In 18th century England, priests played a semi-political role, perhaps equivalent to a contemporary head of a local council. In addition to religious duties, they effectively administered their parish.
The monarch was (and titularly remains) the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and senior church positions were appointed by parliament.
The tithe was more a local tax rather than a religious offering.
And what will they do with the maximum possible resolution a drone can provide, that they can't already do with publicly available data? I mean, if dropping a bomb is the intent, does it really matter if it's 3 inches off?
I visited Greenland for 6 weeks in 1998 (youth expedition with BSES) and it's surprisingly green in the summer, with thick foliage at the lower altitudes. And the midges, oh my! They sure had a taste for visitors.
Provocative is a stretch. A year ago a Danish soldier who responded to an ambiguous situation involving US bases that might be real or might be an exercise would have been court martialed and probably not able to justify their actions with this law despite it being on the books. The reminder is an emphasis that the US can be presumed to be such an invading force.
The only NATO-NATO exchange of fire where it wasn't deemed a friendly fire incident or an AMOK that I am aware of are between Greece and Turkey. But feel free to enlighten me on cases where a European country has had soldiers fire on the US and decided this wasn't an internal discipline issue.
The headline explicitly mentions an invasion, and the whole debate is within the context of potential US invasion of Greenland, so I dont see what makes this headline "provocative".
Because it’s not like they were given new orders to “shoot first and ask questions later.” It’s just a normal standing defense directive that has always been there. In normal times, no one would describe standing defense orders as “shoot first, ask questions later.”
Sure, but it never caught on. Not sure the point of your “/s” sign, since what you’re claiming is in fact true, and if it’s a joke it’s not a particularly funny one.
This is the sort of immature "well, actually" response that you can't afford anymore once you actually take responsibility for things. I wish more people trained themselves to have a "what if I had to do it" habit before having an opinion.
Imagine you're in charge of the train network. You have to pay for the announcements on trains. You can't reasonanbly pay 10 announcements because that's silly and expensive. If you add any language other than German, which are you going to add?
Pragmatic is multiple languages in locations where it's highly relevant.
For example, the UK Gatwick Express train makes announcements in English, French, German and Spanish.
The Thameslink service (which also happens to travel on the same tracks and also happens to stop at Gatwick Airport) makes announcements in English only.
I wouldn't expect local or regional trains in Europe to make announcements other than in that country's native language – except perhaps where it's a service designed for airport connections or similar international travel.
Look, as an EU country citizen, English is more or less the defacto language of the EU, regardless of what politicians declare. Everyone in the EU speaks english in some form as even traveling to a next door country like you state requires communication.
There are cases where in Belgium you will see signs in 4 languages (Dutch, French, Flemish and English)
Also if you ever travel in Japan, they have signs, especially on trains, all in, Japanese, Chinese, Korean and English all in one. (usually rotating signage). So the precedent is there to do it on mass transit but :shrug:.
Point is, when your customer base is logically needing more language options, it should be considered.
Don't you think same could be said about German and French? I still remember the time when passports from my (now EU) country used French instead of English, and when signs for tourists were in German.
An English announcement wouldn't hurt but we don't have them on our trains here either.
Mostly fair, I really appreciate the grasp that almost all Scandinavians have on English.
Don't forget French though! I wouldn't make the assumption that travelling French people would have enough grasp of English or German to understand the announcements.
My comment is mostly a poke at the two assumptions: that non-English speaking countries should universally support English-speaking travellers, and that English is the predominant (and only other) language which should be supported.
I’m baffled that any other language would be considered - the only language that comes close to English in number of speakers is Mandarin, and Mandarin has nearly half a billion fewer speakers than English.
We should be happy there is a language that has emerged for people to communicate globally without borders, and support it’s role as the worlds second language rather than work to re-fracture how people communicate
I would say that for long distance trains only English and the local language should be enough.
For international trains, we should have all languages of all traversed countries and English. So for example a train from Paris to Frankfurt should have announcements in French, German and English (and it is actually the case for that train, I already rode it).
But for example, the Berlin - Warsaw train has only English announcements besides the local language depending on the country the train is in (so no Polish when it is in Germany, and no German when it is in Poland), I consider this to be wrong. It should have announcements in Polish, German and English for the whole route.
Agree with your last point. That's a weird choice. At least the stops either side of the border are guaranteed to have people who natively speak the other language.
I seem to recall lines in Belgium that do announcements is 4 languages: french, Flemish, German, and English.
I take trains like those for work, not to France but to Amsterdam, and I don’t speak German, French or Dutch.. if we want a train system that allows Europeans to use it there needs to be announcements and signs in the language 50% of EU citizens speak
The key explanation for failing to stop at the station is that the train was on the wrong track.
> "Apparently we were not registered at Troisdorf station, so we are on the wrong tracks"
Many stations have a 4 track system: a left track and right track which are adjacent to platforms, and 2 tracks in the middle, which are designed for non-stopping trains.
If the train was on the middle track, stopping would introduce risk and disruption by slowing/stopping the other trains travelling on the high-speed non-stopping line, and also endanger passengers who would have to dismount at height from the train onto an active track, cross the active track, and climb up to the platform.
Once the train was routed onto the incorrect track, correcting it was likely to be impractical (infrequent track transfer points) and stopping on the high-speed track would would be excessively disruptive and dangerous.
It was extremely easy for that train to stop in Bonn-Beuel, which is anyway far superior to Troisdorf for a train that was originally scheduled to stop at Bonn Central Station. Failing to stop there shows perfectly how little DB cares about its passengers.
Lame excuse. There has to be a better alternative than to take them an hour in the wrong direction. Stop and shunt to the right track. Stop at one of those other 15 stations they skipped. But the best would be to simply avoid these kind of unnecessary errors in the first place.
> "If you find yourself in a similar situation and want out - call emergency services, say chest pain, out of breath"
Being stuck on a train that's arbitrarily changing stops is irritating and disruptive to passengers. Faking a medical emergency is also disruptive to passengers, and also to the emergency services, who may prioritise the hoax call over genuine emergencies, which risks other peoples' health.
> "The problem is that nobody actually wanted to get off that train."
It's pretty clear they did. No-one would prefer complaining about an hour-plus unplanned detour over simply following their plans and getting off the train.
> "Comparing it to a kidnapping is offensive and absurd."
It's clear they're using the word "kidnapping" as a hyperbolic rhetorical narrative device, and aren't literally comparing it to a kidnapping.
I'm sorry for the second reply but the "hyperbolic rhetorical narrative device" - is a literal comparison to kidnapping. That is what the text says. I struggle to see how it would be the opposite, they're not comparing it to a kidnapping?
The monarch was (and titularly remains) the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and senior church positions were appointed by parliament.
The tithe was more a local tax rather than a religious offering.
reply