Eh up, Apparently Team May are plotting against Grayling "You have to chuckle at the emergence of Chris Grayling as a wannabe contender. If Tory associations are looking for a speaker for the rubber chicken circuit, I would advise calling the Justice Secretary, who’d be there like a greyhound. He’s going to face an uphill struggle to the top though, as one May supporter said over the weekend: ‘We’ve never had problems with a bald, right-wing headbanger leading the party before, have we?’"
Could we at least try and remember that someone being arrested does not make them guilty of anything?
Innocent until proven guilty is a damn good principle and it would be nice if it were remembered now and again. There are too many cases of people being assumed to be bad'uns before anyone knows any facts, let alone before anyone has been convicted (Lord MacAlpine, the Bristol landlord etc).
Separately, given that 1% of taxpayers provide 30% of all income tax revenue and that 1% consists of ca. 300,000 people it is little wonder that the Government wants to protect the industry where most of those taxpayers work.
If we don't like such a key-man risk, it might be better to widen the pool of taxpayers and industries earning enough to pay tax rather than - as all parties seem to want to do - assume that these 300,000 can be milked for more and more ad infinitum.
No, offices are arranged broadly by party, so you get a bunch of Lab MPs, then a bunch of Tories, etc. - presumably because it means people don't need to keep lowering their voices as they plot :-)
I would have thought an MP would need to keep his voice low in both situations! What's the old Commons phrase about your opponents sitting in front of you but your enemies sitting behind?
What's sparked the sudden mass falling out in the Tory Party and plotting to succeed Cameron? Has there been some Tory internal polling done showing the Tories way behind in the marginals which Dan Hodges hasn't told us about?
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
So the competing theories are a. incompetence of one individual b. incompetence of the government, coupled with one individual (the document-carrier) acquiescing in being the patsy in a career-destroying plot.
He's been sacked then? Odd, you would think that would be trumpeted instead of a confirmation and then further spinning of the story just in case anyone had missed the point.
"Government officials said that no decisions were taken at the meeting of the NSC. But they confirmed that the call in the document for London's financial centre to kept open to Russians reflected the government's thinking that it wanted to target action against Moscow and not damage British interests."
If we want to leak our intention why not do it via anonymous briefings outside the conference chamber at the EU meeting on Thursday?
Because those could be easily denied and are anonymous so won't carry much weight. This is crystal clear and sends a very loud message out to a City fearful of economic blowback.
It is of no consequence to me whether you want to believe it's just yet more government incompetence at the heart of Cammie's strategic response to Putin. You are quite welcome to take that view.
Not sacked afaik yet but it isn't going to play terribly well at his annual appraisal, I think you will agree.
I just don't see the point of making ourselves look a complete bunch of [moderated] and royally pissing off the U.S. just to get our position on this out in the open.
Ishmael, the conspiracy theory is just lunacy.
No, you predicting that Lansley would be PM is conspiracy theory lunacy. This is just spin.
""Government officials said that no decisions were taken at the meeting of the NSC. But they confirmed that the call in the document for London's financial centre to kept open to Russians reflected the government's thinking that it wanted to target action against Moscow and not damage British interests."
I know, your spin is inept and hilarious twaddle Limp Log, but that spin not anything other than a very revealing attempt to push a story that number 10 quite clearly wants out there.
It's self-evidently a good night to be an inept tory spinner like yourself Limp Log, but don't compound it with your petulant anger.
I assume Steve Back the photographer was in on the plot. Difficult to hold the pose in the photo indefinitely hoping someone with a camera would catch on.
Rock was the guy who lost out to Hancock in the '84 Portsmouth South by-election.
Also managed to lose the notionally-Tory Crewe & Nantwich to Dunwoody in '83...
I don't think either of those facts are relevant. What is relevant is that Rock was nicked on 13 Feb - before the ancient Harman stuff was reheated by the same paper.
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
What's sparked the sudden mass falling out in the Tory Party and plotting to succeed Cameron? Has there been some Tory internal polling done showing the Tories way behind in the marginals which Dan Hodges hasn't told us about?
If there's internal Tory polling you betcha Dan will have seen it. He is that well connected he sees it before the Tories do.
I assume Steve Back the photographer was in on the plot. Difficult to hold the pose in the photo indefinitely hoping someone with a camera would catch on.
Yet he managed it all the other times he got a photo. Or have you somehow forgotten this is far from the first time a photo has been snapped and the cutting edge technology of an opaque covering or folder has been around since then to prevent it?
Like I said, if your happy enough thinking this was just staggering incompetence at the heart of Cammie's Putin strategy then you're very welcome to that view.
What's sparked the sudden mass falling out in the Tory Party and plotting to succeed Cameron? Has there been some Tory internal polling done showing the Tories way behind in the marginals which Dan Hodges hasn't told us about?
If there's internal Tory polling you betcha Dan will have seen it. He is that well connected he sees it before the Tories do.
No, offices are arranged broadly by party, so you get a bunch of Lab MPs, then a bunch of Tories, etc. - presumably because it means people don't need to keep lowering their voices as they plot :-)
I would have thought an MP would need to keep his voice low in both situations! What's the old Commons phrase about your opponents sitting in front of you but your enemies sitting behind?
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
Could we at least try and remember that someone being arrested does not make them guilty of anything?
Innocent until proven guilty is a damn good principle and it would be nice if it were remembered now and again. There are too many cases of people being assumed to be bad'uns before anyone knows any facts, let alone before anyone has been convicted (Lord MacAlpine, the Bristol landlord etc).
Good point.
A minor side-effect of this stuff is that voters who only vaguely follow the news will start to think that everyone in politics is a suspected paedophile, whereas previously they merely thought we were all crooks. Sigh.
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
A good point. Where does the fault lie in this all too familiar sequence of events?
Blog commenter spends benefit money at pub getting shitfaced and annoying the hell out of the other patrons. Gets chucked out for same. Rummages through a skip behind a fake tanning salon Scores several half-empty aerosol cans; contents unknown. Shambles back to reeking council bedsit and logs on. Burbles incoherently whilst huffing furiously. Goes onto web, finds the usual blog. Gets flamed to crisp. Lapses into coma. Wakes up, thinks of new username Gets quickly spotted and outed <- Hint: the fault is not here GOTO 10
In the years I've been on the site this has been Standard Operating Procedure for quite a few; although the more functional addicts are harder to spot - the self-discipline enforcing sneaky bastards.
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
Is that the sound of violins I can hear?
Very tiny ones and a duet now.
LOL
Have you updated that list of Indy polls you cited to include the up turn in the no vote in the one released today?
Maybe post a hockey stick shaped graph to accompany it.
On a number of fronts, not a good day to be a Tory. Position on Ukraine spot on, less so leaking it Malcolm Tucker style outside Number 10. Plot and counter plot on who gets to knife Cameron's defeated corpse first. Yellow Pox appoint Beaker to lead their coalition negotiations team.
And a Mail story which will of course be followed by days and days of fevered guilt by association accusations of who said what and when 40 years, errr days ago on a subject I was banned from mentioning so I won't.
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
A good point. Where does the fault lie in this all too familiar sequence of events?
Blog commenter spends benefit money at pub getting shitfaced and annoying the hell out of the other patrons. Gets chucked out for same. Rummages through a skip behind a fake tanning salon Scores several half-empty aerosol cans; contents unknown. Shambles back to reeking council bedsit and logs on. Burbles incoherently whilst huffing furiously. Goes onto web, finds the usual blog. Gets flamed to crisp. Lapses into coma. Wakes up, thinks of new username Gets quickly spotted and outed GOTO 10
In the years I've been on the site this has been Standard Operating Procedure for quite a few; although the more functional addicts are harder to spot - the self-discipline enforcing sneaky bastards.
I wonder if anyone is so argumentative they have a lefty login and a righty one so they're never short of action?!
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
A good point. Where does the fault lie in this all too familiar sequence of events?
Blog commenter spends benefit money at pub getting shitfaced and annoying the hell out of the other patrons. Gets chucked out for same. Rummages through a skip behind a fake tanning salon Scores several half-empty aerosol cans; contents unknown. Shambles back to reeking council bedsit and logs on. Burbles incoherently whilst huffing furiously. Goes onto web, finds the usual blog. Gets flamed to crisp. Lapses into coma. Wakes up, thinks of new username Gets quickly spotted and outed <- Hint: the fault is not here</i> GOTO 10
You must be exhausted doing that every day. It certainly doesn't show in your posting mind.
I assul.p.me Steve Back the photographer was in on the plot. Difficult to hold the pose in the photo indefinitely hoping someone with a camera would catch on.
Yet he managed it all the other times he got a photo. Or have you somehow forgotten this is far from the first time a photo has been snapped and the cutting edge technology of an opaque covering or folder has been around since then to prevent it?
Like I said, if your happy enough thinking this was just staggering incompetence at the heart of Cammie's Putin strategy then you're very welcome to that view.
Knock down argument. Please also tell us how unwanted pregnancies dropped to a grand total of nil, in any circumstances, ever, following the introduction of the cutting edge technology of the condom.
And if it is just the incompetence of the one individual, it is not at the heart of Cammie's anything.
When you were both told on two different days last week that your conversation was closed, that's exactly what it meant.
Since neither of you appear to adhere to the rules, and the moderating team are going to bed, your ability to instantly publish has been revoked until tomorrow.
Perhaps you will both reflect on what happens when you don't adhere to the rules.
Could we at least try and remember that someone being arrested does not make them guilty of anything?
Innocent until proven guilty is a damn good principle and it would be nice if it were remembered now and again. There are too many cases of people being assumed to be bad'uns before anyone knows any facts, let alone before anyone has been convicted (Lord MacAlpine, the Bristol landlord etc).
Good point.
A minor side-effect of this stuff is that voters who only vaguely follow the news will start to think that everyone in politics is a suspected paedophile, whereas previously they merely thought we were all crooks. Sigh.
Indeed. You will probably be put in the same category as Catholic priests and ancient TV stars!
There have been too many hysterical campaigns in the past about awful crimes and too many miscarriages of justice so we should be wary about believing what we want to believe rather than the actual facts. Boring I know but best in the long run for all concerned. We don't help the victims of real crimes if we tilt at shadows.
Could we at least try and remember that someone being arrested does not make them guilty of anything?
Innocent until proven guilty is a damn good principle and it would be nice if it were remembered now and again. There are too many cases of people being assumed to be bad'uns before anyone knows any facts, let alone before anyone has been convicted (Lord MacAlpine, the Bristol landlord etc).
Good point.
A minor side-effect of this stuff is that voters who only vaguely follow the news will start to think that everyone in politics is a suspected paedophile, whereas previously they merely thought we were all crooks. Sigh.
Indeed. You will probably be put in the same category as Catholic priests and ancient TV stars!
There have been too many hysterical campaigns in the past about awful crimes and too many miscarriages of justice so we should be wary about believing what we want to believe rather than the actual facts. Boring I know but best in the long run for all concerned. We don't help the victims of real crimes if we tilt at shadows.
I may be in a minority of one but I think paedophile stories just bring out the worst in people - the crime is so abhorrent people lose their sense of due process in a way they wouldn't for other dreadful crimes.
I know the media are always looking for something to moan about, but they don't often manage a juxtaposition of headlines on adjacent stories as good as this:
One of Cameron's biggest problems is he has no nerve, in anything. When he does move decisively he seems fine, but he lacks internal party support, which undercuts whatever he plans to do nationally or internationally, and that means he dithers about inconsitently. Knowing that many in his own ranks will hate him for daring to involve the UK in something, anything, he has no confidence which would at least make doing nothing seem a principled approach made after firm consideration, instead trying to talk the talk while not walking the walk, and you cannot do both without real confidence (Putin and the Russians are the best at that - act as you want, and unlike the West, never give the impression you doubt your own actions, whatever they were)
Cameron is like electricity - he merely goes for the path of least resistance. As for the Ukraine, it really is morally duplicitous of the West to blame everything at Russia's door. The West has forfeited any right to the moral high ground after the numerous foreign policy misadventures of the past 15 years or so. And remember we, by virtue of the common EU foreign policy, opened the gambit in Ukraine by trying to get them to sign an association agreement with the EU back in November. And then we supported dubious groups such as Svoboda in the uprising, and we implicitly supporting the banning of Russian as a language in the Ukraine, as one of the new government's first acts - not a mention of this in the mainstream media. Well done to Edwina Currie for mentioning this on radio 5 last week. So for once, show a bit of empathy and put yourself in the shoes of an ethnic Russian in the Crimea - its amazing they didn't rise up before now given the provocations from the West. And as for a Russian invasion - they already had 26,000 of their troops stationed in the Crimea before this crisis, not to mention the Navy in Sevastopol - inconvenient facts that the West would rather ignore. Bringing over another 6,000 troops - didn't we reinforce troop numbers in Northern Ireland during the troubles?! So its hardly an invasion! And into the bargain, the West has never understood the Russian mindset. They regard the breakup of the USSR as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century - not the 50 million people they lost in the Great Patriotic War (WW2) or the twin revolutions in 1917 or WW1 or the famines of the 1930's. That is strong stuff to put it mildly! As I've said before, Ukraine on its current borders is an artificial entity, with the 100 westernmost miles being historically part of Poland. Time to show a bit of sorely needed enlightenment, recognise the irreconcilable divide and split it up along the historic linguistic divide.
Eh up, Apparently Team May are plotting against Grayling "You have to chuckle at the emergence of Chris Grayling as a wannabe contender. If Tory associations are looking for a speaker for the rubber chicken circuit, I would advise calling the Justice Secretary, who’d be there like a greyhound. He’s going to face an uphill struggle to the top though, as one May supporter said over the weekend: ‘We’ve never had problems with a bald, right-wing headbanger leading the party before, have we?’"
Does the leader of the Conservative Party have to be an MP? I'd quite like to see Mr Hannan have a go.
I know the media are always looking for something to moan about, but they don't often manage a juxtaposition of headlines on adjacent stories as good as this:
I remember an edition of Question Time where a newspaper editor managed, in the space of 5 minutes, to moan about prison overcrowding and short sentencing.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
Since neither of you appear to adhere to the rules, and the moderating team are going to bed, your ability to instantly publish has been revoked until tomorrow.
This seems like a very friendly group. Can anyone apply?
Could we at least try and remember that someone being arrested does not make them guilty of anything?
Innocent until proven guilty is a damn good principle and it would be nice if it were remembered now and again. There are too many cases of people being assumed to be bad'uns before anyone knows any facts, let alone before anyone has been convicted (Lord MacAlpine, the Bristol landlord etc).
Good point.
A minor side-effect of this stuff is that voters who only vaguely follow the news will start to think that everyone in politics is a suspected paedophile, whereas previously they merely thought we were all crooks. Sigh.
Indeed. You will probably be put in the same category as Catholic priests and ancient TV stars!
There have been too many hysterical campaigns in the past about awful crimes and too many miscarriages of justice so we should be wary about believing what we want to believe rather than the actual facts. Boring I know but best in the long run for all concerned. We don't help the victims of real crimes if we tilt at shadows.
I may be in a minority of one but I think paedophile stories just bring out the worst in people - the crime is so abhorrent people lose their sense of due process in a way they wouldn't for other dreadful crimes.
Well the same thing happened during the 1970's when there were all those Irish miscarriages of justice, though the legal system was also at fault. But you're right that crimes against children do induce a sense of abhorrence which can distort people's reactions. That is why public commentators need to have cool heads. Fat chance, alas.
Eh up, Apparently Team May are plotting against Grayling "You have to chuckle at the emergence of Chris Grayling as a wannabe contender. If Tory associations are looking for a speaker for the rubber chicken circuit, I would advise calling the Justice Secretary, who’d be there like a greyhound. He’s going to face an uphill struggle to the top though, as one May supporter said over the weekend: ‘We’ve never had problems with a bald, right-wing headbanger leading the party before, have we?’"
Does the leader of the Conservative Party have to be an MP? I'd quite like to see Mr Hannan have a go.
Not knowing the Tory rules I wouldn't know, however, if Dan Hannan was allowed to thow his hat in, it would put the willies up quite a few of those leading the running I could quite imagine.
I know the media are always looking for something to moan about, but they don't often manage a juxtaposition of headlines on adjacent stories as good as this:
The Russians are beginning to overplay their scorn for the West.
Here is Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, speaking at the UN Security Meeting held tonight at Russia's request.
“The Russian president has received the following appeal from Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich,” said the diplomat, quoting a letter in which the Ukrainian leader stated that the “events in the Maidan, the illegal seizure of power in Kiev have put Ukraine on the threshold of a civil war.” “In this connection I turn to Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with a request to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation for the restoration of the rule of law, peace, law and order, stability and for the protection of the population of Ukraine,” Churkin read the letter, dated March 1.
The Russians have no intent of reinstating Yanukoivch, nor even of justifying or endorsing his cause, but treating him as the official and unlawfully replaced President of the Ukraine gives Putin the option of "legalising" any military incursion he might be considering into Ukrainian territory.
Of course no one in Russia believes in such nonsense but this is the equivalent of "negotiating the boilerplate" which anyone familiar with doing business in Russia will recognise.
The US argue that Russia's interventions in Crimea have already breached international law. Russia produces a piece of paper which they argue legitimises the intervention. The debate moves to the legitimacy of claim and counter claim rather than the principle issue.
So, so familiar. But unless the US and its partners are prepared to do something substantive to stop Putin, there is nothing Obama can do to stop the Russians laughing at him.
This is why the immediate response to Putin should have been silence and to reserve judgement and options. Putin would then have been forced to justify his actions to a sceptical home audience without being able to use critical western responses as a means of gaining domestic support.
Since neither of you appear to adhere to the rules, and the moderating team are going to bed, your ability to instantly publish has been revoked until tomorrow.
This seems like a very friendly group. Can anyone apply?
You will have to wait until the morning I am afraid.
Eh up, Apparently Team May are plotting against Grayling "You have to chuckle at the emergence of Chris Grayling as a wannabe contender. If Tory associations are looking for a speaker for the rubber chicken circuit, I would advise calling the Justice Secretary, who’d be there like a greyhound. He’s going to face an uphill struggle to the top though, as one May supporter said over the weekend: ‘We’ve never had problems with a bald, right-wing headbanger leading the party before, have we?’"
Commenting on someone's appearance? Well that's a bit rich coming from a supporter of 'The Court Jester'
Golly, 41% in negative equity in Northern Ireland. Makes one realise how wrong it is to think of the UK as a homogenous block.
Yes, and it drives a coach and horses through the often-repeated mantra that the government is tailoring policy for the benefit of London and the South East, and ignoring the needs of the rest of the country.
Northern Ireland saw a historically high level of housebuilding in the last boom. Consequently prices have stayed low in the upturn and there are high levels of negative equity. It is probably the only region of the UK with fair house prices based on historic income/price ratios.
In the rest of the UK and particularly London + SE the bubble never burst. And we are now so dependent on that bubble that we have to re-inflate it to get growth.
I know the media are always looking for something to moan about, but they don't often manage a juxtaposition of headlines on adjacent stories as good as this:
Golly, 41% in negative equity in Northern Ireland. Makes one realise how wrong it is to think of the UK as a homogenous block.
They had an enormous boom along with the rest of Ireland into 2008. From which they've not really recovered. And remember a lot of this mess resides with the Ulster Bank. And who is their parent company? Oh it wouldn't be the Royal Bank of Sinners would it? 46 billion lost since 2008, 6 billion of that in bonuses. What a record. And to think that nobody has been brought to book for all that wrongdoing Mr Goodwin?
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
But no one alleged anything about Harman
Good, and I have not alledged anything about the Tory aid.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
But no one alleged anything about Harman
Good, and I have not alledged anything about the Tory aid.
I know you haven't, but you did just say people on here were alleging things about Harman... They weren't. Why say it?
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
But no one alleged anything about Harman
Good, and I have not alledged anything about the Tory aid.
I know you haven't, but you did just say people on here were alleging things about Harman... They weren't. Why say it?
Maybe I didn't get it across well, what I meant was people were posting plenty about Harman. I refuse to lower myself to those standards about a subject so disgusting. Each to their own.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
But no one alleged anything about Harman
Good, and I have not alledged anything about the Tory aid.
I know you haven't, but you did just say people on here were alleging things about Harman... They weren't. Why say it?
Maybe I didn't get it across well, what I meant was people were posting plenty about Harman. I refuse to lower myself to those standards about a subject so disgusting. Each to their own.
No one was talking about the subject though' everyone agrees it is disgusting. All anyone, and not particularly me, did was question the way Harman dealt with the scandal politically. That is what the site is about.
I think civilians dying in wars is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think it is beneath me for people to discuss the decisions taken ny politicians regarding the wars
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
But no one alleged anything about Harman
Good, and I have not alledged anything about the Tory aid.
I know you haven't, but you did just say people on here were alleging things about Harman... They weren't. Why say it?
Maybe I didn't get it across well, what I meant was people were posting plenty about Harman. I refuse to lower myself to those standards about a subject so disgusting. Each to their own.
No one was talking about the subject though' everyone agrees it is disgusting. All anyone, and not particularly me, did was question the way Harman dealt with the scandal politically. That is what the site is about.
I think civilians dying in wars is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think it is beneath me for people to discuss the decisions taken ny politicians regarding the wars
Well I am sure you can debate it with Nigel and whoever else wants to regarding Harman, the tory aid or whatever elese comes out about whoever in any political party. I will leave you all to it.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
Christ on a bike, here we go again.....paedo will be the buzzword on here.
Not really. A bunch of us have been banned from discussing such things, because a few people used it to slur others.
Thank god for that (the ban not the slurring).
Because the first story involved senior figures in your beloved party?
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
No Nigel, it drags this site further to the gutter. I could quite easily post plenty that has been alledged about the Tory aid, as people were doing last week about Harmen, however I find the subject and people revelling in it disgusting.
So because the subject is disgusting we cannot discuss it? I m not a Tory and have already said if the allegations are true he deserves all he gets.
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I am not trying to shut it down. I resfuse to enter in the debate on the issue wether it has anything to do with Labour, Tory or any party. You can debate it as much as you want.
The Pouter is well and truly rattled' but thank you for letting us debate something, I don't know how I would have coped without your permission.
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
"Bet you don't call him that anymore after tonight. "
He's not a Tory politician you know, he doesn't change his name to something he thinks the masses will like better. Basil is Basil. Seeing you are so interested in him, here is a picture of him just after he was born.....isn't he a cutie.
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
He's not a Tory politician you know, he doesn't change his name to something he thinks the masses will like better. Basil is Basil. Seeing you are so interested in him, here is a picture of him just after he was born.....isn't he a cutie.
Beautiful.
Yeah I'm not a fan of Gideon either... What kind of mug changes their name anyway eh?
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
Thinking about it, we've just had two bits of news that cover Conservative election topics.
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation. 2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
Thinking about it, we've just had two bits of news that cover Conservative election topics.
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation. 2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
Maybe they were the tipping point? Seems a bit weird for them all to decide to run to the press about each other at the same time. It just looks like it's one massive bun fight.
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
Thinking about it, we've just had two bits of news that cover Conservative election topics.
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation. 2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
Maybe they were the tipping point? Seems a bit weird for them all to decide to run to the press about each other at the same time. It just looks like it's one massive bun fight.
@AnotherDave - I wish they could have warned us all of this mass infighting was coming, I could have bought more popcorn. It makes fantastic viewing.
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
Thinking about it, we've just had two bits of news that cover Conservative election topics.
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation. 2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
Maybe they were the tipping point? Seems a bit weird for them all to decide to run to the press about each other at the same time. It just looks like it's one massive bun fight.
@AnotherDave - I wish they could have warned us all of this mass infighting was coming, I could have bought more popcorn. It makes fantastic viewing.
Think of the calories! Perhaps it's a cunning plan to reduce Labour Party activists to bloated couch potatoes before the 2015 election?
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
Thinking about it, we've just had two bits of news that cover Conservative election topics.
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation. 2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
Maybe they were the tipping point? Seems a bit weird for them all to decide to run to the press about each other at the same time. It just looks like it's one massive bun fight.
@AnotherDave - I wish they could have warned us all of this mass infighting was coming, I could have bought more popcorn. It makes fantastic viewing.
Think of the calories! Perhaps it's a cunning plan to reduce Labour Party activists to bloated couch potatoes before the 2015 election?
You could be onto something there. Maybe they are trying to lull Labour activists into a false sense of security and in the last days of the campaign the Tory activists will flood the streets of the UK in a flurry of err....activism. It will look like Eastbourne on acid as the Tory stalwarts pin blue rosettes and place masks of Dave and Boris on anything that moves. The Labour activists who will be too fat to move due the spending all their benefits on popcorn will be left staring down the barrel of a Tory majority.
I think I may have taken too much tramadol for the old back.
Well the same thing happened during the 1970's when there were all those Irish miscarriages of justice, though the legal system was also at fault. But you're right that crimes against children do induce a sense of abhorrence which can distort people's reactions. That is why public commentators need to have cool heads. Fat chance, alas.
The problem is that people elide "X is a terrible crime and Y is accused of X" with "X must be guilty". If you're accused of stealing £10, people will consider quite judiciously whether you're guilty, but if it's something horrible then they want to get you.
I think the media do make it worse, since they can sell more papers with suggestive coverage of alleged terrible crimes. Why people like reading about them would take a book to analyse.
Wonder what has kicked off this sudden Tory infighting? What has gone on in the background for people to be publically having a pop at each other?
That's a good question. The only election we've had recently was Wythenshawe. Did losing the contest for second place in a safe Labour seat ring some kind of alarm?
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
It seems very strange that not just one politician has fell out with another, there seems to be all kinds going on over a number of different ones, all at once, which makes me think they have been given some polling information that wasn't good and they are already starting to jockey for position. Even if they have though, a bit suicidal this far out surely.
Thinking about it, we've just had two bits of news that cover Conservative election topics.
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation. 2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
Interesting tweet from Mark Ferguson "Adam Afriyie looking very chirpy in PCH today...He's been quiet lately. Wonder what he has been up to". The intrigue continues.
I am going to call tonight's YouGov an outlier, in fact I suspect that we will see a crossover in the polling lead sooner rather than later with YouGov in the next couple of months. Looking at the Populus poll from earlier today, and of course the last YouGov poll on Saturday night, its shame that they didn't warrant their own thread in the same way this sudden big jump in the YouGov Labour lead did over the last 48 hours.
FPT. Southern Observer - "Labour is ahead in the polls and has most supporters among people in work. Therefore, it has more support among working people than any other party currently - and many, many more than UKIP. Clearly, Labour supporters are able to understand that being unemployed does not make you a feckless sponger. Labour voters are also working to pay taxes that ensure UKIP's elderly voting demographic are kept above the breadline. Labour should be proud to be a party that supports the idea of welfare and state pensions."
Southern Observer, when you finally retire, I am going to take a wild guess and suggest that you will have prepared well for that eventuality. And therefore because of the care you took to prepare for your retirement, that is going to mean you are going to continue to pay taxes to the Treasury after you finally stop working altogether. I am no fan of UKIP, I would rather not vote at all than lend my vote to this party. But I really did take exception to your caricature of retired people in general, most of whom worked all their lives and paid their taxes. And now many in their retirement still have to pay their taxes on income because they also bothered to save in pensions and savings for that day they stopped working. So please, don't try to make out that many pensioners don't still pay their way even in retirement, and through taxation, its just a lot of them don't happen to be Labour voters!
(FPT) In the previous thread, some people were commenting on ostentatious wealth, like buying a house for £10 million or going skiing regularly.
Anecdote alert: In about 1999, a young man in his early 20s went to an estate agent, dressed casually in jeans and T-shirt, saying that he wanted to buy a house in a certain area of London, with 4 or 5 bedrooms, in the range of about £700,000, and said that he would buy it outright without needing a mortgage.
They didn't particularly take him seriously or pay much attention until he came back a few days later to compete the deal, only this time in a posh suit, in an official car and accompanied by his royal protection officer. For 'twas verily Peter Phillips, wanting to spend part of his pre-inheritance from the Queen Mother (i.e. she hadn't died yet, but he sort-of got some of the inheritance early).
Tonight's YouGov poll is the first to be carried out wholly after the LAB calls to stop Waitrose from giving out free coffee.
Beg pardon? When was this and what what was the point of it?? I must have been blind to miss that and not the more minor matter of Cast Iron Cammie's Immigration Pledge blowing up in his face.
Me too - what's this Waitrose coffee stuff and why the political importance please??
I think, I hope, it's OGH's pawky sense of humour.
Comments
If true I hope he gets everything he deserves.
Innocent until proven guilty is a damn good principle and it would be nice if it were remembered now and again. There are too many cases of people being assumed to be bad'uns before anyone knows any facts, let alone before anyone has been convicted (Lord MacAlpine, the Bristol landlord etc).
Separately, given that 1% of taxpayers provide 30% of all income tax revenue and that 1% consists of ca. 300,000 people it is little wonder that the Government wants to protect the industry where most of those taxpayers work.
If we don't like such a key-man risk, it might be better to widen the pool of taxpayers and industries earning enough to pay tax rather than - as all parties seem to want to do - assume that these 300,000 can be milked for more and more ad infinitum.
What's the old Commons phrase about your opponents sitting in front of you but your enemies sitting behind?
If I were to pretend to leave the site only to come back the next day under a different name, would it be ok if other posters were banned for rumbling it, or would it be my fault for being a troll?
What is relevant is that Rock was nicked on 13 Feb - before the ancient Harman stuff was reheated by the same paper.
Like I said, if your happy enough thinking this was just staggering incompetence at the heart of Cammie's Putin strategy then you're very welcome to that view.
Jeremy Nicholl @Russian_Photos 3h
I honestly don't know how Putin's going to keep a straight face next time he meets @David_Cameron http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/uk-seeks-russia-harm-city-london-document?CMP=twt_gu … #ukraine #russia
LOL
A minor side-effect of this stuff is that voters who only vaguely follow the news will start to think that everyone in politics is a suspected paedophile, whereas previously they merely thought we were all crooks. Sigh.
Blog commenter spends benefit money at pub getting shitfaced and annoying the hell out of the other patrons.
Gets chucked out for same.
Rummages through a skip behind a fake tanning salon
Scores several half-empty aerosol cans; contents unknown.
Shambles back to reeking council bedsit and logs on.
Burbles incoherently whilst huffing furiously.
Goes onto web, finds the usual blog.
Gets flamed to crisp.
Lapses into coma.
Wakes up, thinks of new username
Gets quickly spotted and outed <- Hint: the fault is not here
GOTO 10
In the years I've been on the site this has been Standard Operating Procedure for quite a few; although the more functional addicts are harder to spot - the self-discipline enforcing sneaky bastards.
Maybe post a hockey stick shaped graph to accompany it.
And a Mail story which will of course be followed by days and days of fevered guilt by association accusations of who said what and when 40 years, errr days ago on a subject I was banned from mentioning so I won't.
A bi-postual
And if it is just the incompetence of the one individual, it is not at the heart of Cammie's anything.
When you were both told on two different days last week that your conversation was closed, that's exactly what it meant.
Since neither of you appear to adhere to the rules, and the moderating team are going to bed, your ability to instantly publish has been revoked until tomorrow.
Perhaps you will both reflect on what happens when you don't adhere to the rules.
But in case you don't know, Mr. Newbie, some people on this site enjoy that kind of trivia...
Welcome, anyhow.
There have been too many hysterical campaigns in the past about awful crimes and too many miscarriages of justice so we should be wary about believing what we want to believe rather than the actual facts. Boring I know but best in the long run for all concerned. We don't help the victims of real crimes if we tilt at shadows.
Teddy Roosevelt
"speak loudly and carry a twiglet"
Williamski Hagueski
How shallow, party before victims, good old caring Labour.
"Half a million in negative equity"
"House price rises at four-year high"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/
One of Cameron's biggest problems is he has no nerve, in anything. When he does move decisively he seems fine, but he lacks internal party support, which undercuts whatever he plans to do nationally or internationally, and that means he dithers about inconsitently. Knowing that many in his own ranks will hate him for daring to involve the UK in something, anything, he has no confidence which would at least make doing nothing seem a principled approach made after firm consideration, instead trying to talk the talk while not walking the walk, and you cannot do both without real confidence (Putin and the Russians are the best at that - act as you want, and unlike the West, never give the impression you doubt your own actions, whatever they were)
Cameron is like electricity - he merely goes for the path of least resistance. As for the Ukraine, it really is morally duplicitous of the West to blame everything at Russia's door. The West has forfeited any right to the moral high ground after the numerous foreign policy misadventures of the past 15 years or so. And remember we, by virtue of the common EU foreign policy, opened the gambit in Ukraine by trying to get them to sign an association agreement with the EU back in November. And then we supported dubious groups such as Svoboda in the uprising, and we implicitly supporting the banning of Russian as a language in the Ukraine, as one of the new government's first acts - not a mention of this in the mainstream media. Well done to Edwina Currie for mentioning this on radio 5 last week. So for once, show a bit of empathy and put yourself in the shoes of an ethnic Russian in the Crimea - its amazing they didn't rise up before now given the provocations from the West. And as for a Russian invasion - they already had 26,000 of their troops stationed in the Crimea before this crisis, not to mention the Navy in Sevastopol - inconvenient facts that the West would rather ignore. Bringing over another 6,000 troops - didn't we reinforce troop numbers in Northern Ireland during the troubles?! So its hardly an invasion! And into the bargain, the West has never understood the Russian mindset. They regard the breakup of the USSR as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century - not the 50 million people they lost in the Great Patriotic War (WW2) or the twin revolutions in 1917 or WW1 or the famines of the 1930's. That is strong stuff to put it mildly! As I've said before, Ukraine on its current borders is an artificial entity, with the 100 westernmost miles being historically part of Poland. Time to show a bit of sorely needed enlightenment, recognise the irreconcilable divide and split it up along the historic linguistic divide.
Headline: "UK seeking to ensure Russia sanctions do not harm City of London"
Story: Not a single mention of anything even remotely about ensuring Russia sanctions do not harm the City of London.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/uk-seeks-russia-harm-city-london-document?CMP=twt_gu
GOP Primary
•Chris Christie 19%
•Jeb Bush 18%
•Mike Huckabee 13%
•Paul Ryan 13%
•Ted Cruz 9%
•Rand Paul 7%
•Marco Rubio 4%
•Scott Walker 3%
•Undecided 13%
Democratic Primary
•Hillary Clinton 66%
•Joe Biden 19%
•Elizabeth Warren 7%
•Undecided 9%
General Election
•Hillary Clinton (D) 43%
•Chris Christie (R) 41%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
•Rand Paul (R) 40%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
•Marco Rubio (R) 40%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 47%
•Ted Cruz (R) 37%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
•Scott Walker (R) 35%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 51%
•Jeb Bush (R) 38%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 52%
•Paul Ryan (R) 37%
•Hillary Clinton (D) 52%
•Mike Huckabee (R) 37%
Here is Vitaly Churkin, the Russian Ambassador to the UN, speaking at the UN Security Meeting held tonight at Russia's request.
“The Russian president has received the following appeal from Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich,” said the diplomat, quoting a letter in which the Ukrainian leader stated that the “events in the Maidan, the illegal seizure of power in Kiev have put Ukraine on the threshold of a civil war.” “In this connection I turn to Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin with a request to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation for the restoration of the rule of law, peace, law and order, stability and for the protection of the population of Ukraine,” Churkin read the letter, dated March 1.
The Russians have no intent of reinstating Yanukoivch, nor even of justifying or endorsing his cause, but treating him as the official and unlawfully replaced President of the Ukraine gives Putin the option of "legalising" any military incursion he might be considering into Ukrainian territory.
Of course no one in Russia believes in such nonsense but this is the equivalent of "negotiating the boilerplate" which anyone familiar with doing business in Russia will recognise.
The US argue that Russia's interventions in Crimea have already breached international law. Russia produces a piece of paper which they argue legitimises the intervention. The debate moves to the legitimacy of claim and counter claim rather than the principle issue.
So, so familiar. But unless the US and its partners are prepared to do something substantive to stop Putin, there is nothing Obama can do to stop the Russians laughing at him.
This is why the immediate response to Putin should have been silence and to reserve judgement and options. Putin would then have been forced to justify his actions to a sceptical home audience without being able to use critical western responses as a means of gaining domestic support.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02726/MAY_2726816b.jpg
aka 'The Joker'
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/28/article-1351252-0C6A2E97000005DC-31_306x710.jpg
aka 'Toad' (of Toad Hall)
http://img.tatler.co.uk.s3.amazonaws.com/400x600/s_v/Theresa May.jpg
aka 'The Red Cross Bandit'
http://www.standard.co.uk/incoming/article8550189.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/may.jpg
aka 'Spotty Wellies'
http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/.a/6a00d8341c565553ef0128765231fd970c-320wi
She is so renowned she's got her own blog!
http://fashionmomentswiththeresamay.tumblr.com
But whatever you do don't spell her name wrong and get the wrong Twitter account!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_May
In the rest of the UK and particularly London + SE the bubble never burst. And we are now so dependent on that bubble that we have to re-inflate it to get growth.
http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/the-educational-backgrounds-of-500-leading-figures/
It is not a party political thing so don't make it so. It is the most abhorrent of crimes and for you to try to shut it down because it doesn't suit you politically is almost as abhorrent, the damage to the victims is forever ongoing. The Left did that with immigration and by their own admission got it wrong.
I think civilians dying in wars is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think it is beneath me for people to discuss the decisions taken ny politicians regarding the wars
You never into any debate anyway so no great loss, you just prattle on about squirrels and goalposts.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-03/realpolitik-ukraine
Good night.
It would make more sense if it happened after the May elections.
"Bet you don't call him that anymore after tonight. "
He's not a Tory politician you know, he doesn't change his name to something he thinks the masses will like better. Basil is Basil. Seeing you are so interested in him, here is a picture of him just after he was born.....isn't he a cutie.
http://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203/s2012/toellner_kayl/Images/800px-Eastern_Gray_Squirrel_young.jpg
1. Mrs Merkel seemed to downplay any prospect of EU reform/renegotiation.
2. The latest immigration numbers make the Conservatives pledge to reduce immigration look either dishonest, or beyond their abilities. Neither of which is good.
"Beautiful.
Yeah I'm not a fan of Gideon either... What kind of mug changes their name anyway eh?"
Gideon is not the only high profile politician in the Tory Party as was pointed out to me the other day.
I will pass on your regards to Basil, he will be chuffed.
Basil is furious.
I think I may have taken too much tramadol for the old back.
I think the media do make it worse, since they can sell more papers with suggestive coverage of alleged terrible crimes. Why people like reading about them would take a book to analyse.
I've restarted the PB Tipsters league for Cheltenham.
All welcome to try their hands.
PBTipsters
Chairman
Mr David Roe
PIN 8034812
FPT. Southern Observer - "Labour is ahead in the polls and has most supporters among people in work. Therefore, it has more support among working people than any other party currently - and many, many more than UKIP. Clearly, Labour supporters are able to understand that being unemployed does not make you a feckless sponger. Labour voters are also working to pay taxes that ensure UKIP's elderly voting demographic are kept above the breadline. Labour should be proud to be a party that supports the idea of welfare and state pensions."
Southern Observer, when you finally retire, I am going to take a wild guess and suggest that you will have prepared well for that eventuality. And therefore because of the care you took to prepare for your retirement, that is going to mean you are going to continue to pay taxes to the Treasury after you finally stop working altogether. I am no fan of UKIP, I would rather not vote at all than lend my vote to this party. But I really did take exception to your caricature of retired people in general, most of whom worked all their lives and paid their taxes. And now many in their retirement still have to pay their taxes on income because they also bothered to save in pensions and savings for that day they stopped working. So please, don't try to make out that many pensioners don't still pay their way even in retirement, and through taxation, its just a lot of them don't happen to be Labour voters!
(FPT) In the previous thread, some people were commenting on ostentatious wealth, like buying a house for £10 million or going skiing regularly.
Anecdote alert: In about 1999, a young man in his early 20s went to an estate agent, dressed casually in jeans and T-shirt, saying that he wanted to buy a house in a certain area of London, with 4 or 5 bedrooms, in the range of about £700,000, and said that he would buy it outright without needing a mortgage.
They didn't particularly take him seriously or pay much attention until he came back a few days later to compete the deal, only this time in a posh suit, in an official car and accompanied by his royal protection officer. For 'twas verily Peter Phillips, wanting to spend part of his pre-inheritance from the Queen Mother (i.e. she hadn't died yet, but he sort-of got some of the inheritance early).