churchward

All virgin whisky straight from the distillation vessels is clear just like any grain spirit and clear as vodka. It then either takes on colour from the oak itself and in some cases by what has been in the barrel before the whisky such as American Bourbon or Sherry. New white oak barrels will still add colour but will be more pale. The charring of the barrel is for colour and to caramelise wood sugars that help caramel and honey flavours develop making a smooth taste. The charring is also said to have a filtering effect in the maturation process. Most of any smokey flavour comes from the way the grain is malted/dried. A malting floor that has gaps in it takes up smoke from the drying fires below sealed floors do not. Flavours can be managed by the type of wood chips burnt. The amount of time the grain spends on the floor makes a difference too. I was told by a Distiller in Scotland that American Bourbon barrels had to be charred by law because in earlier times it was common practice to use any old barrel no matter what it was used for previously. So it could have had fish, meat or something else in it. The charring was a way to remove the smell and contamination of the previous contents but they soon discovered that the charring added flavour.

Either way legal reasons or not the reason they were destroyed was a non-political event. The process started in one government period and ended in the next, one labour the other conservative but no wholly relevant as the decision was taken by the UKBA (UK Border Agency) which at the time was an independent organisation linked to the home office but autonomous. There are no devils conservative or otherwise lurking in the shadows on this one just an administrative process carried out below the political level. I wish they had not been destroyed but that does not alter the fact they have to that they would be of little practical assistance in this case. The focus should be on what matters which is the legal naturalisation of the British citizens caught up in the problem.

Indeed you can access some travel lists and boarding details of ships in the past I have done it for my wife's family when one ancestral branch went to America to help build bridges in Philadelphia and then returned some years later. I could use ships registrations and boarding details to find out which ship they travelled on and when. All quite interesting. It is not nonsense (utter or otherwise) that modern records are subject to different rules for living people or people who could be living. Many records have been destroyed of a peripheral nature over the years intentionally and accidentally. Military records are far from complete especially around WW1 as any service records were destroyed in a fire for example. The way the law is setup Birth, marriages and deaths are subject to different rules and must be kept as does census data along with tax history. It is stretching things rather far to suggest that these may be done away with. It is likely that Carlt is quite right in that the decision to destroy and disposal of the records such as they were was purely a civil service activity following rules governing the data and other operational needs. The political storm that people have enjoyed generating over it is rather hollow and getting all wound up about it is rather missing the point of the sorry affair. It is also likely that the records even if they existed would not be that helpful as they were often rather sketchy in detail and may not help identify an individual legally . I am not saying the disposal is not regretful just that it is understandable. The disposal though bridges two parliaments and a change of government so it can't all be about the nasty conservatives destroying the records for their own ends. The decision was taken (probably by the civil service) during the labour government in 2009 but not completed until 2010.

Indeed I have no doubt you are correct but since the advent of ever more strict data privacy acts there may have been little discretion these days. The government have it seems put in some very blunt instruments to chase illegal immigrants and also seemingly prepared to have some "collateral" damage to achieve their ends. I am not so convinced we should be totally surprised given many conservative politics and leanings and also people have voted for policies in manifestos promising tighter immigration controls. So, in a way we are reaping what has been sown.

I am not sure the civil servants will have had a choice in the matter. Personal records about an individual can only be kept for so long and then need to be destroyed. It is only legal registrations (Birth, marriage, death etc.) and other direct interactions with the state that are kept such as licence details, tax records etc. personal data not relating to these functions and interactions have to be destroyed after the legal period ( I can't remember how long just now) so it may be that they were destroyed in this instance due to reaching that point. As far as I can tell some of the records may not help anyway as some would only amount to a name and date and port of entry in a register of some kind hand written and who knows if names were spelt correctly. Thankfully if the authorities are smart about it they are not needed to resolve the issue either.

It has been a very poor situation to get into but thankfully they do seem to be putting it right now and not before time. I care more that it is resolved for the people involved and under threat than any sacking or resigning but it is a shameful affair. If one is being kind it could be that the law of unintended consequences has come into play with attempts to tighten immigration rules but they should have recognised the issue sooner. It must have seemed like quite a kick in the guts to be told you are not in fact a British citizen and would have to go "home" when they have spent all or almost all their life in the UK and contributed hugely to the economy and the diverse culture of this country.

Little bit. I went sailing at Bala lake for the first time this year and it was a lovely day in the sunshine.

A smashing looking chap. Well done for giving a dog a new home and 2nd chance. I hope you have many years of good times and adventures ahead.

I agree it would have been better to have had a debate in this instance (or other action that meddles in foreign affairs) but I suspect the timetable was dictated by the US. Although there has been parliamentary debate and votes about taking military action in recent years it is not illegal (although some will say it is) for the government to use executive powers to do so without reference to or approval from Parliament. The executive via the cabinet and senior ministers make policy and take executive decisions that do not require changes of Act or law. It would be difficult for example to have a debate and vote in parliament if the UK was directly attacked or being attacked. We can hardly ask the aggressor to hold on a minute why we have a chat about what to do. Engagement in WW1 or WW2 was not declared via a parliamentary vote. In fact pretty much no military action before 2003 (Iraq) had a parliamentary debate before a decision to take action was made including first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan or Falklands war to give recent examples.

Yes and no. No, as the situation we know find ourselves in and the following consequences will not be academic. but also yes in that it is a disappointment to me that Ms May and the wider world does not listen to me!

One way is to find more creative ways to sanction those involved. Restricting their access to money is usually a good way to make them feel the pinch and turn the tide of opinion against them. In the end though it is always true that in order to make peace you need to sit down and talk to your enemy no matter what has gone before. It is awful to think there is little that can be done to help but jumping in with military attacks (largely symbolic at that) from the west is likely to be a knee jerk. Killing people to make us feel better and show they can't get away with killing people is an odd logic even though I do understand and identify with the wish to take action. Far better to take a more considered approach and pick the moment for justice at a time that will be most effective. It is an uncomfortable position and I hope a better strategy emerges but I cannot see the answer in bombs.

You make a good and valid point. The world will be a much better place when we have learnt to do without all of the weapons of war. There is a terrible inevitability of many more civilian deaths in Syria no matter what Western powers do just now. In an attempt to restrict war to combatants, indiscriminate and other weapons have been banned or limited over time, Napalm by the way has been banned since sometime in the 1980's on civilian targets largely as a result of what the US did in the Vietnam war but still OK(?) on military targets.

That is not what I said. I just cannot see how military intervention will stop them or make anyone (including us) safer. It certainly did not last time. It is worth trying to help talks come about and humanitarian aid be provided but even then cease fires have hardly been a definition of the term recently and their duration counted in hours and minutes rather than days. As hard to stomach as it may be it does seem any action taken will not have the desired result and letting the fire burn itself out could well be the shortest route to coming to its terrible conclusion. The opportunity to intervene has long gone in any military sense and if done could easily extend the suffering rather than curtail it and also hold the very real risk of spilling over outside of Syria.

I think we would all like to feel there was some action that could be taken (or at least non-violent) but I agree in this case doing nothing and certainly not military action is probably the best option. Taking military action just seems like pouring petrol on a fire already out of control and can bring no benefit to Syrian people or anyone else.