Think Farage is in danger of speaking to his online audience rather than body of Reform voters here. Speaking to Reform voters since the unrest, there was no “but” just straight out condemnation of rioters and total rejection rioters are standing up for Britain.
Edit: The new tory leader may get very lucky very early if Farage continues down this path.
If he hadn't done it before, Farage has definitely jumped the shark on this one.
I think he's been remarkably restrained. Indeed maybe too much so
He made one 90 second video saying “there are questions to be asked, legitimately” and that is clearly true and fair. And that’s it
What are the questions?
Really? REALLY?
Just think for yourself. I don’t want to get banned again for the 19th time in a week but examine the evidence we have and do some digging and then think for yourself rather than relying on pabulum fed you by mainstream media which - remember - told us he was a good Welsh boy of 17 from a nice family and maybe he’s a bit autistic so that’s all it is
Insane drivel
Peter Hitchens wrote a few years back that until recently the British Police would deal with all demostrators/rioters in the same way.
In contrast, the response of the French police would depend on whether the government politicians sympathised with the demonstrators /rioters. If so then kid gloves time. If not then it would be all truncheons and tear gas.
Alas, our police are now similarly politicised in their response to such matters.
That is the issue.
Really? How?
Seems to me the Police take a fairly consistent approach to rioters and have done since the London riots onwards (if not before): stand back, film it all, round up the perps later.
I deleted it as I posted it before I saw what had happened to Sunderland Nick and having read that it didn't seem the best time.
However as you responded, there was a distinct lack of riot gear etc at the Harehill riots and the BLM protests during lockdown when gatherings were banned and police took the knee to protestors.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Think Farage is in danger of speaking to his online audience rather than body of Reform voters here. Speaking to Reform voters since the unrest, there was no “but” just straight out condemnation of rioters and total rejection rioters are standing up for Britain.
Edit: The new tory leader may get very lucky very early if Farage continues down this path.
If he hadn't done it before, Farage has definitely jumped the shark on this one.
I think he's been remarkably restrained. Indeed maybe too much so
He made one 90 second video saying “there are questions to be asked, legitimately” and that is clearly true and fair. And that’s it
What are the questions?
Really? REALLY?
Just think for yourself. I don’t want to get banned again for the 19th time in a week but examine the evidence we have and do some digging and then think for yourself rather than relying on pabulum fed you by mainstream media which - remember - told us he was a good Welsh boy of 17 from a nice family and maybe he’s a bit autistic so that’s all it is
Insane drivel
No. The mainstream media did not "tell is he was a good Welsh boy of 17".
It reported what it is allowed to under the law around media reporting and courts and charging.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
Think Farage is in danger of speaking to his online audience rather than body of Reform voters here. Speaking to Reform voters since the unrest, there was no “but” just straight out condemnation of rioters and total rejection rioters are standing up for Britain.
Edit: The new tory leader may get very lucky very early if Farage continues down this path.
If he hadn't done it before, Farage has definitely jumped the shark on this one.
I think he's been remarkably restrained. Indeed maybe too much so
He made one 90 second video saying “there are questions to be asked, legitimately” and that is clearly true and fair. And that’s it
What are the questions?
Really? REALLY?
Just think for yourself. I don’t want to get banned again for the 19th time in a week but examine the evidence we have and do some digging and then think for yourself rather than relying on pabulum fed you by mainstream media which - remember - told us he was a good Welsh boy of 17 from a nice family and maybe he’s a bit autistic so that’s all it is
Insane drivel
Peter Hitchens wrote a few years back that until recently the British Police would deal with all demostrators/rioters in the same way.
In contrast, the response of the French police would depend on whether the government politicians sympathised with the demonstrators /rioters. If so then kid gloves time. If not then it would be all truncheons and tear gas.
Alas, our police are now similarly politicised in their response to such matters.
That is the issue.
Really? How?
Seems to me the Police take a fairly consistent approach to rioters and have done since the London riots onwards (if not before): stand back, film it all, round up the perps later.
I deleted it as I posted it before I saw what had happened to Sunderland Nick and having read that it didn't seem the best time.
However as you responded, there was a distinct lack of riot gear etc at the Harehill riots and the BLM protests during lockdown when gatherings were banned and police took the knee to protestors.
As someone who has been subjected to police violence I call bullshit. As would Blair Peach and Ian Tomlinson if the cops hadn’t killed them. Of course to you that was legitimate as it happened at the wrong sort of protest - the sort that should be banned as being “subversive”.
Think Farage is in danger of speaking to his online audience rather than body of Reform voters here. Speaking to Reform voters since the unrest, there was no “but” just straight out condemnation of rioters and total rejection rioters are standing up for Britain.
Edit: The new tory leader may get very lucky very early if Farage continues down this path.
If he hadn't done it before, Farage has definitely jumped the shark on this one.
I think he's been remarkably restrained. Indeed maybe too much so
He made one 90 second video saying “there are questions to be asked, legitimately” and that is clearly true and fair. And that’s it
What are the questions?
Really? REALLY?
Just think for yourself. I don’t want to get banned again for the 19th time in a week but examine the evidence we have and do some digging and then think for yourself rather than relying on pabulum fed you by mainstream media which - remember - told us he was a good Welsh boy of 17 from a nice family and maybe he’s a bit autistic so that’s all it is
Insane drivel
Peter Hitchens wrote a few years back that until recently the British Police would deal with all demostrators/rioters in the same way.
In contrast, the response of the French police would depend on whether the government politicians sympathised with the demonstrators /rioters. If so then kid gloves time. If not then it would be all truncheons and tear gas.
Alas, our police are now similarly politicised in their response to such matters.
That is the issue.
Really? How?
Seems to me the Police take a fairly consistent approach to rioters and have done since the London riots onwards (if not before): stand back, film it all, round up the perps later.
I deleted it as I posted it before I saw what had happened to Sunderland Nick and having read that it didn't seem the best time.
However as you responded, there was a distinct lack of riot gear etc at the Harehill riots and the BLM protests during lockdown when gatherings were banned and police took the knee to protestors.
Which perhaps says something about how non-violent the latter were versus the coked up thugs looking for a fight tonight.
Think Farage is in danger of speaking to his online audience rather than body of Reform voters here. Speaking to Reform voters since the unrest, there was no “but” just straight out condemnation of rioters and total rejection rioters are standing up for Britain.
Edit: The new tory leader may get very lucky very early if Farage continues down this path.
If he hadn't done it before, Farage has definitely jumped the shark on this one.
Farage is very clever. If he's doing the wrong thing, he'll course correct.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Police Station set alight from the inside in Sunderland. Call for reinforcements across the NE. All Police leave cancelled today and tomorrow.
Ulsterisation.
Thugs.
Thugs, like the George Floyd protestors who smashed up a lot of American businesses in the summer of 2020.
The thugs in Sunderland tonight are, indeed, not the only thugs that have ever existed. But why make this comparison? What do those protestors have to do with tonight's event?
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Oh for goodness sakes. What is the Finland Rumour?
I love the right wing on here. Thugs firebomb a mosque and set fire to a police station but that’s *okay* because a left wing protest did something or other once. The logic is inescapable.
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
Tonight, Downing Street lights up pink as a mark of respect and solidarity with everyone affected by the tragic incidents which took place earlier this week.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Oh for goodness sakes. What is the Finland Rumour?
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
By spending 10s of thousands of pounds of his own money campaigning for himself?
Well it worked, while Truss lost by one of the biggest swings in history.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Oh for goodness sakes. What is the Finland Rumour?
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
By spending 10s of thousands of pounds of his own money campaigning for himself?
Well it worked, while Truss lost by one of the biggest swings in history.
Well I'm sure the 250 ex Conservative MPs would love to hear you tell them that they should be more like their useless Chancellor and have a lot more money that they could spend buying Facebook ads. They might retort that perhaps he should have just been worth shit as a Chancellor and then they wouldn't have had to.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Oh for goodness sakes. What is the Finland Rumour?
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Maybe we need the equivalent of the 1981 Scarman Report into these riots. Some of the findings of that report were as follows.
"According to the Scarman report, the riots were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".[1]"
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's a disaster. What's worse than the unlimited power is the complete lack of accountability. They are effectively a Government department spending £40bn on interest for banks, £80bn on their QT programme - real public money. Yet there's absolutely no scrutiny of them - supine politicians like SKS and Sunak just bow and scrape.
Maybe we need the equivalent of the 1981 Scarman Report into these riots. Some of the findings of that report were as follows.
"According to the Scarman report, the riots were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".[1]"
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Quite a few of those are double layered conspiracy theories though aren’t they. Concocted nonsense to muddy the waters by the self same types of people as those behind real conspiracies as MK Uktra
Maybe we need the equivalent of the 1981 Scarman Report into these riots. Some of the findings of that report were as follows.
"According to the Scarman report, the riots were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".[1]"
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Quite a few of those are double layered conspiracy theories though aren’t they. Concocted nonsense to muddy the waters by the self same types of people as those behind real conspiracies as MK Uktra
I am not aware of any evidence that any of those are concocted "to muddy the waters". That's just another bollocks conspiracy theory!
Maybe we need the equivalent of the 1981 Scarman Report into these riots. Some of the findings of that report were as follows.
"According to the Scarman report, the riots were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".[1]"
And exactly who has been responsible for this buildup of resentment? Christ SKS gets quick results.
I do think there is a point that the far-right have now lost all influence in government, unlike in 2019 when they voted for Johnson & Cummings to destroy the rootless cosmopolitan "blob". And with a very right-wing party doing better in the last election, no doubt an opportunity has been spotted by the strategists.
@darrengrimes_ The anger was already there. The petrol had long been poured. The match was lit this week. I cannot stand it. The folk of Sunderland are good people, with pride in people and place. They deserve better than this, we all deserve better than this.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's a disaster. What's worse than the unlimited power is the complete lack of accountability. They are effectively a Government department spending £40bn on interest for banks, £80bn on their QT programme - real public money. Yet there's absolutely no scrutiny of them - supine politicians like SKS and Sunak just bow and scrape.
I recall being utterly shocked when the MPC meeting prior to the Kwarteng mini budget when they announced QT. Gilts were already chasing US Treasuries to the bottom, something was up, and they poured gasoline on the fire. It was quite sweet that anyone thought abolishing the 45% tax rate was of any relevance (especially given the barely mentioned energy bail out the week before represented the govt writing an unbound derivatives position running potentially to tens or even above a hundred billion sterling).
@darrengrimes_ The anger was already there. The petrol had long been poured. The match was lit this week. I cannot stand it. The folk of Sunderland are good people, with pride in people and place. They deserve better than this, we all deserve better than this.
His younger self was in the LibDems.
Would love to see the older and younger Grimes have a chat.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Conversely, every miscarriage of justice case in the UK is a conspiracy theory until it isn't. Ho ho, are you seriously claiming that the most scrupulously just criminal law courts in the world, assisted by incredibly talented barristers and clever expert witnesses, and with multiple layers of appeal to judges of ever increasing learnedness, wrongly convicted Christie and the Birmingham six and Hallam and Nealon and Malkinson and nearly 1,000 subpostmasters? And a thousand others you can Google for yourself? I mean between their conviction and their exoneration, how does the theory that they are innocent not count as a conspiracy theory?
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's a disaster. What's worse than the unlimited power is the complete lack of accountability. They are effectively a Government department spending £40bn on interest for banks, £80bn on their QT programme - real public money. Yet there's absolutely no scrutiny of them - supine politicians like SKS and Sunak just bow and scrape.
I recall being utterly shocked when the MPC meeting prior to the Kwarteng mini budget when they announced QT. Gilts were already chasing US Treasuries to the bottom, something was up, and they poured gasoline on the fire. It was quite sweet that anyone thought abolishing the 45% tax rate was of any relevance (especially given the barely mentioned energy bail out the week before represented the govt writing an unbound derivatives position running potentially to tens or even above a hundred billion sterling).
Quite.
On a related note, Simon Case wrote to Liz Truss stating that unless she reversed the CT-rise cancellation, the Government wouldn't be able to fund it's debt. Just that. Not only was the CT rise not a big earner even on paper, the dynamic effects of raising it were always going to limit the revenue raised. So why insist on that one? I suggest, the US mission to drive up other nations' CT was the primary reason, and having achieved it they weren't prepared to let it go.
What an excellent dinner. Seasoned with the MSG of being free
I met victor one of the world’s most famous mixologists. Hilarious guy. Told me he once walked into his bar in st tropez to find leonardo di caprio at a big table of people asking him if he could make the worlds “finest” dry gin martini
Victor obliged and leo was very happy
Tiny detail: the table consisted of leonardo Di caprio and TWENTY FOUR beautiful young women. No other men
I mean, chapeau. That is Ottoman sultan levels of sexual excess but one still has to acknowledge the achievement
@darrengrimes_ The anger was already there. The petrol had long been poured. The match was lit this week. I cannot stand it. The folk of Sunderland are good people, with pride in people and place. They deserve better than this, we all deserve better than this.
Tonight, Downing Street lights up pink as a mark of respect and solidarity with everyone affected by the tragic incidents which took place earlier this week.
We're going to see so much of this performative politics over the next 5 years aren't we....
Whilst the underlying issues facing the country are going to be ignored. Again.
What is the betting they'll go all in on stoking house prices when they realise their client vote won't be satisfied, no matter how big the pay rises are....
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
The far right in 1942 Germany had a LOT of machine guns. Trust me on this.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's a disaster. What's worse than the unlimited power is the complete lack of accountability. They are effectively a Government department spending £40bn on interest for banks, £80bn on their QT programme - real public money. Yet there's absolutely no scrutiny of them - supine politicians like SKS and Sunak just bow and scrape.
I recall being utterly shocked when the MPC meeting prior to the Kwarteng mini budget when they announced QT. Gilts were already chasing US Treasuries to the bottom, something was up, and they poured gasoline on the fire. It was quite sweet that anyone thought abolishing the 45% tax rate was of any relevance (especially given the barely mentioned energy bail out the week before represented the govt writing an unbound derivatives position running potentially to tens or even above a hundred billion sterling).
There was definitely a right hand left hand problem there but the Bank was probably rightly concerned about the inflationary effect of the ridiculous energy bail out.
Having written a blank cheque for something more than the cost of a major war it really wasn’t the time to be cutting revenues.
I find the echoes between Truss and Reeves a bit troubling. Both want rapid growth to overcome the fiscal straight jacket we are in but both seem to devise policies that make it even less likely.
Tonight, Downing Street lights up pink as a mark of respect and solidarity with everyone affected by the tragic incidents which took place earlier this week.
We're going to see so much of this performative politics over the next 5 years aren't we....
Whilst the underlying issues facing the country are going to be ignored. Again.
What is the betting they'll go all in on stoking house prices when they realise their client vote won't be satisfied, no matter how big the pay rises are....
Performative nonsense for the previous five, performative for the next five. These are the choices offered to us. Blueberry nonsense? Cherry nonsense? Personal taxes up? Or down? Let's ask Dusty Bin!
@darrengrimes_ The anger was already there. The petrol had long been poured. The match was lit this week. I cannot stand it. The folk of Sunderland are good people, with pride in people and place. They deserve better than this, we all deserve better than this.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Conversely, every miscarriage of justice case in the UK is a conspiracy theory until it isn't. Ho ho, are you seriously claiming that the most scrupulously just criminal law courts in the world, assisted by incredibly talented barristers and clever expert witnesses, and with multiple layers of appeal to judges of ever increasing learnedness, wrongly convicted Christie and the Birmingham six and Hallam and Nealon and Malkinson and nearly 1,000 subpostmasters? And a thousand others you can Google for yourself? I mean between their conviction and their exoneration, how does the theory that they are innocent not count as a conspiracy theory?
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
There are far, far, far more examples of things being labelled conspiracy theories turning out to be complete nonsense than turning out to have some truth. (And most of your examples were never labelled conspiracy theories.)
Helpful hint: when you see people dismissing something as a conspiracy theory, it's generally because they have examined the evidence for and against it, and there's no evidence whatsoever for.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's a disaster. What's worse than the unlimited power is the complete lack of accountability. They are effectively a Government department spending £40bn on interest for banks, £80bn on their QT programme - real public money. Yet there's absolutely no scrutiny of them - supine politicians like SKS and Sunak just bow and scrape.
I recall being utterly shocked when the MPC meeting prior to the Kwarteng mini budget when they announced QT. Gilts were already chasing US Treasuries to the bottom, something was up, and they poured gasoline on the fire. It was quite sweet that anyone thought abolishing the 45% tax rate was of any relevance (especially given the barely mentioned energy bail out the week before represented the govt writing an unbound derivatives position running potentially to tens or even above a hundred billion sterling).
There was definitely a right hand left hand problem there but the Bank was probably rightly concerned about the inflationary effect of the ridiculous energy bail out.
Having written a blank cheque for something more than the cost of a major war it really wasn’t the time to be cutting revenues.
I find the echoes between Truss and Reeves a bit troubling. Both want rapid growth to overcome the fiscal straight jacket we are in but both seem to devise policies that make it even less likely.
The Bank's own totally needless QT programme indemnified by the Treasury was set to cost the Government £80bn; it's a bit gamey to propose that they had any concern about 'cutting revenues'.
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
The far right in 1942 Germany had a LOT of machine guns. Trust me on this.
And our far right "concerned citizens" show off their swastika tattoos.
A very strange sort of Patriot that sides with our enemy in an existential war.
It's incredibly important not to forget Liz Truss, or history might repeat itself.
I hope history does repeat itself, only with the next Liz Truss actually being given a chance to enact her radical programme, instead of being hamstrung and hogtied by frit middle managers and sacrificed on the altar of convenient scapegoatery.
#InLizWeStillTruss
Possibly the Tories should look at how Truss lost her seat while Hunt saved his against the odds.
More likely that they will disappear down the rabbit hole.
Well,
1. Anti-Hunt activism was at its peak about a decade ago, whereas the Truss witch hunt is still very much ongoing. Rightly or wrongly (and I would argue wrongly, obviously) she has become one of the most reviled politicians in history. Jeremy has almost become a post-hate John Major type figure now.
2. Hunt's seat has a large number of genuine Lib Dem supporters, but relatively few tactical, rent-a-vote pondlife switchers, making it less volatile. Dare I say it, it probably has more voters who take an intellectual and considered approach to voting than most places...
3. Norfolk SW was always likely to have a far higher Reform vote, allowing the seat to be taken on a stupidly low share. (And conflating Reform supporters with Trussites because both are 'right wing' is to completely misunderstand either).
I never thought Truss as an individual was cut out to be PM, and I don't think she's particularly astute, clever or streetwise. However, her values and principles are fairly closely aligned with mine and in a world where people like me usually feel politically homeless, that matters.
What really, really sucks donkey dick is that her brief Premiership has set back 'Trussism' by decades, without ever putting the ideology to practical scrutiny, let alone delivering any of its benefits. And what is worse, she will be remembered and blamed not for what she did, but for what those reacting to what she might do, did.
Regardless, I don't think considering Hunt and Truss as two opposite extremes is an accurate analysis. In many ways I'd put them in the same wing of the party. Modernisers, socially liberal, did their best work under Cameron.
Wait:
What was Truss-ism?
I ask because I know and like Kwasi. What was the burning intellectual passion that was Truss-ism?
From where I was standing it seemed like - if it was anything - it was a return to the 1960s where you got the economy moving by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Albeit, I suspect she wouldn't like it described that way.
If you think 'she wouldn't like it that way', it indicates that you know what she would say, so why ask us?
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
One wonders what might have happened had the BoE blinked first during the LDI crisis and Truss had stuck with Kwarteng and his tax cuts.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
Sex scandals don't do that these days. They have injunctions.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
An interesting take.
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
It's not a subject I feel fully qualified to weigh in on (not that I let that stop me) as it relates to the BoE specifically, though I think it's always a fair question to ask if the change has achieved its aims and been a success, but sometimes it does feel as though there is a default assumption that taking things out of the hands of politicians is a good move. Much as I deride them along with everyone else I don't think that is going to always be the case.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Conversely, every miscarriage of justice case in the UK is a conspiracy theory until it isn't. Ho ho, are you seriously claiming that the most scrupulously just criminal law courts in the world, assisted by incredibly talented barristers and clever expert witnesses, and with multiple layers of appeal to judges of ever increasing learnedness, wrongly convicted Christie and the Birmingham six and Hallam and Nealon and Malkinson and nearly 1,000 subpostmasters? And a thousand others you can Google for yourself? I mean between their conviction and their exoneration, how does the theory that they are innocent not count as a conspiracy theory?
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
@bondegezou is just not very clever; probably an IQ around 110-115, at best
So many of the issues that Britain faces come down to this. Not particularly bright people getting jobs that ideally should be done by people considerably smarter
This applies to the police to the courts to politicians to civil servants to journalists to everyone. Simply put, they’re quite thick
They are not capable of even grasping difficult or nuanced concepts - indeed they don’t even recognise them for what they are - so they rely on their feelz
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
The far right in 1942 Germany had a LOT of machine guns. Trust me on this.
We’re not talking about 1942. It’s a spurious comparison.
This is Farage's second significant misstep in a couple of months, after that interview about Ukraine.
Bad luck, or what happens when you listen to him for more than a soundbite?
Much as I disliked his comments about Ukraine was it provably a misstep? I mean, he had a pretty good result after it, if not as high as the most optimistic projections.
This is Farage's second significant misstep in a couple of months, after that interview about Ukraine.
Bad luck, or what happens when you listen to him for more than a soundbite?
Much as I disliked his comments about Ukraine was it provably a misstep? I mean, he had a pretty good result after it, if not as high as the most optimistic projections.
It put me off voting reform and in the end I went starmer just because. I already regret it
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Quite a few of those are double layered conspiracy theories though aren’t they. Concocted nonsense to muddy the waters by the self same types of people as those behind real conspiracies as MK Uktra
I am not aware of any evidence that any of those are concocted "to muddy the waters". That's just another bollocks conspiracy theory!
And there's my point made for me. Why put in the hard work of examining the evidence about anything when you can just meta up with a claim about conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.
You really need to condescend to particulars. For any given miscarriage of justice case you have to explain why an X is innocent claim was not a conspiracy theory (until the conviction was overturned). If you don't claim that you are committed to admitting that conspiracy theories are true as often as they are false, and so, again we are back to testing theories for truth or falsity rather than for what type of theory they are.
Tonight, Downing Street lights up pink as a mark of respect and solidarity with everyone affected by the tragic incidents which took place earlier this week.
We're going to see so much of this performative politics over the next 5 years aren't we....
Whilst the underlying issues facing the country are going to be ignored. Again.
What is the betting they'll go all in on stoking house prices when they realise their client vote won't be satisfied, no matter how big the pay rises are....
They can multi-task. I like these sorts of performative politics which show a slightly gentler side. I'm really hoping all the ugliness of the last Tory government with their Rwanda policies which has ultimately lead to these attacks on immigrants can be put away once and for all.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick Very sad news. The brilliant BBC lawyer Roger Law has died. So many BBC producers & reporters will be eternally grateful to Roger for getting their films on air over last four decades. He was a legendary figure, perhaps the best-ever lawyer in history of broadcast journalism.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 1h Roger would grill you at length over your story, to extent you worried it would never get on air, but once convinced the story was right, would do all he could to get it on air. He was brilliant at rewording script so they were no longer defamatory but said the same thing.
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
The far right in 1942 Germany had a LOT of machine guns. Trust me on this.
We’re not talking about 1942. It’s a spurious comparison.
I was talking about 1942.
Do you really think that there were not prosperous Jews having a coffee on unter den linden in 1932 thinking How bad can it really get?
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Quite a few of those are double layered conspiracy theories though aren’t they. Concocted nonsense to muddy the waters by the self same types of people as those behind real conspiracies as MK Uktra
I am not aware of any evidence that any of those are concocted "to muddy the waters". That's just another bollocks conspiracy theory!
And there's my point made for me. Why put in the hard work of examining the evidence about anything when you can just meta up with a claim about conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.
You really need to condescend to particulars. For any given miscarriage of justice case you have to explain why an X is innocent claim was not a conspiracy theory (until the conviction was overturned). If you don't claim that you are committed to admitting that conspiracy theories are true as often as they are false, and so, again we are back to testing theories for truth or falsity rather than for what type of theory they are.
You’re talking in generalities, so I’m talking in generalities. If there’s a specific thing I’ve called a conspiracy theory where you feel I’ve failed to adequately test truth or falsity, let me know.
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
The far right in 1942 Germany had a LOT of machine guns. Trust me on this.
We’re not talking about 1942. It’s a spurious comparison.
I was talking about 1942.
Do you really think that there were not prosperous Jews having a coffee on unter den linden in 1932 thinking How bad can it really get?
We are not Weimar Germany. If you want to chat about risible comparisons, find another interlocutor.
Nick Lowles @lowles_nick · 12m For those who say these aren’t far right protests, well, in Sunderland they shouted racist slogans, they attacked an Uber driver’s car because of his colour and they attempted to march on the mosque, only stopped by riot police. Pretty conclusive evidence if you ask me
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 15m Apart from anything it's incredibly bad politics for Farage and his adviser Goodwin to associate their brand with rioting thugs.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Conversely, every miscarriage of justice case in the UK is a conspiracy theory until it isn't. Ho ho, are you seriously claiming that the most scrupulously just criminal law courts in the world, assisted by incredibly talented barristers and clever expert witnesses, and with multiple layers of appeal to judges of ever increasing learnedness, wrongly convicted Christie and the Birmingham six and Hallam and Nealon and Malkinson and nearly 1,000 subpostmasters? And a thousand others you can Google for yourself? I mean between their conviction and their exoneration, how does the theory that they are innocent not count as a conspiracy theory?
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
The problem with that is that the people who love to spread conspiracy theories can generate theories really quite profusely, much more easily than a random person can do investigations of the evidence for each one. So the "lazy get out" (or "practical way to avoid wasting too much time on rubbish") is important. For instance, a random theory off social media is not likely worth my time to think about; a suggestion of a miscarriage of justice raised by Private Eye or Computer Weekly is at minimum best not dismissed out of hand. And a theory which requires a massive conspiracy among many people in prominent positions is unlikely to be true.
Nick Lowles @lowles_nick · 12m For those who say these aren’t far right protests, well, in Sunderland they shouted racist slogans, they attacked an Uber driver’s car because of his colour and they attempted to march on the mosque, only stopped by riot police. Pretty conclusive evidence if you ask me
If it quacks like a Nazi…..
These people are not being heard says one Nigel Farage, who is only off the BBC long enough to take time to be on GB News.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 15m Apart from anything it's incredibly bad politics for Farage and his adviser Goodwin to associate their brand with rioting thugs.
When you lurch to the right, you have to know when to pull up, if that's not a mixed metaphor...
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Quite a few of those are double layered conspiracy theories though aren’t they. Concocted nonsense to muddy the waters by the self same types of people as those behind real conspiracies as MK Uktra
I am not aware of any evidence that any of those are concocted "to muddy the waters". That's just another bollocks conspiracy theory!
And there's my point made for me. Why put in the hard work of examining the evidence about anything when you can just meta up with a claim about conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.
You really need to condescend to particulars. For any given miscarriage of justice case you have to explain why an X is innocent claim was not a conspiracy theory (until the conviction was overturned). If you don't claim that you are committed to admitting that conspiracy theories are true as often as they are false, and so, again we are back to testing theories for truth or falsity rather than for what type of theory they are.
You’re talking in generalities, so I’m talking in generalities. If there’s a specific thing I’ve called a conspiracy theory where you feel I’ve failed to adequately test truth or falsity, let me know.
No I am not. I don't recognize a class of theory called conspiracy theory. You do. My understanding of your view entails you thinking that The Birmingham Six are Innocent was a conspiracy theory between 1975 and 1991 because it was just a bare claim, with all the judicial and expert evidence in the world against it. What is your answer?
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Conversely, every miscarriage of justice case in the UK is a conspiracy theory until it isn't. Ho ho, are you seriously claiming that the most scrupulously just criminal law courts in the world, assisted by incredibly talented barristers and clever expert witnesses, and with multiple layers of appeal to judges of ever increasing learnedness, wrongly convicted Christie and the Birmingham six and Hallam and Nealon and Malkinson and nearly 1,000 subpostmasters? And a thousand others you can Google for yourself? I mean between their conviction and their exoneration, how does the theory that they are innocent not count as a conspiracy theory?
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
The problem with that is that the people who love to spread conspiracy theories can generate theories really quite profusely, much more easily than a random person can do investigations of the evidence for each one. So the "lazy get out" (or "practical way to avoid wasting too much time on rubbish") is important. For instance, a random theory off social media is not likely worth my time to think about; a suggestion of a miscarriage of justice raised by Private Eye or Computer Weekly is at minimum best not dismissed out of hand. And a theory which requires a massive conspiracy among many people in prominent positions is unlikely to be true.
The post office fuckup falsifies your final sentence so conclusively that it's hard to imagine how you managed to type it.
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Quite a few of those are double layered conspiracy theories though aren’t they. Concocted nonsense to muddy the waters by the self same types of people as those behind real conspiracies as MK Uktra
I am not aware of any evidence that any of those are concocted "to muddy the waters". That's just another bollocks conspiracy theory!
And there's my point made for me. Why put in the hard work of examining the evidence about anything when you can just meta up with a claim about conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.
You really need to condescend to particulars. For any given miscarriage of justice case you have to explain why an X is innocent claim was not a conspiracy theory (until the conviction was overturned). If you don't claim that you are committed to admitting that conspiracy theories are true as often as they are false, and so, again we are back to testing theories for truth or falsity rather than for what type of theory they are.
You’re talking in generalities, so I’m talking in generalities. If there’s a specific thing I’ve called a conspiracy theory where you feel I’ve failed to adequately test truth or falsity, let me know.
No I am not. I don't recognize a class of theory called conspiracy theory. You do. My understanding of your view entails you thinking that The Birmingham Six are Innocent was a conspiracy theory between 1975 and 1991 because it was just a bare claim, with all the judicial and expert evidence in the world against it. What is your answer?
My answer is that you don’t understand my view and you’ve constructed a bizarre straw man argument that has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever said.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 15m Apart from anything it's incredibly bad politics for Farage and his adviser Goodwin to associate their brand with rioting thugs.
When you lurch to the right, you have to know when to pull up, if that's not a mixed metaphor...
Trouble is that the cliff edge to the right has no fence and no sign. (I'm not sure, but I suspect that the issue on the left is similar, but not quite so bad. It's easier for someone like Orwell to say "this wasn't the point...")
1.25 so bettingwise a big surprise now if it's not Shapiro.
I'm truely confused about that twitter video. The 1.25 thing has happened earlier so isn't a big deal. And now we're on 1.36-1.39.
But otoh that video is basically Shapiro being a done deal. And yeah it's Philly so they should support him. But the way it's written... why aren't we at 1.1 or why isn't that tweet deleted? Can someone with a bigger brain than me explain please?
Interesting that one factor identified is different agencies being on their own radio networks. This issue of inter-agency communication (and the lack of it) has also been a factor in this country, for instance the Ariana Grande concert bombing.
I just don’t buy this. Not only was the shooter the only 20 year old in America with literally zero internet presence - and no motivation? - but it turns out his home is as “clean as a lab”. Not a speck of evidence either way or anything. A 20 year old guy with a home as “clean as a lab”?
The whole thing is exceptionally suspicious
And, for clarity, I’ve no idea who recruited him or why or how or anything, but I feel pretty sure this is not the whole story
Its fairly obvious who recruited him. He was described as dangerously inaccurate by his schook rifle club. The only people likely to recruit him is the people being shot at.
They recruited him because they knew his shooting was so poor the best he could do was hit Trump's ear?
The TDS explanation for the shooting is the most deranged thing I’ve ever heard. And I have heard otherwise intelligent people espouse it irl. ThT Trump staged a shooting by a loser kid, to just miss his head, in order to win sympathy votes. I mean really. I wouldn’t trust that Turkish Olympic gangsta shooter to just graze my ear from 150m, yet alone some incel kid thrown out his high school shooting team.
Unlike you to snub a ludicrous conspiracy theory. It'll be confused and a little hurt.
You should look up the origin of the phrase “conspiracy theory”. It might be informative for how you assess the information you’re presented.
Yes happy to do that. I like my assessment technique but there's always room for betterment.
“Conspiracy theory” is essentially a catch all term to discredit any narrative that is inconvenient if believed more widely. We’ve seen a number of “conspiracy theories” eventually validated over the years. There tends to be a common denominator that it’s US 3 letter agencies that end up looking bad.
And we've seen far, far more convincingly disproved: pizzagate, every aspect of QAnon, COVID-19 vaccine dangers, flat Earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2004 Madrid train bombings being false flag operations, ditto the Las Vegas shooting, 9/11 being an inside job or Jews have warning of it, Obama not being born in the US, Michelle Obama being a man, the Trump assassination attempt being the Dems, the Southport knife attacker being a Muslim immigrant, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Conversely, every miscarriage of justice case in the UK is a conspiracy theory until it isn't. Ho ho, are you seriously claiming that the most scrupulously just criminal law courts in the world, assisted by incredibly talented barristers and clever expert witnesses, and with multiple layers of appeal to judges of ever increasing learnedness, wrongly convicted Christie and the Birmingham six and Hallam and Nealon and Malkinson and nearly 1,000 subpostmasters? And a thousand others you can Google for yourself? I mean between their conviction and their exoneration, how does the theory that they are innocent not count as a conspiracy theory?
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
The problem with that is that the people who love to spread conspiracy theories can generate theories really quite profusely, much more easily than a random person can do investigations of the evidence for each one. So the "lazy get out" (or "practical way to avoid wasting too much time on rubbish") is important. For instance, a random theory off social media is not likely worth my time to think about; a suggestion of a miscarriage of justice raised by Private Eye or Computer Weekly is at minimum best not dismissed out of hand. And a theory which requires a massive conspiracy among many people in prominent positions is unlikely to be true.
The post office fuckup falsifies your final sentence so conclusively that it's hard to imagine how you managed to type it.
Thing that no-one here ever called a conspiracy theory turns out not to be a conspiracy theory. What does that prove?
Liam Thorp @LiamThorpECHO · 43m This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
Yes that's lovely, but consider this: ordinary local Germans when they worked out what the Auschwitz bound trains were up to, came down to them while they were halted at lights or whatever with food and water for the passengers. Then the far right pointed out that they would be machine gunned to death if they didn't stop. Hate won. They stopped. This Ordinary 71 year old Pat FTW stuff is awfully nice. It's also complacent and wrong, and someone who claims to be a political journalist shouldn't be selling it.
The far right have machine guns ? That’s the US, mate.
The far right in 1942 Germany had a LOT of machine guns. Trust me on this.
We’re not talking about 1942. It’s a spurious comparison.
I was talking about 1942.
Do you really think that there were not prosperous Jews having a coffee on unter den linden in 1932 thinking How bad can it really get?
We are not Weimar Germany. If you want to chat about risible comparisons, find another interlocutor.
I don't think German Jews in 1932 were thinking omg we are the Weimar republic and we all know what happens next.
Have you never studied any history at all? Without looking it up give us your best guess as to the number of 100,000 plus victim genocides of the 20th century? And then your estimate of how many victims of those genocides thought, say 5 years before their death, that talk of genocide was "risible"?
Comments
However as you responded, there was a distinct lack of riot gear etc at the Harehill riots and the BLM protests during lockdown when gatherings were banned and police took the knee to protestors.
City centre one on a Friday night when a known protest gathering is happening?
That's a cut too far.
It reported what it is allowed to under the law around media reporting and courts and charging.
A long established system for justice.
You are flint knapper.
You should know this.
We're more civilised here in the North.
As for Kwasi, he may have been likable, but as a right hand man, he was a disaster. Maggie had Airey Neave, Willy Whitelaw, Norman Tebbit making things happen for her. Liz Truss had Kwasi. Like a 12 boar shotgun to the foot.
She should actually have appointed Hunt from the beginning and tied him into her agenda. He said in his ill-fated leadership bit that he wanted CT to fall to 15%, so take him at his word.
Of course the Finland Rumour says her premiership had a very limited shelf life no matter what. But putting that to one side, would Gilts really be trading to much of a discount to today? Would she really have yielded a majority this huge to Starmer?
GOP 1.88
Dem 2.18
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.178176964
Liam Thorp
@LiamThorpECHO
·
43m
This evening the far-right tried to target a mosque in Liverpool but were completely outnumbered by ordinary local people who won’t let hate win
71-year-old Pat was leading the charge
https://x.com/LiamThorpECHO/status/1819473555362291771
Bad luck, or what happens when you listen to him for more than a soundbite?
We stand in solidarity with Southport.
Tonight, Downing Street lights up pink as a mark of respect and solidarity with everyone affected by the tragic incidents which took place earlier this week.
Kwasi left to go to America when all this was kicking off, instead of sticking around to defend his budget. That was a severe misjudgement and Truss says she thinks it was wrong for him to go - as clear an indication as there could be that she asked him not to go and he went anyway.
What they could have done, is massively exposed the LDI thing and the Bank of England's misdeeds from the Number 10 pulpit, announced all sorts of enquiries, refuted the OBR leak, and faced the Bank down. Their main aim would have been to force the Bank into saying that it would support by buying bonds as long as the instability lasted - not with an end date that created a cliff edge. That sort of communications assault couldn't be done with Kwasi in America and Truss like a rabbit in the headlights. I don't even know who they had handling the press.
Got any more tough questions for me ?
I don’t expect to get much of a hearing here for this view but I think independence for the Bank of England has been one of the gravest policy failures of the last 50 years. Certainly the two term limit for MPC members is silly but the narrowness of their mandate makes me shudder, and the recent record of the BOE/FCA/FSA in regulating is something else entirely.
Isn’t it quite nice this time if year ?
"According to the Scarman report, the riots were a spontaneous outburst of built-up resentment sparked by particular incidents. Lord Scarman stated that "complex political, social and economic factors" created a "disposition towards violent protest". The Scarman report highlighted problems of racial disadvantage and inner city decline, warning that "urgent action" was needed to prevent racial disadvantage becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarman_Report#Findings_and_recommendations
Quite a challenging range of skills there.
Brilliant.
@YvetteCooperMP
Criminals attacking the police & stoking disorder on our streets will pay the price for their violence & thuggery.
The police have the full backing of Government to take the strongest possible action & ensure they face the full force of the law.
They do not represent Britain.
10:12 PM · Aug 2, 2024"
https://x.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1819481345405358209
Christ SKS gets quick results.
That’s the US, mate.
@darrengrimes_
The anger was already there.
The petrol had long been poured.
The match was lit this week.
I cannot stand it.
The folk of Sunderland are good people, with pride in people and place.
They deserve better than this, we all deserve better than this.
Would love to see the older and younger Grimes have a chat.
Helpful hint: the best way of deciding whether a theory is true or not, is to examine the evidence for and against it. Popping up a level and saying This is a type X theory and type X theories tend to be T or F is a lazy get out. Especially so when X is ill defined and can often be a cover for Theories I happen to think are T or F and I want a nice blanket put down of.
On a related note, Simon Case wrote to Liz Truss stating that unless she reversed the CT-rise cancellation, the Government wouldn't be able to fund it's debt. Just that. Not only was the CT rise not a big earner even on paper, the dynamic effects of raising it were always going to limit the revenue raised. So why insist on that one? I suggest, the US mission to drive up other nations' CT was the primary reason, and having achieved it they weren't prepared to let it go.
I met victor one of the world’s most famous mixologists. Hilarious guy. Told me he once walked into his bar in st tropez to find leonardo di caprio at a big table of people asking him if he could make the worlds “finest” dry gin martini
Victor obliged and leo was very happy
Tiny detail: the table consisted of leonardo Di caprio and TWENTY FOUR beautiful young women. No other men
I mean, chapeau. That is Ottoman sultan levels of sexual excess but one still has to acknowledge the achievement
..
Oh, wait.
** I'm being sarcastic - for fear of spending the next 20 pages defending my feeble joke.
Whilst the underlying issues facing the country are going to be ignored. Again.
What is the betting they'll go all in on stoking house prices when they realise their client vote won't be satisfied, no matter how big the pay rises are....
Having written a blank cheque for something more than the cost of a major war it really wasn’t the time to be cutting revenues.
I find the echoes between Truss and Reeves a bit troubling. Both want rapid growth to overcome the fiscal straight jacket we are in but both seem to devise policies that make it even less likely.
Ref ahead of Con and Lab in the low 30s is my guess.
Helpful hint: when you see people dismissing something as a conspiracy theory, it's generally because they have examined the evidence for and against it, and there's no evidence whatsoever for.
A very strange sort of Patriot that sides with our enemy in an existential war.
So many of the issues that Britain faces come down to this. Not particularly bright people getting jobs that ideally should be done by people considerably smarter
This applies to the police to the courts to politicians to civil servants to journalists to everyone. Simply put, they’re quite thick
They are not capable of even grasping difficult or nuanced concepts - indeed they don’t even recognise them for what they are - so they rely on their feelz
It’s a spurious comparison.
So yes, a misstep at least for me
You really need to condescend to particulars. For any given miscarriage of justice case you have to explain why an X is innocent claim was not a conspiracy theory (until the conviction was overturned). If you don't claim that you are committed to admitting that conspiracy theories are true as often as they are false, and so, again we are back to testing theories for truth or falsity rather than for what type of theory they are.
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
Very sad news. The brilliant BBC lawyer Roger Law has died. So many BBC producers & reporters will be eternally grateful to Roger for getting their films on air over last four decades. He was a legendary figure, perhaps the best-ever lawyer in history of broadcast journalism.
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
·
1h
Roger would grill you at length over your story, to extent you worried it would never get on air, but once convinced the story was right, would do all he could to get it on air. He was brilliant at rewording script so they were no longer defamatory but said the same thing.
Do you really think that there were not prosperous Jews having a coffee on unter den linden in 1932 thinking How bad can it really get?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_eNL0eCWmk
Chilly - For You Love (HD)
Really quite fabulous.
If you want to chat about risible comparisons, find another interlocutor.
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
15m
Apart from anything it's incredibly bad politics for Farage and his adviser Goodwin to associate their brand with rioting thugs.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Kamala_Harris
And tapdancing near a precipice is such fun...
But otoh that video is basically Shapiro being a done deal. And yeah it's Philly so they should support him. But the way it's written... why aren't we at 1.1 or why isn't that tweet deleted? Can someone with a bigger brain than me explain please?
Here's a somewhat suspicious story about it.
Have you never studied any history at all? Without looking it up give us your best guess as to the number of 100,000 plus victim genocides of the 20th century? And then your estimate of how many victims of those genocides thought, say 5 years before their death, that talk of genocide was "risible"?
Go ahead.