Hey, I'm Thomas aka Tommiworks
and today I'm at the IAA in Frankfurt
the biggest car show in Europe
where the plums are scarce, the financial situation of some brands still visible
and where the beer is German, let's check it out
55k?
59k.
For this price you have a GTD
and a secondhand miata
Felix, what's going on?
here they train Volvo employees
dreamjobs are created here
get in, Felix!
no, I'm not allowed
that's one for your channel
*Thomas pisses himself with excitement
you're gonna get in, right?
ye, ofc, duh
*do you even need to ask?*
*it's a miata*
it's worth the wait
*Thomas gives up*
It's good lighting, huh?
it's magnificent
at the bottom there's an STI logo, just incase you didn't see yet
I think it's an STI
what do you think, Laurent?
here, too
I'm not fully convinced yet
you can't be serious
ooh, a lot of them here
on the steering wheel, in the middle, the stick
the logo is a road with 2 lanes
the "Wey"
it's "Way" but written with a "E"
and it's a road with 2 lanes
what engine is in this car?
those exhausts
pop the hood
the price isn't listed
it's not for "ale"
this isn't helping
*Vandenborre tries closing the hood*
*Vandenborre tries again*
*third time's the charm*
it's "der neue Lexus"
"der" what?
*Felix thinks hard*
*Felix starts thinking so hard he nearly has a brain aneurysm*
"Der neue Lexus"
Laurent, that wheel is turning
Incredible
that wheel is turning
*TECHNOLOGY IS AMAZING*
touch it
that was it for today, I hope you enjoyed this video
are you interested in more of these videos? make sure to check out my channel
and don't forget to like the Automotive Management page on Facebook
Ciaokes byekes, and untill the next one
For more infomation >> THIS WAS IAA FRANKFURT 2017 - Duration: 8:28.-------------------------------------------
Ambulance POV: Emergency response to an accident where a woman was hit by a taxi. - Duration: 7:44.
For more infomation >> Ambulance POV: Emergency response to an accident where a woman was hit by a taxi. - Duration: 7:44. -------------------------------------------
Was ein Mann am Strand von Irland gefunden hat, gibt selbst Experten Rätsel auf - Duration: 1:25.
For more infomation >> Was ein Mann am Strand von Irland gefunden hat, gibt selbst Experten Rätsel auf - Duration: 1:25. -------------------------------------------
WHY MAMMOGRAPHY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED BY THE SWISS MEDICAL - Duration: 14:15.
WHY MAMMOGRAPHY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED BY THE SWISS MEDICAL BOARD: YOU MIGHT WANT TO
THINK TWICE BEFORE GETTING ONE
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was
requested to prepare a review of mammography screening.
The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist,
a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist.
Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph.
D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine.
They said: �As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have
surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years.
When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however,
we became increasingly concerned.�
In 2016, it is estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer
will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive
breast cancer.
Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to
find breast cancer.
However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that
actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.
�The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated
with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of
a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis
of breast cancers � cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.�
The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25
years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.
The doctors explained: �This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening
group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted
in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these
therapies.�
The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems
worrisome for the medical community and patients at large.
How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?
Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence
that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality.
This caused concern over the benefits of the medical practice.
A survey of U.S. women�s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of
women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent
believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened.
Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated.
In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of
20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened.
The Swiss Medical Board report became public in February 2014, provoking the board to advise
that the quality of mammography screening ought to be evaluated and that women should
be educated about both the benefits and the harms of the medical practice.
The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports
a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in
asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.
When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women
over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:
490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy 3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed
breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance
Furthermore, up to 50 percent of women have breast tissue that is dense.
This makes it very hard to read mammograms correctly, as dense breast tissue and cancer
both show up white on an X-ray.
Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks
involved with them, the board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs
altogether.
Although their recommendations are not legally binding, the report caused an uproar amongst
Swiss cancer experts and organizations.
The doctors on board reported:
�One of the main arguments used against it was that it contradicted the global consensus
of leading experts in the field� Another argument was that the report unsettled women,
but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.�
It�s clearly no mystery why the board become increasingly concerned about their researcher.
The �evidence� simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences
in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.
When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do
not clearly outweigh the harms, and women�s perceptions of mammography benefits do not
match reality,
More Information On Breast Screenings
I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that
tumor between two plates, because that would spread it.
� Dr. Sarah Mybill, General Practitioner (taken from the documentary trailer below)
I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years,
she�s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that � Dr. Patrick Kingsley,
Clinical Ecologist (take from the documentary trailer below)
In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer,
and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer.
It has become the most common type of cancer among women.
Below is a trailer to a documentary entitled, �The Promise.� The film interviews various
researchers, scientists, doctors (and more), all of whom are hoping to shed light on a
practice which is turning out to be not only useless, but harmful to those taking part.
There is more information below the video, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary.
There is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims,
the most effective way to detect breast cancer.
In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast
cancer.
A study published in The European Journal of Public Healthtitled �Trends in breast
cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme
in Norway� found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized
stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers.
The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with
breast cancer from 1987 � 2010, found that:
�The annual incidence of localized breast cancer among women aged 50�69 years rose
from 63.9 per 100 000 before the introduction of screening to 141.2 afterwards, corresponding
to a ratio of 2.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.10; 2.32).The incidence of more advanced
cancers increased from 86.9 to 117.3 per 100 000 afterwards, corresponding to a 1.35 (1.29;
1.42)-fold increase.
Advanced cancers also increased among younger women not eligible for screening, whereas
their incidence of localized cancers remained nearly constant.�
This study outlines how Norway�s breast screening program has actually increased the
chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing
to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%.
This is the opposite of what mammograms are supposed to do; if they were useful then the
incidence of cancers would be lower and not higher.
The study concluded that:
Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50�69 years
old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was
not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group.
It�s important to note that, �although the study did measure the impact of Norway�s
breast screening programme, a comparison of trends between participants and non-participants
in the age group eligible for screening warrants further investigation.
Also the causal link between stage distribution and mortality needs to be investigated in
the context of screening.�
A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal set out to prove that breast screening
by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other
countries who were not offering this service.
They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality
among women who were not screened.
They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality had nothing to
do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision.
The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast
cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (national
breast screening programme) should be questioned.
Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will
be business as usual for the screening programme.
Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no
longer a question of scientific debate � the subject has become too politicized by those
who like to avoid U-turns at all costs.
� Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities
at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes
in breast cancer treatment
This would be an asymptomatic woman walking along the high street, having a mammogram,
and then two weeks later she�s told she has to have a mastectomy.
This is so cruel that it should make you weep.
(quote taken from the documentary trailer above)
As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned
expert panel concluded that �early stage cancers� are not cancer, they are benign
or indolent growths.
This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past
few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better
off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis
to occur.
Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that
regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates.
And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal
breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group.
The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality
up to 25 years in women aged 40-59.
The study was conducted over a period of 25 years.
Many Studies Showing The Same Thing
The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations
and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming.
What�s even more disturbing is the fact that these types of examinations have also
been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, and to have negative implications
for both physical and mental health.
U-turns do not embarrass clinical scientists, unlike politicians: if the evidence changes
then our minds must change.
As the national programme began to run its course, two disturbing observations made me
begin to question my original support.
First, about 10 years after the initiation of the service, updated analyses of the original
data set by independent groups in Europe and the US found that the initial estimate of
benefit in the reduction of breast cancer mortality was grossly exaggerated.
� Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities
at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes
in breast cancer treatment
-------------------------------------------
Jesmyn Ward Was Afraid of Writing from a Ghost's Perspective - Duration: 3:21.
For more infomation >> Jesmyn Ward Was Afraid of Writing from a Ghost's Perspective - Duration: 3:21. -------------------------------------------
Where Delos was BORN!!! We invade the AMEL YACHT shipyard!! Sailing Vessel Delos- Ep. 140 - Duration: 33:23.
For more infomation >> Where Delos was BORN!!! We invade the AMEL YACHT shipyard!! Sailing Vessel Delos- Ep. 140 - Duration: 33:23. -------------------------------------------
WHY MAMMOGRAPHY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED BY THE SWISS MEDICAL BOAR - Duration: 14:03.
WHY MAMMOGRAPHY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED BY THE SWISS MEDICAL BOARD: YOU MIGHT WANT TO
THINK TWICE BEFORE GETTING ONE
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was
requested to prepare a review of mammography screening.
The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist,
a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist.
Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph.
D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine.
They said: �As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have
surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years.
When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however,
we became increasingly concerned.�
In 2016, it is estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer
will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive
breast cancer.
Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to
find breast cancer.
However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that
actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.
�The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated
with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of
a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis
of breast cancers � cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.�
The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25
years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.
The doctors explained: �This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening
group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted
in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these
therapies.�
The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems
worrisome for the medical community and patients at large.
How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?
Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence
that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality.
This caused concern over the benefits of the medical practice.
A survey of U.S. women�s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of
women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent
believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened.
Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated.
In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of
20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened.
The Swiss Medical Board report became public in February 2014, provoking the board to advise
that the quality of mammography screening ought to be evaluated and that women should
be educated about both the benefits and the harms of the medical practice.
The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports
a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in
asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.
When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women
over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:
490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy 3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed
breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance
Furthermore, up to 50 percent of women have breast tissue that is dense.
This makes it very hard to read mammograms correctly, as dense breast tissue and cancer
both show up white on an X-ray.
Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks
involved with them, the board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs
altogether.
Although their recommendations are not legally binding, the report caused an uproar amongst
Swiss cancer experts and organizations.
The doctors on board reported:
�One of the main arguments used against it was that it contradicted the global consensus
of leading experts in the field� Another argument was that the report unsettled women,
but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.�
It�s clearly no mystery why the board become increasingly concerned about their researcher.
The �evidence� simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences
in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.
When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do
not clearly outweigh the harms, and women�s perceptions of mammography benefits do not
match reality,
More Information On Breast Screenings
I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that
tumor between two plates, because that would spread it.
� Dr. Sarah Mybill, General Practitioner (taken from the documentary trailer below)
I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years,
she�s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that � Dr. Patrick Kingsley,
Clinical Ecologist (take from the documentary trailer below)
In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer,
and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer.
It has become the most common type of cancer among women.
Below is a trailer to a documentary entitled, �The Promise.� The film interviews various
researchers, scientists, doctors (and more), all of whom are hoping to shed light on a
practice which is turning out to be not only useless, but harmful to those taking part.
There is more information below the video, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary.
There is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims,
the most effective way to detect breast cancer.
In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast
cancer.
A study published in The European Journal of Public Healthtitled �Trends in breast
cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme
in Norway� found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized
stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers.
The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with
breast cancer from 1987 � 2010, found that:
�The annual incidence of localized breast cancer among women aged 50�69 years rose
from 63.9 per 100 000 before the introduction of screening to 141.2 afterwards, corresponding
to a ratio of 2.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.10; 2.32).The incidence of more advanced
cancers increased from 86.9 to 117.3 per 100 000 afterwards, corresponding to a 1.35 (1.29;
1.42)-fold increase.
Advanced cancers also increased among younger women not eligible for screening, whereas
their incidence of localized cancers remained nearly constant.�
This study outlines how Norway�s breast screening program has actually increased the
chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing
to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%.
This is the opposite of what mammograms are supposed to do; if they were useful then the
incidence of cancers would be lower and not higher.
The study concluded that:
Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50�69 years
old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was
not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group.
It�s important to note that, �although the study did measure the impact of Norway�s
breast screening programme, a comparison of trends between participants and non-participants
in the age group eligible for screening warrants further investigation.
Also the causal link between stage distribution and mortality needs to be investigated in
the context of screening.�
A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal set out to prove that breast screening
by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other
countries who were not offering this service.
They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality
among women who were not screened.
They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality had nothing to
do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision.
The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast
cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (national
breast screening programme) should be questioned.
Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will
be business as usual for the screening programme.
Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no
longer a question of scientific debate � the subject has become too politicized by those
who like to avoid U-turns at all costs.
� Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities
at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes
in breast cancer treatment
This would be an asymptomatic woman walking along the high street, having a mammogram,
and then two weeks later she�s told she has to have a mastectomy.
This is so cruel that it should make you weep.
(quote taken from the documentary trailer above)
As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned
expert panel concluded that �early stage cancers� are not cancer, they are benign
or indolent growths.
This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past
few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better
off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis
to occur.
Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that
regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates.
And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal
breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group.
The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality
up to 25 years in women aged 40-59.
The study was conducted over a period of 25 years.
Many Studies Showing The Same Thing
The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations
and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming.
What�s even more disturbing is the fact that these types of examinations have also
been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, and to have negative implications
for both physical and mental health.
U-turns do not embarrass clinical scientists, unlike politicians: if the evidence changes
then our minds must change.
As the national programme began to run its course, two disturbing observations made me
begin to question my original support.
First, about 10 years after the initiation of the service, updated analyses of the original
data set by independent groups in Europe and the US found that the initial estimate of
benefit in the reduction of breast cancer mortality was grossly exaggerated.
� Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities
at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes
in breast cancer treatment
-------------------------------------------
Woman's Family Claims She Was Banned From Her 8-Year-Old Son's School - Duration: 0:59.
For more infomation >> Woman's Family Claims She Was Banned From Her 8-Year-Old Son's School - Duration: 0:59. -------------------------------------------
What If British PM Theresa May Was Assassinated? - Duration: 4:35.
The United Kingdom is a divided place right now.
We have a leader that the public didn't vote for heading up a party that didn't
win a majority in the last election.
Theresa May inherited the top job in the UK at a tense time, as the UK is pulling out
of the European Union which was something decided by a very small margin in the electorate.
The pound is at an 8 year low and a lot of people aren't a very big fan of the head
of the Conservative party.
Hello and welcome back to Life's Biggest Questions, I am Rebecca Felgate and today
we are asking a rather horrible question – what if the UK Prime Minister Theresa May was Assassinated.
Just last year, Politician Jo Cox was murdered in broad daylight by a man who didn't agree
with her political views.
It does happen….however security surrounding the Prime Minister is always much higher than
your average politician.
Only one Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has ever been assassinated, although there
have been several attempted assassinations, including the famous plots to kill John Major
and Margret Thatcher.
If Theresa May were to be killed, she would go down in history alongside Spencer Perceval
as the only two British PMS to be killed.
So, the immediate reaction of an assassination of a British Prime Minister would depends
on how they were killed and who killed them.
If May was killed in a terror attack, it would be sensationalized in world media and could
have extreme consequences for any terror cell involved, such as drone strikes on known strong
holds.
If it were an individual who killed her, it would still make world news, but it would
be painted as an attack on her politics, rather than Western Democracy.
Whoever was involved in her death, of course, would be arrested and imprisoned for life.
If the killer escaped the scene, a nation wide man hunt using all available resources
would begin.
It is likely that is May was killed as Prime Minister, an emergency Cobra meeting would
be called.
Cobra is a top level security briefing meeting in which attendees decide how to respond to
national emergencies, and the assassination of the Prime Minister would definitely be
considered just that.
In this meeting it would be discussed how exactly an assassination was possible and
whether or not there was a lapse in security.
It would also be discussed whether or not the Queen and royal family were in any jeopardy
and for the time being, the threat level in the UK would be raised to highest possible
level, critical, which would mean maximum security measures would be in place for the
time being.
Around this time, if Parliament were on recess, they would probably be recalled if it was
safe.
Assassinations usually take place in public spaces, so it is likely social media would
break the news, but soon news publications would be generating stories and world leaders
would be eulogizing May across the world and offering their countries support.
The main concern would be a public uprising – when political leaders are murdered it
can spark riots, or be as a result of a riot.
Hopefully, whatever side of the political spectrum people fall on, they would be respectful
to the sad loss of a life of a woman who, whatever her views, was dedicating her life
to working for great Britain.
It is unknown what kind of funeral May would be given, the last state funeral for a politician
was Sir Winston Churchill's funeral in 1965.
It is possible she could receive a ceremonial funeral, like Baroness Thatcher, the first
female Prime Minister of the UK
In the immediate aftermath, it is likely that the British Pound would drop in value, as
it often does in times of instability.
As there is no order of succession in British Politics, the Conservative party would need
to elect an interim leader, which could be Deputy Prime Minister Damian Green.
This interim leader would temporarily act as head of government and meet with the Queen
weekly as the Prime Minister always does.
After a vote within the party, a new leader would eventually be appointed and the Interim
Leader would tender their resignation to the Queen, who would then invite the new leader
to meet and form a government…and from then on, until the next election, the UK would
have a new leader.
In the longer term, May would go down in history in a way that sadly Jo Cox was unable to…
but lets hope, whatever our differences may be, that that never happens…Long live democracy.
So, that is one questioned answered for you –do you guys have anything to add to this
topic?
Let me know in the comments section below
I am Rebecca Felgate, thank you for watching…ill see you in the next video, but for now, stay
curious, stay alert and never ever stop questioning!
Hurrah …you made it to the end of the video…here are two more we think you would like if you
want to continue your questioning binge!
-------------------------------------------
Filmmaker Opens Up About Illness That Doctors Told Her Was 'All In Her Head' | Megyn Kelly TODAY - Duration: 6:45.
For more infomation >> Filmmaker Opens Up About Illness That Doctors Told Her Was 'All In Her Head' | Megyn Kelly TODAY - Duration: 6:45. -------------------------------------------
Why Kelly Bensimon's Reputation Was Ruined | Million Dollar Matchmaker | WE tv - Duration: 1:45.
♪♪
Patti: Hi!
My God. You're so gorgeous. Look at you!
Going into this meeting, I'm afraid that Patti's
gonna tell me some things I'm not gonna be able to handle.
Kelly is, like, brilliant. She went to Columbia.
She went to Northeastern in Boston. For my MBA.
Okay, but more importantly,
you were a supermodel back in the day.
Tell him the story --
Wait, wait, of all the degrees,
the most important thing is, you were a supermodel.
She met her husband that way. So, tell the story. I did.
Well, I started modeling when I was 16,
and I worked for all the different magazines in New York.
I met my ex-husband, literally, in his office.
He's a super-talented photographer.
Okay. So, what age did you get married at?
I got married when I was 26.
How old was he when you met him?
I kind of, like, blank it out. He was in his 50s.
Yes, we were married for 10 years.
Okay, and then you did "Housewives."
So, then I go on "Housewives," and then it went downhill.
The real story is,
one of the women felt like I was taking her thunder.
I just let her walk all over me.
That was Bethenny. Right.
And Bethenny would cut you off
and put a one-liner at the end
to make you look like you were cuckoo, right? Right exactly.
I went on camera, and she attacked me.
And then her whole strategy was to, like, not film with me.
And then when she wanted to film with me,
she was either super-aggressive or passive-aggressive.
She would make it like Kelly was on the spectrum.
-Like it was on of those. -Right.
And then after "Housewives," you know,
people got really weird.
They were like, "Are you really crazy?
What's going on with you? Oh, started believing this.
The damage was done. I was like, whoaa!
So, your reputation on "Housewives"
was completely ruined.
Completely ruined.
-------------------------------------------
STRYK B im Test: Was ist das Besondere an der neuen Polymerpistole von Arsenal Firearms? - Duration: 2:02.
For more infomation >> STRYK B im Test: Was ist das Besondere an der neuen Polymerpistole von Arsenal Firearms? - Duration: 2:02. -------------------------------------------
Peers: Stabbing suspect was picked on, different from others - Duration: 0:51.
For more infomation >> Peers: Stabbing suspect was picked on, different from others - Duration: 0:51. -------------------------------------------
EXCLUSIVE: Riviera Beach Police Chief won't say why he was at meeting discussing former city manager - Duration: 1:46.
For more infomation >> EXCLUSIVE: Riviera Beach Police Chief won't say why he was at meeting discussing former city manager - Duration: 1:46. -------------------------------------------
Which Doom Was Better - Duration: 0:59.
Which Doom Was Better?
So it's been a few weeks since it's been released and a lot of people that purchased
it also had the original but as endless as time itself, which is better the old or the
new?
Doom is arguable the grand-daddy of first person shooters (don't get your lederhosen
in a bunch I know that Wolfenstein 3D came a year before, by the way that link is a free
playable version…your welcome, but really not a lot of people played that).
There was a point in fact that Doom was installed on more computers than Windows.
The reason was that the first Doom game was basically distributed as freeware (or shareware
more appropriately), it was on a server, people could download it and distributed to friends.
So that's one pro…it was free initially.
Let's see: What do you think?
Which Doom game did you prefer, the 1990s version or the 2016?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét