people, when the standard (but wrong) phrase these days is 'the amount' of people. I simply can't override that bit of my education, 'back in the day'. Which reminds me, a Sky News reporter this morning - reading from an autocue - spoke of someone who'd been fatally murdered in Paris. As opposed to the unfatally murdered survivors, I guess.

6 comments:

Diego said...

I think Garzón was barred for wiretapping defendant-lawyer conversations in prison, overzealous? maybe. Illegal definitely.

Was this used as an opportunity to get rid of him? yeah sure. but then, being a star judge why give his opponents the chance by doing something so clearly illegal?

Oh, did i mention the income from his classes at american universities that he did not declare?

Diego

Alfred B. Mittington said...


According to the hallowed linguistic views of your Guru Oliver Kamm, your refusal to use the perfectly fine and acceptable word combination 'the amount of people' proves that you are a pedant and a stickler (and some more things which I forget). Get your bloody act together and forget about that oppressive education by which the Tory scum imperialists mangled your - then - innocent schoolboy's mind!

UltraliberAl

Colin Davies said...

@Diego: Well, you need to read his book for his explanation of how this happened. And why.

@Alfie: I don't 'refuse' to use 'amount'. As I said, I use what I'm used to. It's not compulsory to use 'amount' or 'number' and I don't criticise the people who use the (increasingly acceptable) alternative of 'amount', as a pedant would. I don't like it but I recognise it will be the norm for everyone in x years' time.

Eamon said...

I prefer and use "number of people" but I guess if you are counting the dead piled up on a battlefield "amount of people" sounds about right.

Alfred B. Mittington said...



My dear Colin,

Nonononononono: you still don't get it! In order to be Politically Correct you MUST use the grammatically incorrect form! If not you shore up and support and stimulate the oppression of the working classes and the self-important academics!

And I'm sure you know so. Why else would you have Apologized for using the correct form?

PoliticAl

Perry said...

I'd use hordes, crowds, swarm, multitudes or numbers. It's the less or fewer debate; less weight versus fewer numbers. However, poor worded & imprecise communication by others, enables lawyers to rake in the cash.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335479/How-schoolboy-geography-error-nuclear-physicist-helped-invent-touch-screen-led-1million-High-Court-tug-war-will.html

€55 million for an airport seems like chump change when compared with FT article about Abengoa needing €350 million within 4 months to prevent them going tits up.

http://www.thegwpf.com/stranded-assets-renewables-group-faces-largest-bankruptcy-in-spanish-history/

Meanwhile, in Australia, The Minerals Council of Australia's executive director of coal Greg Evans, said demand for planned coal projects in Queensland’s Galilee Basin would remain strong over the next few decades. Australian coal exports are likely to increase by 37 per cent by 2040.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/26/climate-divestment-rhetoric-meet-reality/

Search This Blog