Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » England » Seven arrests

Seven arrests

Neurologist Mohammed Jamil Abdelkader Asha, 27, and his wife, 27, were stopped as they drove on the M6 in Cheshire, in northwest England, with their two-year-old son, reports said yesterday.Police yesterday arrested two men aged 28 and 25 at Paisley, outside Glasgow, bringing to seven the number of people in custody following the three foiled bombings in London and the Scottish city. None is thought to be a British citizen.Sources told The Sun that one of two men held after trying to smash a blazing vehicle into a Glasgow Airport terminal was also a doctor, from Iraq.The newspaper said security bosses believed the two men in Glasgow also drove the two Mercedes cars laden with petrol and gas canisters that were used in a failed bid to devastate London’s West End early on Friday. Other reports said those responsible for parking two bomb-primed cars in the West End were still on the run.Dr Asha and his wife were arrested by officers from a West Midlands counter-terrorism unit on Saturday night. It is thought the car they were driving flashed up on a number plate recognition camera.Their home, 18km away in Newcastle-under-Lyme, was being searched by forensic officers yesterday. Dr Asha, who is of Palestinian origin and carries a Jordanian passport, had just started a job at the North Staffordshire Hospital in nearby Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent.But The Sun said it was feared he may also be the head of an al-Qa’ida cell.Dr Asha has rented the smart Newcastle-under-Lyme property for 12 months. Simon Plant, who manages the property, told The Sun: “Dr Asha dressed in Muslim style, with a flat woollen hat, and he sports a beard. His wife always wore a burka. He was paying rent of pound stg. 500 ($1176) a month and was in many ways the ideal tenant.”

Dr Asha and his wife were driven to London’s Paddington Green police station, along with a suspect arrested at Liverpool’s Lime Street Station and one of the men arrested in Glasgow.

(the Australian)

I just want to know what ever happened to the Hippocratic oath? That requires a physician to do no harm?
It is however a stroke of good luck that this group of terrorists seem to have been better at the ideology of death than they were mechanics of it. But as I said in the comments thread of a previous post it is unlikely that the courts will treat them with the harshness that they deserve but anything less than Her Majesties pleasure will be an outrage. The suffering that the burned terrorist is experiancing is a fine example of natural justice though…

Update

Another Arrest

Police investigating the failed car bombings at Glasgow Airport and London have arrested a man abroad, bringing the number of people detained to eight.

Police have not specified in which country the arrest took place.( BBC news)

Update 2

An eighth man — described only as 27 years old — was arrested in Brisbane, Australia, Monday night, said Peter Beattie, the premier of the state of Queensland. (CNN)

Wow, a Brisbane connection…
Who says we are not under threat?


44 Comments

  1. Another incredibly tedious post, simply offering some pious commentary on news stories.
    If you’re merely offering a few simplistic remarks about how much you want to see the would-be bombers punished, why don’t you save yourself the trouble, and just call Alan Jones?

  2. Iain says:

    Hap
    This is a blog, an ongoing opinion piece that documents how I, as its author, think and feel about the events that I see happening in the world. I make to apology for the things that I choose to write about.
    At least here I give my readers a legible page and a verity of topics, which I write about. Your own blog has the same “vices” that you complain about in mine but the difference is that we have a different focus. As much as I want to be read I also write to please myself as I am sure that you do as well.
    I feel passionately about the threat that we, as a civilisation, face from the Jihadists and I believe that if just one person is roused from their apathy to likewise appreciate the threat, then my words will not have been said in vain.

  3. Elijah says:

    HR.
    You continue to demonstrate everyday your disconnect from reality. Iain is on the bounce.
    Perhaps you should go and drink your soy lattes and and talk about your BS over a PVC table. It’s the only place where it isn’t dangerous.

  4. Mark L. says:

    Hap is right. Much as anyone who drives explosive-laden vehicles into buildings is warped, gloating and celebrating over their injuries makes you sound more like one of them than you probably realise. The courts will deal with these madmen, and rightly so. We should restrain our dancing until the verdict’s in, particularly in the case of those not arrested at the scene (police and intelligence agencies not having a perfect track record in this regard.)

  5. kg says:

    So Happy clicks on this site in order to read “another incredibly tedious post”.
    Which makes you an incredibly tedious whingeing masochist, Happy.

  6. MK says:

    Done & Dusted, well done guys, the sour commie whipped and sent off to lick his wounds and sulk.

  7. Iain says:

    Mark L
    I’m no gloating I merely suggest that what has happened to one of these scrotes is a sort of poetic justice…
    Oh and I have taken you of my moderated list today 😉

  8. kg says:

    “We should restrain our dancing until the verdict’s in,…”
    Riight. After all, someone who fills a Jeep with fuel, sets it afire and tries to ram it into an airport terminal, then douses himself in petrol and ignites it while shouting “allah. allah”…
    may simply be a dissatisfied customer of an airline who just happened to buy his lawnmower fuel in bulk and had a rotten sense of direction and a Bic lighter, after all.
    In his case at least, the verdict’s in, Mark and celebrating the fact that the Murderous Moron only succeeded in frying himself instead of a load of innocent bystanders is entirely reasonable.
    As far as I’m concerned if these animals were to barbecue themselves by the busload it would be a cause for celebration.

  9. Mark L. says:

    A “perfect record” in stopping attacks. Their record in correctly identifying individual terrorists is not so pure, as one dead Brazilian and several others wrongfully arrested can attest to. That’s why we have a justice system, and much as terrorists disregard Western justice, they should still be subject to it.

    KG, while I acknowledge there’s a certain irony in a wannabe suicide bomber setting himself aflame, nevertheless it’s not a fate I would wish on anyone. Perhaps I lack your bloodlust but personally I would rather see the bastard rot in a cell.

  10. kg says:

    Honest men may differ as regards punishment, Mark but I have personal reasons for hating these people and I’m not the forgiving type.
    The problem with them being in a cell as punishment is that there’s a history of terrorists being released as part of deals, in Ireland, Israel and Germany.
    “life” doesn’t necessarily mean life, does it?

  11. Elijah says:

    Good on ya Mark. When you pull your head out of your arse and realise that terrorism isn’t law enforcement issue maybe you’ll realise the absurdity of your commentary.

  12. Mark L. says:

    Keith, no, probably not. But weak sentencing is a separate issue from retaliatory violence.

    Elijah, both your posts to this thread have been nothing more than weak-minded insults. I’m sorry you don’t feel equipped to make more of a rational contribution at this point.

  13. ‘You continue to demonstrate everyday your disconnect from reality. Iain is on the bounce.’

    I have to laugh when the likes of Elijah prattle on about ‘reality’. Which reality – the paranoid one you’ve constructed out of viedo games and Guns & Ammo magazine?

    ‘When you pull your head out of your arse and realise that terrorism isn’t law enforcement issue maybe you’ll realise the absurdity of your commentary.

    If it’s not a law enforcement issue, then what the hell is it? It sure isn’t a war, when there’s no defined enemy, no frontlines, no headquarters, and beginning or end to the fighting. All we’ve had are two senseless invasions into Iraq and Afghanistan. Like all of the hard-core right-wing ideologues, you’re confusing the power fantasies in your head with actual foreign policy. Maybe have a Bex and a good lie down, and cut back on the Bill O’Reilly.

  14. Iain says:

    Hap
    What planet are you from? While I will sadly acknowledge that there have been some serious tactical errors in the way that the war has been prosecuted in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that there was absolutely NO lack of justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. Or are you going to deny that it was Al Qeada who were responsible for 9/11?
    Shessh
    Why is that you are so willing to offer comfort and support for the Jihadists who would slit your God denying throat with out hesitation?
    Like so many other people I watched the vision of the towers falling and I knew that this is war. When such acts are carried out it is not a law and order response that is called for but a military one. If you had the slightest understanding of what war can be, then you would not be sprouting the crap you give us here.

  15. Elijah says:

    Oh yes it is a war. War isn’t about “no defined enemy, no frontlines, no headquarters, and beginning or end to the fighting.”

    That’s typical ignorance. I’m sure then under your dumbass definitions an Insurgency isn’t a form of war. How right you are.

    War is simply a contest, a duel between two entities. Their duels can overlap to produce a multi-faceted and complex war.

    Like all left-wing ideologues Happy, you have a piss poor conception of war because you won’t study it. Isn’t it beneath your intellect to study how to kill, maim, and destroy?

    Mark. It, is, a war. We are facing an enemy whose main strength comes from a plausible promise. Just because in this particular instance the enemy isn’t using a hierarchical and bureaucratic structure to conduct its war doesn’t make it less a war. The enemy is distributed. Units are networked and loosely coupled. They develop organically and independently. Simply put someone likes the idea of a Global Jihad so they go on join it. They look for like minded individuals and start building their resources. They are like viruses. It’s a war, pure and simple. You kill and ask questions later.

  16. Iain, it’s not a ‘war’ except rhetorically, for the reasons I outlined above. No frontlines, beginning or end, defined enemy, etc. It’s hardly analogous to any standard war.

    ‘While I will sadly acknowledge that there have been some serious tactical errors in the way that the war has been prosecuted in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that there was absolutely NO lack of justification for the invasion of Afghanistan.’
    I’m not disputing Al-Qaeda’s involvement in 9/11 (though I’d be surprised if the US actually had enough evidence to prosecute Osama, grainy confessions notwithstanding).
    What was the justification for invading Afghanistan? The Taliban, a separate entity to Al-Qaeda, actually offered to hand Osama over to a third-party, such as Pakistan, for prosecution. Afghanistan was attacked in any case, Osama was never caught, and millions had been paid by the CIA to Afghan warlords and the Pakistani military to prosecute this ‘war’. If you could manage even an elementary grasp of historical fact, you would realise that in Afghanistan this year, the Coalition has killed more civilians than the insurgents in Afghanistan, and even the US-friendly president of the country has condemned the US.
    So perhaps if you had the slightest understanding of what ‘war’ can be, you and your keyboard Rambos might reconsider spouting your crap.

  17. More on Afghanistan here.

    It’s obvious that Bush et. al. use the term ‘war’ as a rhetorical device to lend grandeur to what is otherwise a brutal, senseless, imperialistic exercise.

    Everybody in the world is able to see this other than a few die-hard ideologues on this blog.

    Incidentally, ‘ideology’ is a Marxist term that you all manage to misuse. Look it up – it was designed to describe lapdogs like yourselves more than zealouts and fanatics.

  18. Elijah says:

    Gees louise Happy. How ignorant are you.

    The Taliban were ALLIED with Al Qaeda. OBL helped the Taliban into power.

    Their offer was crap. They were offering to hand over OBL to a friendly government who sympathised with Al Qaeda, or have you forgotten that the ISI also helped the Taliban in their power grab?

  19. PKD says:

    The Taliban were ALLIED with Al Qaeda. OBL helped the Taliban into power.

    Actually the Talibans largest backer was (and some say still is) Pakistan…

  20. MK says:

    Nah, I think he’s just trying to get someone to visit his useless blog Elijah.

    You know folks, leftists will tell us America should never have gone to Iraq and they took their eye off the ball and let osama slip away in Afghanistan, they maintained that Afghanistan was the just war.

    I remember saying a while ago that leftists just say that because they don’t want to look like the lying cowards they really are. See, sooner or later these tossers, if we ever ‘redeploy’ to Afghanistan, will start looking for white flags to cut and run from there as well, it’ll be grainy videos, too little evidence and peace and other cultures.

  21. Elijah says:

    PKD, they were all allied together. I said the ISI helped Talibs into power. The ISI is the Inter Service Intelligence of Pakistan.

  22. Brett_McS says:

    Imagine the response of the left if it were neo-Nazi skin heads ramming Mercedes bombs into Mosques. I’m sure there’d be calm calls for judicial process flying all over the place.

  23. Mark L. says:

    But aren’t neo-Nazis of the Left themselves? Or has that changed again now?

  24. Elijah says:

    Mark, that’s exactly the point. Neo-Nazis are the left. So is any theocratic ideology. The right are the ones that draw from the Age of Enlightenment, not reject it or take it to the absurd unreal.

  25. Mark L. says:

    Hard to tell that from Brett’s comment. He seemed to think the Left would be angry about neo-Nazi violence, implying that neo-Nazis are of the Right. Which is the conventional view amongst anyone who hasn’t tried to engage in some perverse kind of historical revisionism.

    For the record, if neo-Nazis did firebomb a mosque, I’d condemn it because it is an act of violence, but not because it was a mosque.

  26. Brett_McS says:

    I’ve never said anything about neo-Nazis or their political ideology.

  27. Mark L. says:

    Imagine the response of the left if it were neo-Nazi skin heads ramming Mercedes bombs into Mosques.

    That’s what you said, and we both know what you meant.

  28. Rudi says:

    Elijah, you have just proved the point that most people use labels like “left” and “right” to describe what they like or dislike. Next time there is a march where Neo-Nazis attack lefties (or vice versa) I’ll think of you and imagine people attacking themselves!

    I also struggle with the description of the fight against Islamic terrorism as a “war”. Yes there is a real threat, which since September 11 thankfully has been thwarted largely by luck and intelligence agencies, but the hype and rhetoric reminds me too much of Orwell’s 1984 to make me a cheerleader for any government.

    I suppose I like to ask question and get answers before killing – oh and I don’t trust any government.

    Call me old fashioned.

    Rudi

  29. ‘Mark, that’s exactly the point. Neo-Nazis are the left. So is any theocratic ideology. The right are the ones that draw from the Age of Enlightenment, not reject it or take it to the absurd unreal.’

    Hilarious. Who said right-wing freaks who inhabit hate-sites couldn’t be funny?

  30. Rudi says:

    Harpy,

    Almost as funny – but not as pathetic – as a person who continually hangs around on “hate-sites” with people he think are freaks, saying righteously that that all is tedious.

    Rudi.

  31. Iain says:

    Hap
    You are a card mate, you suggest that this blog is a “hate site” with out a hint of irony when just about every post you write at your own blog is a rant about how much you HATE the Howard government.
    😆

  32. […] Law, Justice, Multiculturalism, in the news | The debate that we have been having here about the bombing in Glasgow and the attempts in London has thrown up the thorny question of to what extent the nature of Islam […]

  33. Let me be clear – I don’t think your blog is a ‘hate site’, but the same cannot be said for some on your blogroll.
    It was only a few days ago that one of your fellow travellers proposed that a terrorist attack on the US would be a good thing, as it would give the US a chance to nuke a muslim country. Compared to this sort of trash, even the loopiest leftist looks pretty sane.
    Having said that, I don’t think you are even slightly amenable to reason – you’re appreciation of fact is approximately equivalent to a blind man’s appreciation of Renoir. And you remain a stubbornly poor reader – please provide a single skerrick of proof that, on my blog, I purport to ‘hate’ Howard. Yes, I criticise Howard, but I do so far less than you criticise Muslims, Aboriginals, and the ‘minions of the left’. In ancy case, my criticism of Howard is not about ‘hate’ – emotion really doesn’t come into it.

  34. Iain says:

    Let me be clear – I don’t think your blog is a ‘hate site’, but the same cannot be said for some on your blogroll.

    Phew 🙄 I thought that I had slipped over the edge into the irredeemable black hole for a minute.

    It was only a few days ago that one of your fellow travellers proposed that a terrorist attack on the US would be a good thing, as it would give the US a chance to nuke a Muslim country.

    Mate The opinions of my commenters are their own and are no necessarily endorsed by Moi, even if I include them in my blogroll. Why I even added Madd McColl to it the other day. I include blogs on the basis that that they are interesting or amusing. Inclusion in my blogroll does not necessarily imply an endorsement.

    Compared to this sort of trash, even the loopiest leftist looks pretty sane.

    well one man’s trash is another man’s treasure Hap.

    Having said that, I don’t think you are even slightly amenable to reason – you’re appreciation of fact is approximately equivalent to a blind man’s appreciation of Renoir.

    You make the mistake of believing that because you have failed to convince me to any of your positions that I am not amenable to reason. This is largely down to your rhetorical style and the fact that you don’t ever seek to persuade you seek to bully and harangue me, and any one who is vaguely conservative. Persuasion 101 requires that you first find common ground with the person who are talking with and then move from there. Try it some times instead of working from the assumption (as you do) that your interlocutor is an evil “moron”.

    And you remain a stubbornly poor reader – please provide a single skerrick of proof that, on my blog, I purport to ‘hate’ Howard.

    Are you asking me to find a smoking gun? 😆 You are not long out of school aren’t you ? In your own mind the content of your blog may not scream “hate Howard” but any casual reader will get the opposite impression.

    Yes, I criticise Howard, but I do so far less than you criticise Muslims, Aboriginals, and the ‘minions of the left’. In ancy case, my criticism of Howard is not about ‘hate’ – emotion really doesn’t come into it.

    Hap you don’t just criticise Howard you impute all kinds of motives to anything that his government does. Now if you read what I actually write you will see that I criticise Jihadists rather than Muslims in general. Likewise I criticise those within indigenous communities who neglect and abuse their children, in both cases I abhor those who are, through their behaviour, worthy of disdain rather than make the sort of gross generalisations that you suggest that I am guilty of.
    I’ve saved the best til last Hap. I use terms like “minions of the Left” with more than a touch of sarcasm. It is just a small part of my rhetorical style to give my own nomenclature to various ideas or political groups or individuals. If it gets under your skin I have just one word for you … Tough!

  35. You ‘arguments’ seem to rely on a series of personalised inferences, or glib and patronising remarks (i.e. ‘You’re not long out of school’), and, when presented with facts and sources that undermine your prejudices, you protest that you are being ‘bullied’. I’m embarrassed on your behalf.

  36. kg says:

    For somebody who’s embarrassed, bored by the content, bullied and harangued, ignored, derided, you spend an awful lot of time in here, happy.
    Why not simply go and bang your head against a brick wall somewhere? At least it would feel good when you stopped. 🙂
    The simple fact is you hang around here because it gives you an outlet for your adolescent whining in a blog where the owner is reluctant to ban you.
    Oh sure, you may think you’re scoring clever debating points but in fact you’re making a fool of yourself and your relentless trolling has only succeeded in making Iain’s blog a less pleasant place to visit.
    Which I’d guess suits you just fine.

  37. To Iain’s credit, he doesn’t insist on the same level of control and censorship that one find’s at Tim Blair or some other blogs.
    The reason I comment here is that it is obvious that Iain has inherited some rather silly ideas about cultural warfare, that are worth refuting.
    Often Iain’s posts, like the present, are fairly uncontroversial – calling for vengeance against a would-be terrorist is not contentious, though it is rather trite.
    On the other hand, if Iain is entering public discourse and attempting to rationalise his prejudices against Aboriginals, gays, Muslims, and all of the usual targets, I feel that it is quite legitimate for somebody to call him on that. You might call this ‘trolling’ and find it ‘unpleasant’ but then, you would.

  38. Mark L. says:

    Sure Iain is a stubborn bastard who is ideologically fixed and doesn’t change his mind. But that describes 99% of bloggers. From what I can tell he’s more polite and tolerant than other bloggers on the far right and left (including some of the frequent commenters here).
    .
    Anyway Iain, I’m wondering if you will post soon about Bush commutating Libby’s prison sentence; or Brendan Nelson’s admission that oil was a significant factor in the Iraq war? The Islam-is-bad stuff is getting a bit boring and I’d like to see how you respond to more challenging issues 😉

  39. Elijah says:

    Rudi.

    If you look at the history of of the use of “right” and “left”, you will see that the right generally represented the “Establishment”.

    So the “right” say in Germany for example would be a return to an Imperialist Autocracy.

    Since we here are Anglo-Americans in culture, quite clearly our “right” would be that traditional English libertarianism arising from the English Civil War and the Bill of Rights 1689. These are the foundations of classical liberalism.

    The left generally take this type and commit it to absurd levels, Communism for example, and in the case of Nazism a return to pre-liberal thought.

  40. Rudi says:

    Elijah,

    Thanks for your response.

    Interesting that you should align the right with Establishment and then say it embodies or exemplifies English libertarianism given that the important role of the Whigs, the progressives of their day, in English libertarianism. How does the American War of Independence fit into this – was the formation of America a rejection of “the right” and “the establishment”?

    My point, though, is not to argue with your definition of left and right but to note that it is a personal one. Earlier on this blog I referred to Orwell’s discussion on meaningless words in his essay called Politics and the English Language, which is set out below. A contemporary update would include the terms left and right (but I am not accusing you of dishonesty!).

    “MEANINGLESS WORDS. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning(2). Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, ‘The outstanding feature of Mr. X’s work is its living quality’, while another writes, ‘The immediately striking thing about Mr. X’s work is its peculiar deadness’, the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.”

  41. Elijah says:

    Ahh buy you see Rudi, the Establishment isn’t closed off to change. The Whigs were working within the framework of English libertarianism. They were against the institutional elite. In many respects they were continuing to conservatively refine what began with the Magna Carta.

    By today’s standards the Whigs are very conservative. In fact many conservatives in the Anglo-American sphere call themselves “Old Whigs”.

    With respect to the American War of Independence, despite what many Yanks like to believe, it was a rebellion of Britons against the old Elite. The modern left is a return to this away from the progress of the Whigs. They want a new elite, just one that isn’t decided by genealogy or how much land you own.

  42. PKD says:

    Often Iain’s posts, like the present, are fairly uncontroversial – calling for vengeance against a would-be terrorist is not contentious, though it is rather trite.

    Hap,
    Yeah, it is to Iains credit that his blog has really improved and he has developed a balanced diet of articles in recent times and that – most of the time at least – he does encourage debate and doesn’t stifle opposing views…

    You might call this ‘trolling’ and find it ‘unpleasant’ but then, you would.

    Keith on the other hand I find is a rather unpleasant far right blogger who will stifle debate at every opportunity if you challenge his views. In fact, most times he will just start name calling and call you a troll etc, presumeably to hide the fact he himself is one. I suggest you just ignore him…. 🙂

    Rgrds,
    PKD
    .

  43. Rudi says:

    Elijah,

    Thanks for your reply.

    I agree that Whigs were contemporary progressives and now modern day conservatives but all this talk of new and old elites and establishments, again, sound like meaningless words, or at least words that have personal meanings. [Repeat Orwell quote.]

    Rudi

  44. Elijah says:

    Not really, Rudi. The Tory party eventually took on many of the Whig characteristics. They were an evolutionary stage of English liberalism. In many respects we could call the Tory vs Whig sagas as simply conservatives fighting amongst themselves. Many Whigs crossed over to the Tories, like Edmund Burke, during this period.

    The difference between modern “progressives” is they are regressives. They seek to overthrow Whig innovations. That’s why you get special programs targeted at certain sectors of society. There is no sense of equality. Only that “whitey” is bad, and every ill of society arises out of this.

    This is what the left basically is. In many respects it is Continental politics invading original British Conservatism.

    Now I do agree that what is “right” was is “left” is a definitely a definitional problem because this is largely a subject where you can define anything you want. You of course get crap like “socialist libertarian anarchist”.

    But, my argument rests on the fact that there are discernible broad patterns of political behaviour in the Anglo-American world. The term Right and Left classification originated from the French Revolution where the Right was the Establishment, the Left the revolutionaries or just the opposition in general.

    Generally speaking the “right”, in the respect of the Establishment, is English libertarianism/classical liberalism. The “left” are new politics of socialism (in all its forms), anarchism, and modern liberalism.

    This is the pattern in the Anglo-American world. It’s not exact but it’s enough to describe much of the politics since 1798.

    Perhaps it’s my technical IT background but what you name these patterns is partly irrelevant as long as the concepts are consistent.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: