I have issues with this story: so, someone can come along and dig up my relatives and, even though everyone knows who his descendents are, it isn't automatically up to us to decide where he gets reburied?

This story is just tremendously sad. Yes, the people should have gotten planning permission, but the house was built on private land. "Harmful to the rural character of the locality"? Horsecrap.

I'm not sorry to see the end to an agency that I have come to loathe, but, really, the minister responsible of its policies is still right where she's always been, and it doesn't sound as if what follows will be any better. So I have to call that a "no good news" story.

I have mixed feelings about this one: other than the Chamber of Commerece chap, it doesn't indicate any local sentiment pro or con. But I'm a fan of wind energy, and I'm a big fan of people telling Donald Trump to shut his big effing piehole, so I'm going to count it in the "good news" column.

I have mixed feelings about this one too. Better equipment and longer range sounds good, but putting out public safety services to private contract doesn't seem like a good step to me. It seems like a step down the road to the place where I get a radio message, as my ship is sinking, saying "We have detected your distress call; for a quick, one-time charge of $2,000, we will undertake all reasonable steps to rescue you. If you prefer the "heroic measures" rescue package, that is available for $10,000. If you would like us to recover your vessel also, that service is available for a surchage equal to 40% of the insured value of your vessel. Please press 0 for more options."

This story comes closest to being good news. Nothing about Syria right now can really be good, but it's encouraging to see the opposition being recognised and given a role to represent Syria to the world.

In a promo for a Radio 4 "What if?" program, the synopsis reads

What If... The USA had lost its War of Independence?

During the opening years of the American War of Independence the British Army undoubtedly had the upper hand over the George Washington's forces. Here, we imagine George Washington's defeat in the early stages of the war, e.g.: 1776.

In fact George III and his Cabinet had every reason to believe they were going to win, until their surprise defeats at the Battles of Saratoga and Yorktown. It's only the British Commander, Admiral Howe's[,] characteristic lack of boldness that prevented him from crushing the American forces on at least three occasions.

Clearly they are going even more hypothetical than stated, since Admiral (Richard) Howe was the *brother* of the CINC in America, General (William) Howe.

"In a rare move for a political unknown, Palin made it personal between the man running for president, Obama, and herself. They are of the same generation: she is 44 to his 47, and represent bipolar extremes."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7624074.stm

As a general reader, I'm accustomed to seeing to very different things referred to as 'polar opposites'.

As a political scientist, I'm familiar with references to a bipolar world.

And of course one is acquainted with the diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

But I think referring to two candidates, or two positions, as being bipolar extremes is rather over-egging the rhetorical pudding.

Jan Spoor