I opened www.bbc.co.uk and saw that watching of "Question Time" live is possible just that time. I turned it on and saw mr.Howard, then he was answering to questions about Iraqi war. Later, theme of taxation was held (for obvious reasons it is not very interesting for me).
Btw, BBC-Russian radio (on high qality USW) is available in main Russian cities (also Voice of America and CIA-sponsored Radio Freedom).
As to BBC-TV, then we live in times of satelite dishes. I personally haven't one. But only $10 per month deliver a lot of different channels including CNN and BBC-TV.
Really my English is not so good as many our friends here had suggested. But this strange pronunciation of mr.Howard is obvious even for me. I even remembered one Irishman (Dennis, don't remember his surname) whom I met many years ago in Moscow. He used to say [ebash] istead of [eba:ut] and his style of pronunciation was a bit strange.
There is Russian saying: how a man is speaking that way he is thinking.
Are Britons thinking what mr.Howard is thinkung about?
I voted for mr.Putin (without any enthusiasm though) but my son (for example) voted for one of his rival. My parents voted for communist candidate (they always vote for communists).
Recently, Putin's government introduced so called monetisation of natural benefits (pensioners and military) were affected. After huge wave of protests this measures were greatly softened. So Putin is not so almighty as you think. Now rating of mr.Putin is not so high as a year ago.
You have right to have your opinion (it is a democracy anyway). But do you think that it is really YOUR opinion? TV, nespapers, mas-media are very skilled in ads to force you to buy absolutely needless "goods". Do you agree that they are very skilled in creation of public opinion?
No doubt, you have heard about 'anti-democratic' development in Russia, but have you heard counter arguments? If not then you knowledge is one dimentional, not full.
Mentioning of Stalin in context of Russian democracy is like a mentioneing of Blood Mary in context of British democracy. Hint: better recall times of Ivan 4th the Terrible. After one of his raids 3/4 of population in Novgorod was killed. Local river of Volkhov was red from blood.
PS. An anecdote spings in mind.
In Soviet Union people know that news is propaganda. In Western countries people believe that propaganda is news.
Yeah, I noticed that. It's as if he's under the impression it'll make him more palatable to voters. The English will only hate him and the Welsh (myself included) will have to start hanging our heads in shame.
Personally, I think he's warming up for a Question Time alongside the likes of Mandelson or Steven Twigg where he'll start screaming "But I'm the only gay in the village!"
Howard's positon on Blair's conduct over Iraq is lawyerly (my main criticism of Howard) but nonetheless sound. It's the "fruit of the poison tree" argument, i.e. because the whole adventure was founded on an untruth everything that went after it is similarly tainted, no matter how virtuous.
It's like a cop planting drugs on a big-time criminal to put him away and claiming "noble cause corruption": as far as the court is concerned it doesn't matter how bad the criminal is because the process of justice is corrupted.
Ironic, then, that lefty barrister Mr. Blair and his human-rights junkie missus are part of the most corrupt foreign policy adventure in British History. Listening to Blair go on and on and on about "yes, but Iraq is better now so it was worth it" makes me feel quite ill. Hypocrite. You either stand for principled government or you don't. You don't use mendacity as a tool to deploy men to war. Full stop.
No, Howard has an even more neo-con/ muscular answer: He would have sanctioned the war on similar terms to those of Bush. Saddam had to go for reasons of Resolution 1441 with regime change chasing in the slipstream.
You can disagree, but at least the PM would have been upfront about why you were going. And afterwards we wouldn't look like fools because there was no WMD. And a politicised head of the JIC wouldn't have found himself in charge of MI6 after presiding over one of the biggest intelligence blunders in living memory.
So, would Howard support regime change? I hope he'd be as dismissive of the UN as Bush. I hope he'd be more muscular with the Iranians and with Mugabe. And I hope that he'd never send people to war on the basis of a palpable lie. Who knows? All I do know is that Howard's reply on Question Time was quite leery and aggressive....I thought he'd backtrack.