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.
That was a relatively small set of people who behaved terribly and then successfully covered up a lot of the detail from other people who were mostly happy not to dig in much further (but not, note, from investigative journalism), in my opinion. Also, note the "unlikely" -- it's not a blanket statement, it's a rule of thumb about what's worth giving attention to.
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.
That was a relatively small set of people who behaved terribly and then successfully covered up a lot of the detail from other people who were mostly happy not to dig in much further (but not, note, from investigative journalism), in my opinion. Also, note the "unlikely" -- it's not a blanket statement, it's a rule of thumb about what's worth giving attention to.
Ah but they are experts. How dare anyone who isn't an expert dispute their findings.
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?
No. You are losing the argument very badly. The (obvious) question is: without a retrospective oracle, how does your definition of conspiracy theory not identify the theory that the spm were innocent, in say 2012, as a conspiracy theory? Because if it cannot convincingly identify it as not a CT, it's worthless. How hard is 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.
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?
No. You are losing the argument very badly. The (obvious) question is: without a retrospective oracle, how does your definition of conspiracy theory not identify the theory that the spm were innocent, in say 2012, as a conspiracy theory? Because if it cannot convincingly identify it as not a CT, it's worthless. How hard is this?
What definition of conspiracy theory do you think I’ve given?
Why do all your examples of conspiracy theories being true involve things that no-one called conspiracy theories?
Why do you not engage with the long list of things that people HAVE called conspiracy theories that have been proven to be nonsense?
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?
I like the Wikipedia definition: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". To believe that the Birmingham Six were fitted up by part of the West Midlands Police because they reckoned they were guilty and beat confessions out of them is not a belief that powerful and sinister political groups are acting behind the scenes in a coordinated way. And it was a reasonable belief to hold since at least 1985 when World in Action did the investigative journalism and a TV programme on it, if not before.
Isn't the NY Post a Murdoch vehicle? A bit like the print edition of Fox News. Next.
Got the identity of the Olympic Park bomber wrong, got sued, had to settle. Got the Boston Marathon bomber wrong, got sued, had to settle. Compared Obama to a chimpanzee in a cartoon. And this from Wikipedia is wild ride...
In April 2021, the Post published a false front-page story asserting that copies of a book by vice president Kamala Harris were being distributed to migrant children at an intake facility in Long Beach, California.[134] Fox News then published a story about the matter, followed by numerous Republican politicians and pundits commenting on it, in some cases speculating that taxpayers were funding the supposed book handouts for Harris's personal profit.[134][135] Responding to questions from Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki expressed no knowledge of the matter; the Post then published a new story headlined "Psaki has no answers when asked about Harris' book being given to child migrants."[136] Four days after the original publication, the Post replaced the story with a new version clarifying that just one Harris book had been donated by a community member but maintained that it was an "open-arms gesture by the Biden administration," though there was no evidence of the administration's involvement.[136] Laura Italiano, the author of the story, resigned that day, asserting she had been "ordered" to write it.[57][136]
Against that, Google “sage Kelly New York post” and you will find a true scandalous story that no one else was willing to write
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
He may well win, but he is not value to back so while I'm not sure if I've made a value lay* at worst I've made a neutral bet in economic terms but that doesn't take into account the immense pleasure I will get in being able to say - for evermore - not only was I around to seem him lose and cry but I made money out of it too. Whereas if he wins, I have yet more reason to hate him. And I can recoop my losses by just laying him on everything else until he's chucked out of the Tory party after defeat in the next election. And if he somehow won that I can lay him in future elections. For ever increasing sums but eventually people will understand he's a bastard. That gives me a life edge. Really I should be putting everything into this rather than just my current reasonably small risk of £106.80 (or a bit over £200 including the asterixed backs, so far).
(My lay is also onside now btw, albeit it's just noise).
*Am happy that my backs of Cleverly at avg price at 9.91 and Stride at 40.57 are value tho. And actually I do think my lay of 2.78 is value too, but I have rushed into a bit cause of hate.
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.
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?
I like the Wikipedia definition: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". To believe that the Birmingham Six were fitted up by part of the West Midlands Police because they reckoned they were guilty and beat confessions out of them is not a belief that powerful and sinister political groups are acting behind the scenes in a coordinated way. And it was a reasonable belief to hold since at least 1985 when World in Action did the investigative journalism and a TV programme on it, if not before.
So the definition you prefer doesn't apply to anyone of junior rank; it's fine to accuse them of conspiring, but theories about really powerful people, are, by definition, 'conspiracy theories' and should be dismissed and derided as such. Sounds fab.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
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?
No. You are losing the argument very badly. The (obvious) question is: without a retrospective oracle, how does your definition of conspiracy theory not identify the theory that the spm were innocent, in say 2012, as a conspiracy theory? Because if it cannot convincingly identify it as not a CT, it's worthless. How hard is this?
What definition of conspiracy theory do you think I’ve given?
Why do all your examples of conspiracy theories being true involve things that no-one called conspiracy theories?
Why do you not engage with the long list of things that people HAVE called conspiracy theories that have been proven to be nonsense?
You're getting the burden of proof wrong. I don't find conspiracy theory a useful concept, so I have nothing to prove about it. You claim that it is a real thing with predictive power. As far as I can see "Andrew Malkinson is innocent" satisfies your definition of a conspiracy theory (it entails multiple failings at many levels of different parts of The Establishment, and coverups of those failings) so when it turns out to be true, and it also turns out to be true in the case of high hundreds of postmasters, we see that "conspiracy theory therefore false" is not a valid induction. So to rescue your claim you need to provide a no benefit of hindsight explanation as to how The sub postmasters are innocent differs from what you call a conspiracy theory. Either that or you think they are really all guilty anyway. Which itself is now a conspiracy theory, which itself neatly illustrates the pointlessnes of arguing about conspiracy theories.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
If by "theme" you mean the bit of music over the credits, then my fave is Goldeneye, although I have good things to say about Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, View To A Kill, and Spyfall.
If you mean "pieces of music in the soundtrack", then "Bond77" from TSWLM is probably the best, but some of the bits from Moonraker, YOLT, and Goldeneye are also good
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
So yes, a misstep at least for me
I'll say it was a misstep for you.
Are you suggesting he should have voted Sunak being as Truss was no longer available?
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
If by "theme" you mean the bit of music over the credits, then my fave is Goldeneye, although I have good things to say about Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, View To A Kill, and Spyfall.
If you mean "pieces of music in the soundtrack", then "Bond77" from TSWLM is probably the best, but some of the bits from Moonraker, YOLT, and Goldeneye are also good
The OHMSS theme, like the movie, is ahead for me. Second place to Live and Let Die, the fast bit only.
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.
The thing you have to realise is that they are racist twats. They will obviously vehemently deny this while posting about how scary muslims are.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
You Only Live Twice, A View To A Kill, and The Living Daylights.
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?
I like the Wikipedia definition: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". To believe that the Birmingham Six were fitted up by part of the West Midlands Police because they reckoned they were guilty and beat confessions out of them is not a belief that powerful and sinister political groups are acting behind the scenes in a coordinated way. And it was a reasonable belief to hold since at least 1985 when World in Action did the investigative journalism and a TV programme on it, if not before.
So the definition you prefer doesn't apply to anyone of junior rank; it's fine to accuse them of conspiring, but theories about really powerful people, are, by definition, 'conspiracy theories' and should be dismissed and derided as such. Sounds fab.
"I love rumours! Facts can be so misleading, where rumours, true or false, are often revealing."
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
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?
No. You are losing the argument very badly. The (obvious) question is: without a retrospective oracle, how does your definition of conspiracy theory not identify the theory that the spm were innocent, in say 2012, as a conspiracy theory? Because if it cannot convincingly identify it as not a CT, it's worthless. How hard is this?
What definition of conspiracy theory do you think I’ve given?
Why do all your examples of conspiracy theories being true involve things that no-one called conspiracy theories?
Why do you not engage with the long list of things that people HAVE called conspiracy theories that have been proven to be nonsense?
You're getting the burden of proof wrong. I don't find conspiracy theory a useful concept, so I have nothing to prove about it. You claim that it is a real thing with predictive power. As far as I can see "Andrew Malkinson is innocent" satisfies your definition of a conspiracy theory (it entails multiple failings at many levels of different parts of The Establishment, and coverups of those failings) so when it turns out to be true, and it also turns out to be true in the case of high hundreds of postmasters, we see that "conspiracy theory therefore false" is not a valid induction. So to rescue your claim you need to provide a no benefit of hindsight explanation as to how The sub postmasters are innocent differs from what you call a conspiracy theory. Either that or you think they are really all guilty anyway. Which itself is now a conspiracy theory, which itself neatly illustrates the pointlessnes of arguing about conspiracy theories.
I must really go to sleep now.
A good thing to check for is - does the theory assume
1) infinite competence from those taking part? 2) barely-able-to-tie-shoelaces level incompetence
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?
I like the Wikipedia definition: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". To believe that the Birmingham Six were fitted up by part of the West Midlands Police because they reckoned they were guilty and beat confessions out of them is not a belief that powerful and sinister political groups are acting behind the scenes in a coordinated way. And it was a reasonable belief to hold since at least 1985 when World in Action did the investigative journalism and a TV programme on it, if not before.
...and after the discovery that the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad was very well named. They were committing a large percentage of the serious crimes in the West Midlands.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
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?
No. You are losing the argument very badly. The (obvious) question is: without a retrospective oracle, how does your definition of conspiracy theory not identify the theory that the spm were innocent, in say 2012, as a conspiracy theory? Because if it cannot convincingly identify it as not a CT, it's worthless. How hard is this?
What definition of conspiracy theory do you think I’ve given?
Why do all your examples of conspiracy theories being true involve things that no-one called conspiracy theories?
Why do you not engage with the long list of things that people HAVE called conspiracy theories that have been proven to be nonsense?
You're getting the burden of proof wrong. I don't find conspiracy theory a useful concept, so I have nothing to prove about it. You claim that it is a real thing with predictive power. As far as I can see "Andrew Malkinson is innocent" satisfies your definition of a conspiracy theory (it entails multiple failings at many levels of different parts of The Establishment, and coverups of those failings) so when it turns out to be true, and it also turns out to be true in the case of high hundreds of postmasters, we see that "conspiracy theory therefore false" is not a valid induction. So to rescue your claim you need to provide a no benefit of hindsight explanation as to how The sub postmasters are innocent differs from what you call a conspiracy theory. Either that or you think they are really all guilty anyway. Which itself is now a conspiracy theory, which itself neatly illustrates the pointlessnes of arguing about conspiracy theories.
I must really go to sleep now.
A good thing to check for is - does the theory assume
1) infinite competence from those taking part? 2) barely-able-to-tie-shoelaces level incompetence
If it's the former, its a conspiracy theory
Yes, 'conspiracy theory' is, somewhat unhelpfully, usually used as a shorthand for a particular type of very implausible conspiracy. One necessitating a belief in supreme conpetence in the evil actor but inability to conceal the evil act from very straightforward observation, and often involving flamboyant and theatrical explanations for mundane happenings to expand the nature of the supposed conspiracy to grandiose levels.
It is not typically used to mean there is no such thing as a conspiracy in general, and I do not believe sensible people do not know that perfectly well, and the existence of such does not invalidate the mockery reserved for the wildly implausible attention seeking conspiracy claims.
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
Utterly disgraceful that so many homes were blocked. How many people in London can't find a home and here is homes being blocked due to the scale they'd be built at? Sickening!
Jenrick approving it did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. All such applications should be approved.
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?
I like the Wikipedia definition: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". To believe that the Birmingham Six were fitted up by part of the West Midlands Police because they reckoned they were guilty and beat confessions out of them is not a belief that powerful and sinister political groups are acting behind the scenes in a coordinated way. And it was a reasonable belief to hold since at least 1985 when World in Action did the investigative journalism and a TV programme on it, if not before.
...and after the discovery that the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad was very well named. They were committing a large percentage of the serious crimes in the West Midlands.
People who have to deal with others often come to believe they could do a much better job than those complaining about or seeking to overcome them in achieving that goal. For example after listening to so many crap reasons to object to planning applications, I feel confident I would be much better at coming up with good ones. So I am sure the Serious Crime Squad were simply feeling they could do a much better job at being criminals than the regular lot.
So the conversation about conspiracy theories set me googling (actually kagi.com -ing since google doesn't work any more) conspiracy theories that turned out to be true which took me to The Business Plot that I never knew about before. Then in turn I discovered that wikipedia has a List of coups and coup attempts which is the most incredible reading.
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
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
I bet none of them was over 24 either.
Surely everyone's over 24 by now?
Kiefer Sutherland was great in it, but it was getting quite absurd. Plus its been off the air for over a decade now.
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.
Has it been proved that the post office was a conspiracy?
Rather than a lot of weak people who were in positions above their capabilities doing what was easiest and most convenient for them personally?
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
Utterly disgraceful that so many homes were blocked. How many people in London can't find a home and here is homes being blocked due to the scale they'd be built at? Sickening!
Jenrick approving it did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. All such applications should be approved.
This is not the time for your hobby horse
A candidate for a senior position in public life behaved in a manner that should disbar him for all time. That matters.
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
Utterly disgraceful that so many homes were blocked. How many people in London can't find a home and here is homes being blocked due to the scale they'd be built at? Sickening!
Jenrick approving it did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. All such applications should be approved.
This is not the time for your hobby horse
A candidate for a senior position in public life behaved in a manner that should disbar him for all time. That matters.
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
Utterly disgraceful that so many homes were blocked. How many people in London can't find a home and here is homes being blocked due to the scale they'd be built at? Sickening!
Jenrick approving it did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. All such applications should be approved.
This is not the time for your hobby horse
A candidate for a senior position in public life behaved in a manner that should disbar him for all time. That matters.
People don't have homes.
That matters.
Of course it does. But you spam every fucking thread with your simplistic and facile screed of ill-digested bullshit.
Corruption in public office is way too important to be smothered in more of the same crap
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
I bet none of them was over 24 either.
Hope not. It's amusing that Leo gets so much shit for sleeping with young women (who are not even vaguely "barely legal" or worse - they're just young). That's jackpot basically. If, god forbid, my wife died I would very much like to be a dirty old man, although I think I can rule it out as a realistic possibility. Or at least being a succesfull one. I think best I could achieve is lech. That seems unappealing so I'd probably just stay chaste. Get a hobby. Remote control aircraft looks pretty fun.
Ignoring me though, I do wonder if Leo has two or three penises. It would explain a lot. The stamina! And that baby face probably means he isn't high testosterone. Mysteries of life.
Sod it, I've laid Jenrick. I'll lay more if price decreases but we seem to be at a bit of an inflection point and I hate him so much.
Based on his launch today Jenrick looked more credible than Ed Miliband and Hague were when they took over leadership of their parties after they lost power. He also speaks more fluently than Starmer does
Just to remind you about the person you are enthusiastically supporting
Utterly disgraceful that so many homes were blocked. How many people in London can't find a home and here is homes being blocked due to the scale they'd be built at? Sickening!
Jenrick approving it did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. All such applications should be approved.
This is not the time for your hobby horse
A candidate for a senior position in public life behaved in a manner that should disbar him for all time. That matters.
People don't have homes.
That matters.
Of course it matters, but if Jenrick had been approached by Desmond wanting to demolish 1500 homes to build a massive statue of himself, in similar circumstances, then he would also have approved it. So making the right decision for the wrong reason doesn't really tell you anything *other* than he doesn't have a pathological hatred of house building. Which I accept is something you should check for in a politician (especially a lib dem) but doesn't make him great.
And I bet Desmond and Jenrick both hate each other too.
She can go be a medium fish in a tiny pond and then flounder beautifully out of water when the tide goes out.
If there were a big reform surge next election - which I don't rule out by any means - then it's not at all a given that she'd be getting anywhere up the ranks either.
There's still something stopping me pulling the trigger but I can't rationally say what so it's still my recommendation on a "do as I say not as I do" basis to go stick a bunch of money into it.
Like it or not Venezuela has certified the obviously fraudulent option so that's the option that should win imo. Regardless of it being fraudulent.
There's still something stopping me pulling the trigger but I can't rationally say what so it's still my recommendation on a "do as I say not as I do" basis to go stick a bunch of money into it.
Like it or not Venezuela has certified the obviously fraudulent option so that's the option that should win imo. Regardless of it being fraudulent.
I'd also lean that way but the rules are very weirdly phrased. "The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from Venezuela, however a consensus of credible reporting will also suffice." The consensus of credible reporting is that Maduro lost. But official information from Venezuela is that he won.
The resolution uses UMA, which basically resolves using a vote of UMA tokenholders, an unknown number of whom will have bets on this market or be open to bribes from people who do. The famous Polymarket intern may have an opinion that it should settle to Maduro but it's not up to him.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
The Living Daylights, Goldeneye, A View To A Kill, and The Spy Who Loved Me. Moonraker not too bad.
Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, and Licence also good and Dr. No, as the ultimate original. Also like Chris Cornell's You Know My Name.
[OTOH, Diamonds are Forever is pure filth, and the Man With The Golden Gun lost its mind; YOLT would be in there but Nancy Sinatra can't really sing]
As ever Tony Blair got it spot-on - showing why he won three massive election victories:
‘You’ve got to be honest about this on the left if you want to deal with the problem. There’s an anxiety about people coming in from Muslim countries as to whether they are truly going to integrate with society or whether you might have security problems to do with extremism.’
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
I also note that over 1,000 people crossed the channel last week, which many in the media aren't highlighting - presumably, because their favoured administration is now in office.
I also note that over 1,000 people crossed the channel last week, which many in the media aren't highlighting - presumably, because their favoured administration is now in office.
It was always going to be the case that Labour were going to let in loads more migrants and the media would barely cover 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.
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?
No. You are losing the argument very badly. The (obvious) question is: without a retrospective oracle, how does your definition of conspiracy theory not identify the theory that the spm were innocent, in say 2012, as a conspiracy theory? Because if it cannot convincingly identify it as not a CT, it's worthless. How hard is this?
What definition of conspiracy theory do you think I’ve given?
Why do all your examples of conspiracy theories being true involve things that no-one called conspiracy theories?
Why do you not engage with the long list of things that people HAVE called conspiracy theories that have been proven to be nonsense?
You're getting the burden of proof wrong. I don't find conspiracy theory a useful concept, so I have nothing to prove about it. You claim that it is a real thing with predictive power. As far as I can see "Andrew Malkinson is innocent" satisfies your definition of a conspiracy theory (it entails multiple failings at many levels of different parts of The Establishment, and coverups of those failings) so when it turns out to be true, and it also turns out to be true in the case of high hundreds of postmasters, we see that "conspiracy theory therefore false" is not a valid induction. So to rescue your claim you need to provide a no benefit of hindsight explanation as to how The sub postmasters are innocent differs from what you call a conspiracy theory. Either that or you think they are really all guilty anyway. Which itself is now a conspiracy theory, which itself neatly illustrates the pointlessnes of arguing about conspiracy theories.
I must really go to sleep now.
A good thing to check for is - does the theory assume
1) infinite competence from those taking part? 2) barely-able-to-tie-shoelaces level incompetence
If it's the former, its a conspiracy theory
On another point: is the person or people spreading the conspiracy theory credible? Are they the credulous sort who see conspiracy theories everywhere (yet they always know the 'truth' and are always 'right' despite contrary evidence), or are they more likely to have assessed the evidence at least a little bit?
On another another point: conspiracy theories are often very nebulous things. Evidence is given that makes even the dimmest person think a particular theory is wrong; which leads to another one or two similar theories pop up.
Mark Robinson in 2019: “Abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers. It’s about killing the child because you weren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down.” https://x.com/nagy_minaj/status/1819404595837522272
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
A) He's not Muslim. B ) He didn't come over in a small boat.
Someone told me before not to speculate, but I'm convinced if this isn't pure mentalism that it's gonna be incel. And I said that before finding out he was autistic. Even more likely now.
Chances of a Rwandan ethnicity kid being muslim are negligible.
Being told not to speculate is like being told not to look down: everyone looks down.
So the conversation about conspiracy theories set me googling (actually kagi.com -ing since google doesn't work any more) conspiracy theories that turned out to be true which took me to The Business Plot that I never knew about before. Then in turn I discovered that wikipedia has a List of coups and coup attempts which is the most incredible reading.
The willingness of corporate elites to go along with fascism as a way of protecting their profits always shocked me. Was true then, was true now. Also speaks to the incredible short termism of CEOs, as they always end up under the thumb when democracy does end.
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.
The thing you have to realise is that they are racist twats. They will obviously vehemently deny this while posting about how scary muslims are.
You are the type of person that called the journalist investigating grooming gangs racist, creating a culture where tens of thousands of young girls got raped.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
If by "theme" you mean the bit of music over the credits, then my fave is Goldeneye, although I have good things to say about Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, View To A Kill, and Spyfall.
If you mean "pieces of music in the soundtrack", then "Bond77" from TSWLM is probably the best, but some of the bits from Moonraker, YOLT, and Goldeneye are also good
I've got a friend who believes in chemtrails, also that the moon landings were faked, also that January 6th was staged by actors, also (I recently found out) that the October 7th attacks on Israel were actually done by US soldiers. I could go on. How to describe this, if "tendency to believe in conspiracy theories" isn't a useful term?
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.
Not only were they non violent they were mostly peaceful too !
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.
Has it been proved that the post office was a conspiracy?
Rather than a lot of weak people who were in positions above their capabilities doing what was easiest and most convenient for them personally?
The Post Office Inquiry could be seen as a cover-up in itself if you were that way minded. Sure, all these Post Office and Fujitsu guys will be strung up but the real culprits are just going to walk away. Who are the real culprits, the courts, the judges and the magistrates who allowed this injustice time and time again on patently proposterous evidence that would have embarrassed Vladimir himself, the lawyers and their ilk.
And, as for the COVID Inquiry that is going to make the Foot and Mouth Inquiries look good.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Isn't the NY Post a Murdoch vehicle? A bit like the print edition of Fox News. Next.
Got the identity of the Olympic Park bomber wrong, got sued, had to settle. Got the Boston Marathon bomber wrong, got sued, had to settle. Compared Obama to a chimpanzee in a cartoon. And this from Wikipedia is wild ride...
In April 2021, the Post published a false front-page story asserting that copies of a book by vice president Kamala Harris were being distributed to migrant children at an intake facility in Long Beach, California.[134] Fox News then published a story about the matter, followed by numerous Republican politicians and pundits commenting on it, in some cases speculating that taxpayers were funding the supposed book handouts for Harris's personal profit.[134][135] Responding to questions from Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy, White House press secretary Jen Psaki expressed no knowledge of the matter; the Post then published a new story headlined "Psaki has no answers when asked about Harris' book being given to child migrants."[136] Four days after the original publication, the Post replaced the story with a new version clarifying that just one Harris book had been donated by a community member but maintained that it was an "open-arms gesture by the Biden administration," though there was no evidence of the administration's involvement.[136] Laura Italiano, the author of the story, resigned that day, asserting she had been "ordered" to write it.[57][136]
Against that, Google “sage Kelly New York post” and you will find a true scandalous story that no one else was willing to write
Bush jr was regularly drawn as an ape. The Times Nature Notes is going to really annoy you.
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.
Not only were they non violent they were mostly peaceful too !
It's the liberal throat clearing. It's not difficult. Have the riot gear and dogs on standby and if it gets out of hand go in and knock heads. That should be the standing rules of engagement. But it isn't, except when the people doing the protesting are white and working class. I don't want them to go easy on those protesters in Sunderland. Bring out the tear gas, get the horses out do what you need to do. Just don't do it differently when they aren't white and working class. There was nothing peaceful about what happened in Leeds.
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.
Has it been proved that the post office was a conspiracy?
Rather than a lot of weak people who were in positions above their capabilities doing what was easiest and most convenient for them personally?
I'd personally class cover-ups and conspiracy theories differently.
The conspiracy theories people often mention are ones where a cabal of people (*) get together to organise something - an event - that they then trigger.
Cover-ups are where an event happens and people get together to deny responsibility for things they did, or allowed to happen.
The difference being the *instigation* of the act being a conspiracy. You can have a cover-up for a conspiracy, but the two are often seperate.
Hence : "9/11 was an inside job!" is a conspiracy theory, as these theories claim that the US government caused (instigated) the event.
The Post Office chaos was a cover-up: no-one wanted the initial problems to happen, but when the problems did happen, they wanted to shift responsibility away from them.
(*) It's also interesting how often conspiracy theories fall into anti-Semitism or other racism.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
Two Tier Keir is a thing...
He's a typical north London left-winger with all the views that go with it.
He just had better Game: playing with flags and keeping his mouth shut.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
Speaking of For Your Eyes Only, what's everyone's favourite Bond theme. I think mine is Licence to Kill, but I've had a slight soft spot for Moonraker in recent times. I think because it's basically the same orchestration as John Barry's Out of Africa theme tune.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
Yep, all entirely predictable. But they're all very comfortable with playing that game.
It's what they know, it's what they like to do, and it's what they'll be applauded for in their social and professional circles.
Race riots on the streets of Britain being stirred up by right wing thugs and social media, with Reform MPs and the usual suspects acting as their apologists.
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.
Has it been proved that the post office was a conspiracy?
Rather than a lot of weak people who were in positions above their capabilities doing what was easiest and most convenient for them personally?
The PO Inquiry has finished taking evidence, so now is a good time to pause and reflect on where we are.
It was indeed a very broad conspiracy spreading over more than twenty years, and worsening as time went on. It covered all ranks, from the most junior investigators through to the most senior managers and Board Members. Numerous consultants, lawyers (internal and external), civil servants and Ministers were also implicated. The legal profession comes out of it particularly badly.
The charges could fall on hundreds, if not thousands, but this would probably be a mistake because if the net is spread too wide, legal proceedings become unwieldy and impractical. Far better to focus on the clearly defineable conspiracies, of which there are plenty.
I suspect and hope that the CPS will focus on the Clark letter, which was delivered to the PO's chief Counsel at the time, Susan Crichton. It should have gone straight to the Board via the CEO (Vennells) and Chairman (Perkins). Why it did not is disputed and unclear, and it seems to me that this is a suitable matter for a jury to decide.
The strongest other candidates for prosecution would include former chairman Tim Parker, head of security John Scott, Vennell's gopher Angela van den Bogern, hapless civil servant Richard Callard, and Fujitsu stooges Andy Dunk and Gareth Jenkins (who has virtually confessed anyway.)
The legal bods may well be left to the Law Society, although one would hope that it would administer more than the usual mild slap on the wrist. Its problem would be that the transagressions were committed by a very wide range of the profession's members - from the risible Jarnail Singh to eminent KCs such as Altman and Grabiner, whose disastrously unwise advice to the PO threatened to derail the whole process of uncovering what has rightly been described as the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.
Btw, this Site's leading authority on the subject, Ms Cyclefree, is currently writing a book on this and other public scandals. This partly explains her absence. Should be a good read.
Race riots on the streets of Britain being stirred up by right wing thugs and social media, with Reform MPs and the usual suspects acting as their apologists.
Shameful.
Who are the far right in Leicester -Hindus or Muslims ?
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.
Not only were they non violent they were mostly peaceful too !
It's the liberal throat clearing. It's not difficult. Have the riot gear and dogs on standby and if it gets out of hand go in and knock heads. That should be the standing rules of engagement. But it isn't, except when the people doing the protesting are white and working class. I don't want them to go easy on those protesters in Sunderland. Bring out the tear gas, get the horses out do what you need to do. Just don't do it differently when they aren't white and working class. There was nothing peaceful about what happened in Leeds.
Two tier policing, or the perception of it, is certainly an issue here.
The riots in Harehill were certainly excused in some quarters. I’ve seen people claim politicians defended the rioters referring to justifiable anger. Not been able to verify it. Although the authorities folded and returned the kids.
We are seeing people, right and left, excusing riots where they are sympathetic to the cause and vice versa. The same people online condemning these riots now were not condemning harehill or BLM and, of course, vice versa.
Kim McGuinness coming over well on TV at the moment talking about it.
Sunderland is a place that is on the up. I hope this riot doesn’t drag it down.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
The far-right was blamed because the far-right organised it. The vigil in Southport, which was entirely peaceful had no far-right involvement, was attended by the entire community and did not receive a word of condemnation.
Race riots on the streets of Britain being stirred up by right wing thugs and social media, with Reform MPs and the usual suspects acting as their apologists.
Shameful.
As we see on here, there will always be people who excuse this kind of thing. That's how it happens. People see political advantage in it.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
Yep, all entirely predictable. But they're all very comfortable with playing that game.
It's what they know, it's what they like to do, and it's what they'll be applauded for in their social and professional circles.
Labour made the man tattooed in swastikas join the balaklavaed looters in Sunderland to target ethnic minorities and burn down a police station. And you accuse others of football team politics. Hilarious!
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.
Has it been proved that the post office was a conspiracy?
Rather than a lot of weak people who were in positions above their capabilities doing what was easiest and most convenient for them personally?
The PO Inquiry has finished taking evidence, so now is a good time to pause and reflect on where we are.
It was indeed a very broad conspiracy spreading over more than twenty years, and worsening as time went on. It covered all ranks, from the most junior investigators through to the most senior managers and Board Members. Numerous consultants, lawyers (internal and external), civil servants and Ministers were also implicated. The legal profession comes out of it particularly badly.
The charges could fall on hundreds, if not thousands, but this would probably be a mistake because if the net is spread too wide, legal proceedings become unwieldy and impractical. Far better to focus on the clearly defineable conspiracies, of which there are plenty.
I suspect and hope that the CPS will focus on the Clark letter, which was delivered to the PO's chief Counsel at the time, Susan Crichton. It should have gone straight to the Board via the CEO (Vennells) and Chairman (Perkins). Why it did not is disputed and unclear, and it seems to me that this is a suitable matter for a jury to decide.
The strongest other candidates for prosecution would include former chairman Tim Parker, head of security John Scott, Vennell's gopher Angela van den Bogern, hapless civil servant Richard Callard, and Fujitsu stooges Andy Dunk and Gareth Jenkins (who has virtually confessed anyway.)
The legal bods may well be left to the Law Society, although one would hope that it would administer more than the usual mild slap on the wrist. Its problem would be that the transagressions were committed by a very wide range of the profession's members - from the risible Jarnail Singh to eminent KCs such as Altman and Grabiner, whose disastrously unwise advice to the PO threatened to derail the whole process of uncovering what has rightly been described as the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.
Btw, this Site's leading authority on the subject, Ms Cyclefree, is currently writing a book on this and other public scandals. This partly explains her absence. Should be a good read.
"It was indeed a very broad conspiracy spreading over more than twenty years,"
Was it a single conspiracy, or a multitude of cover-your-backside conspiracies and individual lies? I haven't been watching the inquiry as closely as I perhaps should, but my impression is that, for much of the time, there was no overarching conspiracy; just people lying to themselves and their superiors, and superiors lying to their superiors and underlings. A series of lies by individuals (not conspiracies), and conspiracies involving a handful of people.
If there was an overlying conspiracy, it came later when the sh*t really started to hit the fan for the PO.
Mr. Observer, what do you make of Starmer's approach towards using more facial recognition technology to combat riots/travelling rioters?
Think there are some downsides to it, not least the fact the tech tends to work less well with ethnic minorities, and wearing a niqab would be an ironic workaround.
Hopefully these thuggish idiots will be brought to justice and the situation will calm down.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
Yep, all entirely predictable. But they're all very comfortable with playing that game.
It's what they know, it's what they like to do, and it's what they'll be applauded for in their social and professional circles.
Labour made the man tattooed in swastikas join the balaklavaed looters in Sunderland to target ethnic minorities and burn down a police station. And you accuse others of football team politics. Hilarious!
This is all becoming rather January 6th. Elite right wingers excusing or even condoning violent thuggery because they’re peeved about the election.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
Protestors have been chanting “Tommy Robinson”, “we want our country back” and various anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant slogans. They have targeted for attack mosques. You appear to ignore all these facts.
Police cars and a police station have been attacked. Over 50 police officers injured. Shops looted. Places of worship damaged. And you think the problem is the mainstream media?
On the front page of the Telegraph, Kemi Badenoch demonstrates that she doesn't understand the Ship of Theseus analogy.
What that front page illustrates perfectly is that Badenoch knows her electorate very well. They are more comfortable blaming immigrants for not integrating than they are condemning far-right riots that target entirely innocent people.
You've not got the hang of this winning an election business.
You've not got the hang of this 33.7% of the vote on a 59% turnout business.
That's the system. In the words of Sir Humphrey, this is a British democracy.
Indeed it is, but the contention was that she represents Britain.
She doesn't.
She is Home Secretary. She represents Britain. If less than half of people voted for her that is irrelevant. We have never required a majority of the popular vote of our representatives, nor Monarchy nor Church for that matter.
Race riots on the streets of Britain being stirred up by right wing thugs and social media, with Reform MPs and the usual suspects acting as their apologists.
Shameful.
Who are the far right in Leicester -Hindus or Muslims ?
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.
Not only were they non violent they were mostly peaceful too !
It's the liberal throat clearing. It's not difficult. Have the riot gear and dogs on standby and if it gets out of hand go in and knock heads. That should be the standing rules of engagement. But it isn't, except when the people doing the protesting are white and working class. I don't want them to go easy on those protesters in Sunderland. Bring out the tear gas, get the horses out do what you need to do. Just don't do it differently when they aren't white and working class. There was nothing peaceful about what happened in Leeds.
The far-right pre-announced its plans so the police were prepared. The Harehill riots were more spontaneous so the police had to react and understandably it took them longer to do so. That's not two-tier policing, it's two very different scenarios. But people will believe what they want to believe.
Race riots on the streets of Britain being stirred up by right wing thugs and social media, with Reform MPs and the usual suspects acting as their apologists.
Shameful.
Who are the far right in Leicester -Hindus or Muslims ?
Modi is a fascist. So probably the Hindus.
Yes the Hindutva students that stirred up the protests two summers ago are far right.
I also note that over 1,000 people crossed the channel last week, which many in the media aren't highlighting - presumably, because their favoured administration is now in office.
Yes. All Labour's fault. If only we'd had the good sense to reelect the Conservatives, it would have been down to a handful.
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.
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.
It's also incredibly bad politics for Starmer and Cooper to go full Anti-Racist on them, which was and is entirely predictable, and highlight how heavily they'll have their collars felt without thinking - as Blair does - why some of the sentiments that lie behind this might have come about.
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
It isn't surprising that the labour party and the 'msm blob' settled on blaming the 'far right', quite comfortable and predictable ground, but then they end up branding everyone who thinks they are protesting against the slaughter of innocent children as a 'far right terrorist', therefore increasing the appeal of the 'far right', whilst reinforcing a perception that there was an establishment conspiracy regarding a cover up of the original event.
Yep, all entirely predictable. But they're all very comfortable with playing that game.
It's what they know, it's what they like to do, and it's what they'll be applauded for in their social and professional circles.
Labour made the man tattooed in swastikas join the balaklavaed looters in Sunderland to target ethnic minorities and burn down a police station. And you accuse others of football team politics. Hilarious!
This is all becoming rather January 6th. Elite right wingers excusing or even condoning violent thuggery because they’re peeved about the election.
Yes, they are not taking it well. I did say before the election that even though you are prepared for defeat it always hits you much much harder once it has happened. I guess if you are not used to losing it hits even harder than that. But, even so, you'd have though that supporters of the party of law and order would, er, support law and order. But clearly there are caveats.
I also note that over 1,000 people crossed the channel last week, which many in the media aren't highlighting - presumably, because their favoured administration is now in office.
Yes exactly. And 17,000 so far this year
I predicted the Starmer government could implode quite quickly over migration/asylum/boats
It may happen even quicker than I thought. Because they have absolutely no idea what to do about any of this, and their natural instincts are to let in even more people - even as the mood of the country swings firmly against any almost form of immigration
Seriously, what is their plan for the boats? A “border command task force”. It’s risible bureaucratic nonsense and it’s being exposed cruelly and speedily
Mr. Observer, what do you make of Starmer's approach towards using more facial recognition technology to combat riots/travelling rioters?
Think there are some downsides to it, not least the fact the tech tends to work less well with ethnic minorities, and wearing a niqab would be an ironic workaround.
Hopefully these thuggish idiots will be brought to justice and the situation will calm down.
Applying approaches that have curtailed football hooliganism to what is essentially a similar challenge because the people taking part are essentially the same kind of people makes a lot of sense to me.
1. The riots are stupid, ugly, dangerous and they should stop
2. It’s amazing no one rioted sooner - 100,000+ underage white British girls raped by grooming gangs - not a peep. Til now
3. Riots are - sometimes - an expression of political will when all other avenues are exhausted. The British people have made it abundantly clear they want to reduce immigration and stop the boats, they don’t want their country concreted over for 500,000 migrants a year, they don’t want their hospitals overwhelmed, they don’t want their taxes to go up to pay £10bn a year to put boat people in hotels. And yet every government ignores this expressed will and does nothing or makes it worse. So in the end people riot as voting does not work
On the front page of the Telegraph, Kemi Badenoch demonstrates that she doesn't understand the Ship of Theseus analogy.
What that front page illustrates perfectly is that Badenoch knows her electorate very well. They are more comfortable blaming immigrants for not integrating than they are condemning far-right riots that target entirely innocent people.
It's amazing the lengths people will go to to avoid the "are we the baddies?" question.
Who is better integrated into society? The rioters, or the people clearing up after them?
I see Kemi Badenoch has a big splash on the Telegraph front page saying the riots, which she describes as "tension", is the fault of the cultural establishment pretending integration hasn't failed.
I'm sorry. It's the thugs that need to integrate, not their victims who are minding their own business. Badenoch is not fit to be a leader.
1. The riots are stupid, ugly, dangerous and they should stop
2. It’s amazing no one rioted sooner - 100,000+ underage white British girls raped by grooming gangs - not a peep. Til now
3. Riots are - sometimes - an expression of political will when all other avenues are exhausted. The British people have made it abundantly clear they want to reduce immigration and stop the boats, they don’t want their country concreted over for 500,000 migrants a year, they don’t want their hospitals overwhelmed, they don’t want their taxes to go up to pay £10bn a year to put boat people in hotels. And yet every government ignores this expressed will and does nothing or makes it worse. So in the end people riot as voting does not work
Yes, we could pretend that this is all very new and pissed up young men have never grouped together under the slimmest of pretexts to smash up our towns and cities before.
Comments
Why do all your examples of conspiracy theories being true involve things that no-one called conspiracy theories?
Why do you not engage with the long list of things that people HAVE called conspiracy theories that have been proven to be nonsense?
(My lay is also onside now btw, albeit it's just noise).
*Am happy that my backs of Cleverly at avg price at 9.91 and Stride at 40.57 are value tho. And actually I do think my lay of 2.78 is value too, but I have rushed into a bit cause of hate.
I must really go to sleep now.
If you mean "pieces of music in the soundtrack", then "Bond77" from TSWLM is probably the best, but some of the bits from Moonraker, YOLT, and Goldeneye are also good
1) infinite competence from those taking part?
2) barely-able-to-tie-shoelaces level incompetence
If it's the former, its a conspiracy theory
“Did you hear about the burglary in Venezuela?”
“No, what was stolen?”
“The results of the next presidential election.”
Can you imagine Lady T behaving like?
https://www.lgcplus.com/services/regeneration-and-planning/jenricks-decision-on-desmond-backed-development-overturned-19-11-2021/
Can you imagine Lady T behaving like?
https://www.lgcplus.com/services/regeneration-and-planning/jenricks-decision-on-desmond-backed-development-overturned-19-11-2021/
It is not typically used to mean there is no such thing as a conspiracy in general, and I do not believe sensible people do not know that perfectly well, and the existence of such does not invalidate the mockery reserved for the wildly implausible attention seeking conspiracy claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnzgdBAKyJo
Jenrick approving it did the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons. All such applications should be approved.
Kiefer Sutherland was great in it, but it was getting quite absurd. Plus its been off the air for over a decade now.
"Suella Braverman: 'I hope I'm not driven out to Reform by my colleagues'"
https://news.sky.com/story/suella-braverman-i-hope-im-not-driven-out-to-reform-by-my-colleagues-13188796
Rather than a lot of weak people who were in positions above their capabilities doing what was easiest and most convenient for them personally?
In her first interview since announcing her leadership bid, the shadow minister talks about honest politics and the future of the Tories"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/02/kemi-badenoch-interview-integration-tory-leadership/
Her legacy will also be killing the Queen. Not just crashing the economy.
A candidate for a senior position in public life behaved in a manner that should disbar him for all time. That matters.
That matters.
Corruption in public office is way too important to be smothered in more of the same crap
Ignoring me though, I do wonder if Leo has two or three penises. It would explain a lot. The stamina! And that baby face probably means he isn't high testosterone. Mysteries of life.
But yes, chapeau.
And I bet Desmond and Jenrick both hate each other too.
If there were a big reform surge next election - which I don't rule out by any means - then it's not at all a given that she'd be getting anywhere up the ranks either.
There's still something stopping me pulling the trigger but I can't rationally say what so it's still my recommendation on a "do as I say not as I do" basis to go stick a bunch of money into it.
Like it or not Venezuela has certified the obviously fraudulent option so that's the option that should win imo. Regardless of it being fraudulent.
See also this tweet by Polymarket themselves
The resolution uses UMA, which basically resolves using a vote of UMA tokenholders, an unknown number of whom will have bets on this market or be open to bribes from people who do. The famous Polymarket intern may have an opinion that it should settle to Maduro but it's not up to him.
Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, and Licence also good and Dr. No, as the ultimate original. Also like Chris Cornell's You Know My Name.
[OTOH, Diamonds are Forever is pure filth, and the Man With The Golden Gun lost its mind; YOLT would be in there but Nancy Sinatra can't really sing]
‘You’ve got to be honest about this on the left if you want to deal with the problem. There’s an anxiety about people coming in from Muslim countries as to whether they are truly going to integrate with society or whether you might have security problems to do with extremism.’
Lots of politicians misplaying this.
On another another point: conspiracy theories are often very nebulous things. Evidence is given that makes even the dimmest person think a particular theory is wrong; which leads to another one or two similar theories pop up.
Robinson, holding hands with wife Yolanda, to camera: "Thirty years ago, my wife and I made a very difficult decision: we had an abortion"
https://x.com/MediumBuying/status/1819382645949645124
Mark Robinson in 2019: “Abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers. It’s about killing the child because you weren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down.”
https://x.com/nagy_minaj/status/1819404595837522272
How to describe this, if "tendency to believe in conspiracy theories" isn't a useful term?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/police-flee-protesters-clash-black-lives-matter-demonstrations-a4462296.html#:~:text=Police were filmed running from,objects at them on Sunday.
And, as for the COVID Inquiry that is going to make the Foot and Mouth Inquiries look good.
I don't want them to go easy on those protesters in Sunderland. Bring out the tear gas, get the horses out do what you need to do.
Just don't do it differently when they aren't white and working class. There was nothing peaceful about what happened in Leeds.
The conspiracy theories people often mention are ones where a cabal of people (*) get together to organise something - an event - that they then trigger.
Cover-ups are where an event happens and people get together to deny responsibility for things they did, or allowed to happen.
The difference being the *instigation* of the act being a conspiracy. You can have a cover-up for a conspiracy, but the two are often seperate.
Hence : "9/11 was an inside job!" is a conspiracy theory, as these theories claim that the US government caused (instigated) the event.
The Post Office chaos was a cover-up: no-one wanted the initial problems to happen, but when the problems did happen, they wanted to shift responsibility away from them.
(*) It's also interesting how often conspiracy theories fall into anti-Semitism or other racism.
He just had better Game: playing with flags and keeping his mouth shut.
https://youtu.be/g6EuzGhIyRQ
It's what they know, it's what they like to do, and it's what they'll be applauded for in their social and professional circles.
She doesn't.
Shameful.
It was indeed a very broad conspiracy spreading over more than twenty years, and worsening as time went on. It covered all ranks, from the most junior investigators through to the most senior managers and Board Members. Numerous consultants, lawyers (internal and external), civil servants and Ministers were also implicated. The legal profession comes out of it particularly badly.
The charges could fall on hundreds, if not thousands, but this would probably be a mistake because if the net is spread too wide, legal proceedings become unwieldy and impractical. Far better to focus on the clearly defineable conspiracies, of which there are plenty.
I suspect and hope that the CPS will focus on the Clark letter, which was delivered to the PO's chief Counsel at the time, Susan Crichton. It should have gone straight to the Board via the CEO (Vennells) and Chairman (Perkins). Why it did not is disputed and unclear, and it seems to me that this is a suitable matter for a jury to decide.
The strongest other candidates for prosecution would include former chairman Tim Parker, head of security John Scott, Vennell's gopher Angela van den Bogern, hapless civil servant Richard Callard, and Fujitsu stooges Andy Dunk and Gareth Jenkins (who has virtually confessed anyway.)
The legal bods may well be left to the Law Society, although one would hope that it would administer more than the usual mild slap on the wrist. Its problem would be that the transagressions were committed by a very wide range of the profession's members - from the risible Jarnail Singh to eminent KCs such as Altman and Grabiner, whose disastrously unwise advice to the PO threatened to derail the whole process of uncovering what has rightly been described as the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history.
Btw, this Site's leading authority on the subject, Ms Cyclefree, is currently writing a book on this and other public scandals. This partly explains her absence. Should be a good read.
The riots in Harehill were certainly excused in some quarters. I’ve seen people claim politicians defended the rioters referring to justifiable anger. Not been able to verify it. Although the authorities folded and returned the kids.
We are seeing people, right and left, excusing riots where they are sympathetic to the cause and vice versa. The same people online condemning these riots now were not condemning harehill or BLM and, of course, vice versa.
Kim McGuinness coming over well on TV at the moment talking about it.
Sunderland is a place that is on the up. I hope this riot doesn’t drag it down.
Was it a single conspiracy, or a multitude of cover-your-backside conspiracies and individual lies? I haven't been watching the inquiry as closely as I perhaps should, but my impression is that, for much of the time, there was no overarching conspiracy; just people lying to themselves and their superiors, and superiors lying to their superiors and underlings. A series of lies by individuals (not conspiracies), and conspiracies involving a handful of people.
If there was an overlying conspiracy, it came later when the sh*t really started to hit the fan for the PO.
Is there any validity in that view?
Mr. Observer, what do you make of Starmer's approach towards using more facial recognition technology to combat riots/travelling rioters?
Think there are some downsides to it, not least the fact the tech tends to work less well with ethnic minorities, and wearing a niqab would be an ironic workaround.
Hopefully these thuggish idiots will be brought to justice and the situation will calm down.
Police cars and a police station have been attacked. Over 50 police officers injured. Shops looted. Places of worship damaged. And you think the problem is the mainstream media?
Heavily policed they were too.
I predicted the Starmer government could implode quite quickly over migration/asylum/boats
It may happen even quicker than I thought. Because they have absolutely no idea what to do about any of this, and their natural instincts are to let in even more people - even as the mood of the country swings firmly against any almost form of immigration
Seriously, what is their plan for the boats? A “border command task force”. It’s risible bureaucratic nonsense and it’s being exposed cruelly and speedily
2. It’s amazing no one rioted sooner - 100,000+ underage white British girls raped by grooming gangs - not a peep. Til now
3. Riots are - sometimes - an expression of political will when all other avenues are exhausted. The British people have made it abundantly clear they want to reduce immigration and stop the boats, they don’t want their country concreted over for 500,000 migrants a year, they don’t want their hospitals overwhelmed, they don’t want their taxes to go up to pay £10bn a year to put boat people in hotels. And yet every government ignores this expressed will and does nothing or makes it worse. So in the end people riot as voting does not work
Who is better integrated into society? The rioters, or the people clearing up after them?
I'm sorry. It's the thugs that need to integrate, not their victims who are minding their own business. Badenoch is not fit to be a leader.