Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
Well yes, along with the right of democratically & legitimately elected governments to use reasonable force against heavily armed foreign-supported-and-supplied insurgents.
Except the democratically elected Government of Ukraine was overthrown.
I understand Yanukovich fled following the use of hired thugs to kidnap and murder protesters. There is now another elected government in place. Whatever your views on who should be President, I would still argue that the Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity against a foreign aggressor.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
I really haven't got the hang of this Vanilla system.
The odd post was about UKIP neither offering nor supporting a referendum and the conjecture that might be because whichever way it went it would be the end of UKIP?
Are you aware of who these allegations are aimed at? Not sure you'd be so sanguine if so!
I see you're newish here - or perhaps I just haven't noticed you, usually residing in a different PB timezone myself - and I've got some alarm bells ringing. So far you have given us plenty of links to nsnbc.me (a well-dressed conspiracy loon blog), some fascinating snippets of foreign news ("Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout"), warnings of how the US government is secretly performing media manipulation to ridicule 9/11 truther nuts, and now it seems you are Our Man In The Know about whispers of the true identities in a high-ranking paedo-conspiracy.
I greatly respect Nick Palmer Ex-MP of this parish, who rightly says that PB is at its best when we aren't discussing each other. But then, we all know what his agenda his (we can check his parliamentary voting record after all). It would be good to know what your agenda is. Radical Anti-Establishment Kipper, or are you coming at the universe from a slightly wider angle?
I think you might get on well with The Tap, a most entertaining PB correspondent of yore.
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
At the moment it's all speculation. The press don't have the faintest idea who may be involved and the level of offences. It just helps to wind up the readership/viewers. Wait for the first "official" reports.
Are you aware of who these allegations are aimed at? Not sure you'd be so sanguine if so!
I see you're newish here - or perhaps I just haven't noticed you, usually residing in a different PB timezone myself - and I've got some alarm bells ringing. So far you have given us plenty of links to nsnbc.me (a well-dressed conspiracy loon blog), some fascinating snippets of foreign news ("Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout"), warnings of how the US government is secretly performing media manipulation to ridicule 9/11 truther nuts, and now it seems you are Our Man In The Know about whispers of the true identities in a high-ranking paedo-conspiracy.
I greatly respect Nick Palmer Ex-MP of this parish, who rightly says that PB is at its best when we aren't discussing each other. But then, we all know what his agenda his (we can check his parliamentary voting record after all). It would be good to know what your agenda is. Radical Anti-Establishment Kipper, or are you coming at the universe from a slightly wider angle?
I think you might get on well with The Tap, a most entertaining PB correspondent of yore.
I don't really know what you're asking me for. I'm English, I live near Edinburgh, I work in marketing for a respected Edinburgh company. I'll happily message you with my linkedin profile, though sharing it here would feel somewhat odd. I used to be a Conservative supporter, now I'm a (very quiet when chatting to most of my Scottish colleagues) UKIP one.
I believe in seeing the world, not how I would wish it to be, but how it is. Let us take conspiracy theories. Going through life imagining everything is a conspiracy would make you a paranoid nut. Going through life imagining that nothing is a conspiracy would make you an incurable dupe. Neither are particularly desirable conditions, the second surely somewhat worse. Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate? I decide whether I believe something on the best evidence available.
This is encouraging: "Spain is blocking Britain’s efforts to opt back in to the European Arrest Warrant, which controls the extradition of criminal suspects between EU member states.
For Britain to opt back in, all other states have to agree."
Why on Earth is a party that claims to be eurosceptic handing over significant new powers over to the European Union, without giving the public a say over it? It completely undermines their supposed philosophy.
The politics of it are bad for all three parties. They all claim to be in favour of a referendum if more powers are passed to the EU. No referendum makes them all liars.
For the Conservatives, they will be making the 'Referendum Lock' (the Eu Bill) a feature of their campaign, passing new powers to the EU without a referendum shows that Bill to be worthless.
The argument in favour of the EAW is simply that it's far more bureaucratically convenient for a prosecutor to be able arrest someone without having to demonstrate that they have a case against that person.
Defenders of the system believe that prosecutors and police never make mistakes.
ref. PT. Mr ALP, TBF to GD, photocopiers were very much less easy to obtain then. I recall in the v early 80's using an ink-based duplicator. Nearly as messy as the situation which is developing.
The days of the Gestetner Cyclograph, Mr. Cole.
The iPad generation never knew the trials and tribulations we had to undergo.
Very true, but photocopiers were in place, even in public sector offices, before 1980. True one had to copy each page one at a time and they were not cheap to use (10p per page as I recall) but they were there in every public sector office from the late 1970's onwards.
The idea that a someone would hand over a dossier of important information without keeping a copy of it, is insane.
Quite, Mr Lama. IIRC by the time GD compiled his dossier word-processing systems were in place ..... I recall using an Amstrad in the mid 80’s and consequently there would be a record somewhere. I know the Little & Sad constituency no longer exists, but surely all the records in the Tory office were not destroyed.
I am not sure this is a very rational analysis. These events occurred in 1983. The Amstrad PCW only came into production in 1985. The IBM PC appeared in late1981 and was not particularly cheap. There were various C/PM machines of course but the whole technology was in its infancy. Its optimistic to speculate that this 'dossier' was computer generated. it is far more likely to contain hand and type written documents. Experience has shown that dossiers can be dodgy.
The argument in favour of the EAW is simply that it's far more bureaucratically convenient for a prosecutor to be able arrest someone without having to demonstrate that they have a case against that person.
Defenders of the system believe that prosecutors and police never make mistakes.
The greatest irony is that the most fanatical supporters of the European Arrest Warrant (viz. the Liberal Democrats) are also opposed to the operation of the 2003 United Kingdom-United States extradition treaty. This is despite the fact that it is more difficult to extradite a person to the United States under the 2003 treaty than it is to Europe on an EAW, and that there are far more protections for the accused in most American jurisdictions than there are on the continent.
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
These events were public at the time. Dickens spoke in parliament and elswhere about them. Where were the 'free' press at the time. There is nothing 'secret' about these alegations or the existence of this dossier. Dickens spoke about handoing it over at the time. As far as I can see the 'free' press are hardly reporting this in any proper context.
No ethnic cleansing is being carried out against Russians in Donetsk. This is simply a made up lie. You will not be able to produce any credible source to back it. The Ukrainian government needs to use its weapons because in the two ceasefires it has agreed so far, the pro-Russian militias have repeatedly attacked Ukrainian military forces during them, including the shooting down of a helicopter.
Let us be honest here. You support Russian aggressiveness because you dislike the liberal democratic West, and prefer a society that violently attacks gays and is conspiratorial against Jews.
This post is a disaster. First use the 'lie' word, even 'made up lie' -is that even worse than a non-made up lie?
Then demanding a 'credible source'. As we've found, there's no objective measure of what you would describe as a credible source, except that they don't subscribe to certain views -an entirely subjective measure. A credible source is one that you agree with -so obviously there will be no 'credible' source for what he is alleging.
Your justification of mass shelling of civilian areas is especially pitiful considering this is precisely what you have described in Syria as 'Assad butchering/slaughtering/murdering (insert emotive verb here) his own people'.
As for your last flourish -it's kinder not to comment.
No, I think Socrates makes good points. UKIP and its supporters are of course very much pro Russia on this since they cannot accept that a country might want to join the EU.
The argument in favour of the EAW is simply that it's far more bureaucratically convenient for a prosecutor to be able arrest someone without having to demonstrate that they have a case against that person.
Defenders of the system believe that prosecutors and police never make mistakes.
The greatest irony is that the most fanatical supporters of the European Arrest Warrant (viz. the Liberal Democrats) are also opposed to the operation of the 2003 United Kingdom-United States extradition treaty. This is despite the fact that it is more difficult to extradite a person to the United States under the 2003 treaty than it is to Europe on an EAW, and that there are far more protections for the accused in most American jurisdictions than there are on the continent.
I think it's a case of " my enemy's enemy is my friend". If UKIP are defending civil liberties, then moderate, rational, centrist people must be in favour of suppressing them.
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
These events were public at the time. Dickens spoke in parliament and elswhere about them. Where were the 'free' press at the time. There is nothing 'secret' about these alegations or the existence of this dossier. Dickens spoke about handoing it over at the time. As far as I can see the 'free' press are hardly reporting this in any proper context.
The events weren't public. That's why Dickens had to use parliamentary privilege to name one of the VIP child-molesters the political class were protecting.
The reluctance of the press and police to pursue child-molesting MPs going back to the Boothby-Driberg case.
Oh and @MyBurningEars I am certainly not PB's man 'in the know' about this scandal, but I have read the comments on Guido's latest blog, which include youtube videos making various allegations. And if these were true it would involve a lot more than a solemn Cameron 'mia culpa' speech and some embarrassed MPs.
Well yes, along with the right of democratically & legitimately elected governments to use reasonable force against heavily armed foreign-supported-and-supplied insurgents.
Except the democratically elected Government of Ukraine was overthrown.
I understand Yanukovich fled following the use of hired thugs to kidnap and murder protesters. There is now another elected government in place. Whatever your views on who should be President, I would still argue that the Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity against a foreign aggressor.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
ref. PT. Mr ALP, TBF to GD, photocopiers were very much less easy to obtain then. I recall in the v early 80's using an ink-based duplicator. Nearly as messy as the situation which is developing.
The days of the Gestetner Cyclograph, Mr. Cole.
The iPad generation never knew the trials and tribulations we had to undergo.
Very true, but photocopiers were in place, even in public sector offices, before 1980. True one had to copy each page one at a time and they were not cheap to use (10p per page as I recall) but they were there in every public sector office from the late 1970's onwards.
The idea that a someone would hand over a dossier of important information without keeping a copy of it, is insane.
Quite, Mr Lama. IIRC by the time GD compiled his dossier word-processing systems were in place ..... I recall using an Amstrad in the mid 80’s and consequently there would be a record somewhere. I know the Little & Sad constituency no longer exists, but surely all the records in the Tory office were not destroyed.
I am not sure this is a very rational analysis. These events occurred in 1983. The Amstrad PCW only came into production in 1985. The IBM PC appeared in late1981 and was not particularly cheap. There were various C/PM machines of course but the whole technology was in its infancy. Its optimistic to speculate that this 'dossier' was computer generated. it is far more likely to contain hand and type written documents. Experience has shown that dossiers can be dodgy.
Fair criticism, Flightpath. Memories aren’t always reliable. I must have had a very early PCW! (Which was likely). However, I do go along with those who say it’s highly unlikely only one copy existed, although of course the Dickens family may have innocently destroyed the one GD retained, since there’s always a feeling of “what do we want all this for?" I destroyed all my fathers photo slides, since they were not indexed and I came across them late on the day the family was clearing his house after his death. I sometimes wish I’d kept them and tried to go through them, although I’m quite sure they were just holiday snaps.
I am not sure this is a very rational analysis. These events occurred in 1983. The Amstrad PCW only came into production in 1985. The IBM PC appeared in late1981 and was not particularly cheap. There were various C/PM machines of course but the whole technology was in its infancy. Its optimistic to speculate that this 'dossier' was computer generated. it is far more likely to contain hand and type written documents. Experience has shown that dossiers can be dodgy.
Before that there were Apple II and Commodore Pet computers that could possibly have had information stored on them too. However unless any of this pre-internet information was deemed valuable then it's pretty unlikely that it was in fact transferred to an easily readable form. However should there be reason to dig then all sorts of stuff could lurk on old floppy disks.
I agree entirely though that handwritten or typed was the much more likely format for the time, and those documents are very unlikely to have been scanned and thus retained digitally.
I'd add though that the civil service is really rather good at keeping things. I'd be pretty sure that there are documents that 'don't exist' which in fact do. (On a very small scale mind you and principally connected to the royals)
I don't really know what you're asking me for. I'm English, I live near Edinburgh, I work in marketing for a respected Edinburgh company. I'll happily message you with my linkedin profile, though sharing it here would feel somewhat odd. I used to be a Conservative supporter, now I'm a (very quiet when chatting to most of my Scottish colleagues) UKIP one.
I believe in seeing the world, not how I would wish it to be, but how it is. Let us take conspiracy theories. Going through life imagining everything is a conspiracy would make you a paranoid nut. Going through life imagining that nothing is a conspiracy would make you an incurable dupe. Neither are particularly desirable conditions, the second surely somewhat worse. Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate? I decide whether I believe something on the best evidence available.
What angle that is, I'll leave you to decide.
If the likes of nsnbc.me are ever the best source of evidence available to you, then I reckon you're in trouble.
But I thank you for such a generous answer. I was wondering whether you might actually just be trolling ("Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout" FGS) or if you were a full-on Truther à la Tap (whose blog is on rude form, for those worried by his long-time absence from these boards). Now I see you are merely a "very-independently-minded", anti-establishment Kipper. Any chance of you running for office, or for a position in the party organisation?
I must admit I used to think of UKIP as essentially a "narrow" party (in terms of its personnel, rather than its voter coalition which has always been rather broader), though my view has been shifting lately. A party that has room in it for both you and Sean Fear of this parish, is rather wider than I anticipated.
Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate?
As for shutting down discussion, I am not a fan of government censorship. On the other hand, I am very supportive of the idea that people online should be able to disengage from debate, particularly which they don't feel comfortable with, and the internet would often be a better place if there were more disengagement than escalation. Experience suggests that if someone makes outrageous claims such as 9/11 being an obvious stitch-up, since it's impossible to hijack a plane with a box-cutter and several of the alleged hijackers are clearly still alive, then the best course of action is to just treat them like the nut they are and not engage in detailed dispute of their statement - for fear of getting stuck into trench warface over their whole Weltanschauung.
A claim so provocative is classic trollbait - and even if intended seriously, no amount of keystrokes seems to ever knock sense into them. That sort of "debate" is generally a great pollutant of message boards, of no interest to anyone bar the participants and the odd partisan, and a pain in the brain to filter through when reading. They also tend to be particularly prolonged ... lasting days ... weeks ... months. General current affairs boards, like PB.com (in my opinion, the best in business) suffer particularly badly from such an attenuation of the signal-noise ratio. Such debates add no viewer value and are not worth having in such a venue - if posters really want to duke it out, they should do so at a rationalist/skeptic site, or a "conspiracy"/"Truther" one, depending on who wants home-turf advantage. But I shall be avoiding like the mind-plague.
Further, I don't believe in free speech on private forums. If an owner wants to shut down debate, that's fine by me. If I disagree with a decision I'll take my viewing custom elsewhere and stick my eyeballs in front of someone else's banner ads. There were some grotesque and unpleasant debates over holocaust denial on PB and Mike made the call to simply ban the subject. Rightly, in my view, and not only is PB more pleasant to browse but it cut out a lot of "noise". On the other hand, he humoured the occasional musings of The Tap with great tolerance. Sage bloke, Our Gracious Host.
I have been thinking about this 'scandal' and have re-thought some ideas I've had about the BBC.
The first is why the BBC turned so anti-Catholic, with a truly bizarre emphasis on clerical child abuse, even to the extent to searching around the World for it.
Now, if you, like the BBC, had covered up massive child abuse scandals, would you have been so virulent in your attacks? Surely you would follow the 'it's a social problem, not a Catholic/Tory problem' line? Especially if the Government had followed this line itself and you were a Public Corporation?
Up to now, I thought this was just I'm-untouchable BBC arrogance. They thought they would never be held to the same standards they held other organisations.
The second is the ostrich-like behaviour of the BBC. The Acting Head of the BBC Trust gave a speech at the LSE but somehow failed to mention the child abuse scandals affecting the BBC. Now, this is standard BBC practice, but what struck me is she is going for the job on a permanent basis. Surely you would mention how tough you'd be on child abusers at the BBC and how you would clean things up etc.
Again, I put it down to BBC arrogance and their sense of invulnerability.
But, on further reflection, I see a flaw in my argument; how on Earth can those clever people at the BBC think the British people will put up with their antics? They are just too smart to come up with such a dumb strategy.
This weekend's news events have provided a convincing rationale for these two conundrums.
The BBC's confidence is from knowledge of child abuse within all three major parties. That's why they felt they could embark on the kamikaze attack on the Catholic Church and why they are so blasé about addressing the problem within their own organisation.
What's changed is the rise on multi-channel TV and the internet bloggers. The BBC doesn't occupy the near-total dominance it did in 1972. That's why they weren't able to keep the Savile story quiet any more, nor child abuse by MPs.
But Westminster is so slow to spot social change and the BBC has dominated for so long that I don't think they realise the game is up.
I don't really know what you're asking me for. I'm English, I live near Edinburgh, I work in marketing for a respected Edinburgh company. I'll happily message you with my linkedin profile, though sharing it here would feel somewhat odd. I used to be a Conservative supporter, now I'm a (very quiet when chatting to most of my Scottish colleagues) UKIP one.
I believe in seeing the world, not how I would wish it to be, but how it is. Let us take conspiracy theories. Going through life imagining everything is a conspiracy would make you a paranoid nut. Going through life imagining that nothing is a conspiracy would make you an incurable dupe. Neither are particularly desirable conditions, the second surely somewhat worse. Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate? I decide whether I believe something on the best evidence available.
What angle that is, I'll leave you to decide.
If the likes of nsnbc.me are ever the best source of evidence available to you, then I reckon you're in trouble.
But I thank you for such a generous answer. I was wondering whether you might actually just be trolling ("Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout" FGS) or if you were a full-on Truther à la Tap (whose blog is on rude form, for those worried by his long-time absence from these boards). Now I see you are merely a "very-independently-minded", anti-establishment Kipper. Any chance of you running for office, or for a position in the party organisation?
I must admit I used to think of UKIP as essentially a "narrow" party (in terms of its personnel, rather than its voter coalition which has always been rather broader), though my view has been shifting lately. A party that has room in it for both you and Sean Fear of this parish, is rather wider than I anticipated.
But that's rather a chicken and egg situation isn't it? The nature of a conspiracy is that is doesn't go widely reported in the mainstream press. Therefore by definition the only sites carrying it are going to be those without the anointing of 'credibility'. If people want to criticise the sources I post, I urge them to hold their noses, slum it, and read them critically -at least skim read. Don't just throw 'conspiracy loon site' at me.
Thank you for your thanks! I am a Victorian radical. I'm very skeptical of our relationship with the US (though individually I find them charming), a process that started in me when I studied economic history and found they'd been sticking it to us for the last 200 years. Equally so of the EU, for obvious reasons. Ideally I would like a UK that is stable, neutral, prosperous and fair. In pursuit of that utopia, UKIP, for all their flaws, seem the least worst option.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
I have been thinking about this 'scandal' and have re-thought some ideas I've had about the BBC.
The first is why the BBC turned so anti-Catholic, with a truly bizarre emphasis on clerical child abuse, even to the extent to searching around the World for it.
Now, if you, like the BBC, had covered up massive child abuse scandals, would you have been so virulent in your attacks? Surely you would follow the 'it's a social problem, not a Catholic/Tory problem' line? Especially if the Government had followed this line itself and you were a Public Corporation?
Up to now, I thought this was just I'm-untouchable BBC arrogance. They thought they would never be held to the same standards they held other organisations.
The second is the ostrich-like behaviour of the BBC. The Acting Head of the BBC Trust gave a speech at the LSE but somehow failed to mention the child abuse scandals affecting the BBC. Now, this is standard BBC practice, but what struck me is she is going for the job on a permanent basis. Surely you would mention how tough you'd be on child abusers at the BBC and how you would clean things up etc.
Again, I put it down to BBC arrogance and their sense of invulnerability.
But, on further reflection, I see a flaw in my argument; how on Earth can those clever people at the BBC think the British people will put up with their antics? They are just too smart to come up with such a dumb strategy.
This weekend's news events have provided a convincing rationale for these two conundrums.
The BBC's confidence is from knowledge of child abuse within all three major parties. That's why they felt they could embark on the kamikaze attack on the Catholic Church and why they are so blasé about addressing the problem within their own organisation.
What's changed is the rise on multi-channel TV and the internet bloggers. The BBC doesn't occupy the near-total dominance it did in 1972. That's why they weren't able to keep the Savile story quiet any more, nor child abuse by MPs.
But Westminster is so slow to spot social change and the BBC has dominated for so long that I don't think they realise the game is up.
Here's a thought, if Catholic clergy didn't abuse children on a huge scale, the BBC wouldn't have had anything to report. No abuse, no reporting.
Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate?
As for shutting down discussion, I am not a fan of government censorship. On the other hand, I am very supportive of the idea that people online should be able to disengage from debate, particularly which they don't feel comfortable with, and the internet would often be a better place if there were more disengagement than escalation. Experience suggests that if someone makes outrageous claims such as 9/11 being an obvious stitch-up, since it's impossible to hijack a plane with a box-cutter and several of the alleged hijackers are clearly still alive, then the best course of action is to just treat them like the nut they are and not engage in detailed dispute of their statement - for fear of getting stuck into trench warface over their whole Weltanschauung.
A claim so provocative is classic trollbait - and even if intended seriously, no amount of keystrokes seems to ever knock sense into them. That sort of "debate" is generally a great pollutant of message boards, of no interest to anyone bar the participants and the odd partisan, and a pain in the brain to filter through when reading. They also tend to be particularly prolonged ... lasting days ... weeks ... months. General current affairs boards, like PB.com (in my opinion, the best in business) suffer particularly badly from such an attenuation of the signal-noise ratio. Such debates add no viewer value and are not worth having in such a venue - if posters really want to duke it out, they should do so at a rationalist/skeptic site, or a "conspiracy"/"Truther" one, depending on who wants home-turf advantage. But I shall be avoiding like the mind-plague.
Further, I don't believe in free speech on private forums. If an owner wants to shut down debate, that's fine by me. If I disagree with a decision I'll take my viewing custom elsewhere and stick my eyeballs in front of someone else's banner ads. There were some grotesque and unpleasant debates over holocaust denial on PB and Mike made the call to simply ban the subject. Rightly, in my view, and not only is PB more pleasant to browse but it cut out a lot of "noise". On the other hand, he humoured the occasional musings of The Tap with great tolerance. Sage bloke, Our Gracious Host.
Since the debate is unpleasant to you, I certainly won't attempt engage you in it! I will merely say I try to adopt a dispassionate approach to these things, and avoid visceral knee jerk reactions. To believe something else because I was worried about being marginalised or called a nut would to me be real insanity.
I have been thinking about this 'scandal' and have re-thought some ideas I've had about the BBC.
The first is why the BBC turned so anti-Catholic, with a truly bizarre emphasis on clerical child abuse, even to the extent to searching around the World for it.
Now, if you, like the BBC, had covered up massive child abuse scandals, would you have been so virulent in your attacks? Surely you would follow the 'it's a social problem, not a Catholic/Tory problem' line? Especially if the Government had followed this line itself and you were a Public Corporation?
Up to now, I thought this was just I'm-untouchable BBC arrogance. They thought they would never be held to the same standards they held other organisations.
The second is the ostrich-like behaviour of the BBC. The Acting Head of the BBC Trust gave a speech at the LSE but somehow failed to mention the child abuse scandals affecting the BBC. Now, this is standard BBC practice, but what struck me is she is going for the job on a permanent basis. Surely you would mention how tough you'd be on child abusers at the BBC and how you would clean things up etc.
Again, I put it down to BBC arrogance and their sense of invulnerability.
But, on further reflection, I see a flaw in my argument; how on Earth can those clever people at the BBC think the British people will put up with their antics? They are just too smart to come up with such a dumb strategy.
This weekend's news events have provided a convincing rationale for these two conundrums.
The BBC's confidence is from knowledge of child abuse within all three major parties. That's why they felt they could embark on the kamikaze attack on the Catholic Church and why they are so blasé about addressing the problem within their own organisation.
What's changed is the rise on multi-channel TV and the internet bloggers. The BBC doesn't occupy the near-total dominance it did in 1972. That's why they weren't able to keep the Savile story quiet any more, nor child abuse by MPs.
But Westminster is so slow to spot social change and the BBC has dominated for so long that I don't think they realise the game is up.
Here's a thought, if Catholic clergy didn't abuse children on a huge scale, the BBC wouldn't have had anything to report. No abuse, no reporting.
Some people do use child abuse as a stick with which to beat Catholics, while not giving a damn about child abuse occurring in other institutions.
But, that shouldn't give the Catholic Church a pass for overlooking or condoning abuse that was carried out by some of it's clergy.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
Tell that to Syria. Not sure that is a good analogy. Assad is a very different level of unpleasant to Yanukovych or Putin.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
Tell that to Syria.
Not sure that is a good analogy. Assad is a very different level of unpleasant to Yanukovych or Putin.
And the 'rebels' that the US, Turkey, Qatar, and KSA (with our support) are sending into Syria are a very different level of unpleasant to Assad.
The New York Post is a Republican rag. They're just trying to stir the pot.
The quote "'The Obamas believe that Warren sees things from the same ideological point of view as they do. She is a committed progressive who, like Obama, wants to transform America into a European-style democratic-socialist state.'" definitely didn't come from a Democrat.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
Tell that to Syria.
Syria's government had been brutally murdering its own people. Ukraine had done nothing of the sort. And the US is not annexing any part of Syria.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
Tell that to Syria.
Syria's government had been brutally murdering its own people. Ukraine had done nothing of the sort. And the US is not annexing any part of Syria.
The man you are in nduiscussion with claims to be a scottish ex conservative UKIP convert. For some reason I doubt it.
I don't really know what you're asking me for. I'm English, I live near Edinburgh, I work in marketing for a respected Edinburgh company. I'll happily message you with my linkedin profile, though sharing it here would feel somewhat odd. I used to be a Conservative supporter, now I'm a (very quiet when chatting to most of my Scottish colleagues) UKIP one.
I believe in seeing the world, not how I would wish it to be, but how it is. Let us take conspiracy theories. Going through life imagining everything is a conspiracy would make you a paranoid nut. Going through life imagining that nothing is a conspiracy would make you an incurable dupe. Neither are particularly desirable conditions, the second surely somewhat worse. Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate? I decide whether I believe something on the best evidence available.
What angle that is, I'll leave you to decide.
If the likes of nsnbc.me are ever the best source of evidence available to you, then I reckon you're in trouble.
But I thank you for such a generous answer. I was wondering whether you might actually just be trolling ("Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout" FGS) or if you were a full-on Truther à la Tap (whose blog is on rude form, for those worried by his long-time absence from these boards). Now I see you are merely a "very-independently-minded", anti-establishment Kipper. Any chance of you running for office, or for a position in the party organisation?
I must admit I used to think of UKIP as essentially a "narrow" party (in terms of its personnel, rather than its voter coalition which has always been rather broader), though my view has been shifting lately. A party that has room in it for both you and Sean Fear of this parish, is rather wider than I anticipated.
But that's rather a chicken and egg situation isn't it? The nature of a conspiracy is that is doesn't go widely reported in the mainstream press. Therefore by definition the only sites carrying it are going to be those without the anointing of 'credibility'. If people want to criticise the sources I post, I urge them to hold their noses, slum it, and read them critically -at least skim read. Don't just throw 'conspiracy loon site' at me.
So are the following subjects just reasonable things not report in the mainstream press?
nsnbc features articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2][3] FEMA concentration camps,[2][4] Bilderberg conspiracies,[2][5] Zionist conspiracies,[6] Rothschild conspiracies,[6] Monsanto conspiracies,[7] Séralini's discredited rat study,[8] vaccine-induced autism,[9] fluoride conspiracies,[10] and cancer woo.[11]
Hello Mr OldKingCole... 'However, I do go along with those who say it’s highly unlikely only one copy existed'
Yes, although my main point is this was all discussed and was known 30 years ago. Dickens expressed pleasure that the Home Office had his 'dossier'. Dickens also accused the High Commissioner to Canada who was later arrested after he left certain documents in a taxi. I think I can actually vaguely remember that. Dickens named him in parliament, some diaries full of fantasies were found. It happened and was reported. It is not some dark secret just discovered.
Socrates Agree, and Warren is unlikely to run, but nonetheless were she to change her mind there is no doubt ideologically she is closer to Obama on the more liberal wing of the party, than the Clintons who are on the more Centrist, New Democrat wing
I think this article is very illustrative of the differences between our viewpoints. It certainly over-eggs the pudding -50 reasons is too exhausting for anyone to read, but other than that, I don't see it as terribly objectionable. Every one of the reasons offers a peer-reviewed, published study or similar as evidence. Since, as they say, the majority of the world doesn't fluoridate, it's not some outlandish view. I don't really get the issue.
McKinley is a serial loser and carpetbagger, ukip, police commissioner and Tory, the people in Thanet south (nor actually the conservative party) are that stupid. Farage to win that seat is like finding it in the street, both major parties have simply offered up a sacrificial lamb.
So are the following subjects just reasonable things not report in the mainstream press?
nsnbc features articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2][3] FEMA concentration camps,[2][4] Bilderberg conspiracies,[2][5] Zionist conspiracies,[6] Rothschild conspiracies,[6] Monsanto conspiracies,[7] Séralini's discredited rat study,[8] vaccine-induced autism,[9] fluoride conspiracies,[10] and cancer woo.[11]
Well, let's take Bilderberg conspiracies for one. For years, decades even, 'tin-foil hat wearers' have claimed the Bilderberg group met in secret to set the world agenda. This was never reported in the mainstream press. In the age of the internet, the (very real) meetings of this group have had to come into the open, they have published agendas, attendee lists etc. So that's one nil to the tin foil hat wearers for a start. I think Bilderberg meetings are valid mainstream news, and it is the internet and the democratisation of the news that means that they are now reported in the mainstream press.
No ethnic cleansing is being carried out against Russians in Donetsk. This is simply a made up lie. You will not be able to produce any credible source to back it. The Ukrainian government needs to use its weapons because in the two ceasefires it has agreed so far, the pro-Russian militias have repeatedly attacked Ukrainian military forces during them, including the shooting down of a helicopter.
Let us be honest here. You support Russian aggressiveness because you dislike the liberal democratic West, and prefer a society that violently attacks gays and is conspiratorial against Jews.
This post is a disaster. First use the 'lie' word, even 'made up lie' -is that even worse than a non-made up lie?
Then demanding a 'credible source'. As we've found, there's no objective measure of what you would describe as a credible source, except that they don't subscribe to certain views -an entirely subjective measure. A credible source is one that you agree with -so obviously there will be no 'credible' source for what he is alleging.
Your justification of mass shelling of civilian areas is especially pitiful considering this is precisely what you have described in Syria as 'Assad butchering/slaughtering/murdering (insert emotive verb here) his own people'.
As for your last flourish -it's kinder not to comment.
There's plenty of sites that I would describe as a credible source. I don't care what political leaning they have. They just have to be one that doesn't put forth crackpot theories on 9/11 being an insider job, or be directly funded by the Kremlin or one of its allies. I'd accept anyone from MSNBC to the AFP to Al-Jazeera to the Daily Mail. If you really think all of them are in ideological cahoots you have to be a can short of a sixpack.
Ukraine has not had mass shelling of civilian areas. That's why the death toll isn't anywhere near the scale. More than a thousand people had been killed in Syria before the FSA took up arms, compared to about a dozen since the Ukrainian government tried to reassert its control of the East. That's the difference between targeting civilians and not targeting civilians.
I think this article is very illustrative of the differences between our viewpoints. It certainly over-eggs the pudding -50 reasons is too exhausting for anyone to read, but other than that, I don't see it as terribly objectionable. Every one of the reasons offers a peer-reviewed, published study or similar as evidence. Since, as they say, the majority of the world doesn't fluoridate, it's not some outlandish view. I don't really get the issue.
You mean like this one>
According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”
Why don't you try to fine me the quote in that paper? I'm sure it'll be easy to find when you have a direct quote and it's a government organisation.
Hello Mr OldKingCole... 'However, I do go along with those who say it’s highly unlikely only one copy existed'
Yes, although my main point is this was all discussed and was known 30 years ago. Dickens expressed pleasure that the Home Office had his 'dossier'. Dickens also accused the High Commissioner to Canada who was later arrested after he left certain documents in a taxi. I think I can actually vaguely remember that. Dickens named him in parliament, some diaries full of fantasies were found. It happened and was reported. It is not some dark secret just discovered.
So why now is it all resurrected?
You seem to have a problem remembering that the Hayman case was covered up by the political class until Dickens used parliamentary privilege to make it public.
blackburn63 What the Tories needed was a hardworking candidate with a record of electoral success who could take advantage of Farage's sometimes less than arduous approach to campaigning, Mackinlay is a councillor, but his failure to win the PCC vote against Ann Barnes, who as the recent C4 doc is a less than titanic figure, does not bode well
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
Rather hyperbolic. If MPs have harboured paedophiles it will be an immense scandal, but not fatal to our democracy. Indeed it would be a vindication of independent minded MPs and a free press
"Call for a public inquiry into historic child abuse: Forget the expenses scandal. If MPs have harboured paedophiles, the damage to British democracy will be fatal says MP SIMON DANCZUK":
These events were public at the time. Dickens spoke in parliament and elswhere about them. Where were the 'free' press at the time. There is nothing 'secret' about these alegations or the existence of this dossier. Dickens spoke about handoing it over at the time. As far as I can see the 'free' press are hardly reporting this in any proper context.
The events weren't public. That's why Dickens had to use parliamentary privilege to name one of the VIP child-molesters the political class were protecting.
The reluctance of the press and police to pursue child-molesting MPs going back to the Boothby-Driberg case.
Pardon me - but the minute Dickens spoke in Parliament they were public. The minute he said he was pleased the Home Office had his 'dossier' then it was public. The moment the High Commissioner to Canada was arrested it was public - well I accept it only became public 3 years later as his real name was not used in court. But it was all known long ago - read his obituaries. the one in the Indy says .... 'Enough publicity has been given to his involvement in a Paedophile Information exchange, revealed by documents left on a bus. ' There was no VIP child molester, as you put it, Hayman had photos - bad enough - but he did not molest children and by the time Dickens named him he had already been arrested (in 1978) and he had been exposed by Private Eye.
blackburn63 What the Tories needed was a hardworking candidate with a record of electoral success who could take advantage of Farage's sometimes less than arduous approach to campaigning, Mackinlay is a councillor, but his failure to win the PCC vote against Ann Barnes, who as the recent C4 doc is a less than titanic figure, does not bode well
Exactly, hence my sacrificial lamb remark, this smacks of the tories effectively giving up.
Pardon me - but the minute Dickens spoke in Parliament they were public. The minute he said he was pleased the Home Office had his 'dossier' then it was public. The moment the High Commissioner to Canada was arrested it was public - well I accept it only became public 3 years later as his real name was not used in court. But it was all known long ago - read his obituaries. the one in the Indy says .... 'Enough publicity has been given to his involvement in a Paedophile Information exchange, revealed by documents left on a bus. ' There was no VIP child molester, as you put it, Hayman had photos - bad enough - but he did not molest children and by the time Dickens named him he had already been arrested (in 1978) and he had been exposed by Private Eye.
I'm sure he was pleased the Home Office had his dossier - shame it disappeared though.
I think this article is very illustrative of the differences between our viewpoints. It certainly over-eggs the pudding -50 reasons is too exhausting for anyone to read, but other than that, I don't see it as terribly objectionable. Every one of the reasons offers a peer-reviewed, published study or similar as evidence. Since, as they say, the majority of the world doesn't fluoridate, it's not some outlandish view. I don't really get the issue.
You mean like this one>
According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”
Why don't you try to fine me the quote in that paper? I'm sure it'll be easy to find when you have a direct quote and it's a government organisation.
You're right, it wasn't hard. Here's the full study, the quote is at the bottom of page 222.
And furthermore, this shouldn't even be news to anyone with their critical faculties intact -fluoride is a poison; that's why we only let kids have a pea sized amount. We ingest a lot of poisons (horseradish is a poison in large amounts), but the debate as to whether, when, and how much we administer this to the public at large is surely a valid one.
Well yes, along with the right of democratically & legitimately elected governments to use reasonable force against heavily armed foreign-supported-and-supplied insurgents.
Except the democratically elected Government of Ukraine was overthrown.
I understand Yanukovich fled following the use of hired thugs to kidnap and murder protesters. There is now another elected government in place. Whatever your views on who should be President, I would still argue that the Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity against a foreign aggressor.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
So you would agree it has been a very wrong decision of this governement to involve ourselves in the affairs of the Ukraine and Syria then? That it was wrong to back the overthrow of Yanukovich and attempted overthrow of Assad, that the outcome of our interference in said countries has catastrophic consequences?
I think this article is very illustrative of the differences between our viewpoints. It certainly over-eggs the pudding -50 reasons is too exhausting for anyone to read, but other than that, I don't see it as terribly objectionable. Every one of the reasons offers a peer-reviewed, published study or similar as evidence. Since, as they say, the majority of the world doesn't fluoridate, it's not some outlandish view. I don't really get the issue.
You mean like this one>
According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”
Why don't you try to fine me the quote in that paper? I'm sure it'll be easy to find when you have a direct quote and it's a government organisation.
"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. To determine the possible adverse effects of fluoride, additional data from both the experimental and the clinical sciences are needed."
Perhaps try picking your fights a bit more cautiously?
And what is the evidence for that headline? A Palestinian news site reported that Arafat's nephew had claimed it. That's it. And yet they do a headline like that.
Re Mike's article: I suspect this is quite good news for UKIP. This guy has no history of electoral success (quite the opposite, in fact), and seems to have been picked solely for his Euroscepticism. I'd also note that it makes it quite difficult for the Cons to differentiate themselves from UKIP, and this is probably not good news for them. Finally, if it discourages tactical voting *to* Conservatives, then that is extremely good news for UKIP.
It mentions that Gbagbo was taken out of power in a French-sponsored coup because he wanted to leave a French-influenced currency union. No mention at all of the fact he'd just lost an election.
I think this article is very illustrative of the differences between our viewpoints. It certainly over-eggs the pudding -50 reasons is too exhausting for anyone to read, but other than that, I don't see it as terribly objectionable. Every one of the reasons offers a peer-reviewed, published study or similar as evidence. Since, as they say, the majority of the world doesn't fluoridate, it's not some outlandish view. I don't really get the issue.
You mean like this one>
According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”
Why don't you try to fine me the quote in that paper? I'm sure it'll be easy to find when you have a direct quote and it's a government organisation.
"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. To determine the possible adverse effects of fluoride, additional data from both the experimental and the clinical sciences are needed."
Perhaps try picking your fights a bit more cautiously?
blackburn63 Indeed, and the Labour candidate is quite young and inexperienced and still in his twenties (albeit Mayor of Margate), so Farage much fancy his chances
And what is the evidence for that headline? A Palestinian news site reported that Arafat's nephew had claimed it. That's it. And yet they do a headline like that.
I have no brief to defend NSNBC or its reporting. I would say I have seen very similar leaps made in the British press, though those would usually use speech marks within the headline. However, my point is and has always been that we must judge things on their content. I read something, and decide if it convinces me or not. I don't decide if I'm convinced or not before reading. That's the difference.
So are the following subjects just reasonable things not report in the mainstream press?
nsnbc features articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2][3] FEMA concentration camps,[2][4] Bilderberg conspiracies,[2][5] Zionist conspiracies,[6] Rothschild conspiracies,[6] Monsanto conspiracies,[7] Séralini's discredited rat study,[8] vaccine-induced autism,[9] fluoride conspiracies,[10] and cancer woo.[11]
Well, let's take Bilderberg conspiracies for one. For years, decades even, 'tin-foil hat wearers' have claimed the Bilderberg group met in secret to set the world agenda. This was never reported in the mainstream press. In the age of the internet, the (very real) meetings of this group have had to come into the open, they have published agendas, attendee lists etc. So that's one nil to the tin foil hat wearers for a start. I think Bilderberg meetings are valid mainstream news, and it is the internet and the democratisation of the news that means that they are now reported in the mainstream press.
The Bilderberg group was never a great secret: Dennis Healy (a member) spoke at length about it in the 1970s, and talked about how it brought together politicians and industrialists post War to discuss reconstruction. I learned all about it at Cambridge when was there in the early 1990s.
Really, all the Bilderberg group was (and is) is a slightly smaller, even less efficacious, version of Davos.
Mr Jones - so what if this dossier disappeared? It may of course be of great importance - but on the other hand it may not. The existence of the dossier and its delivery were not secret. Presumably Dickens knew what was in it and the likelihood of it being meaningful. Why only now do we start asking questions and questions on the basis that no one knew of the events in question. Why no further statements from him ? What we have are two labour MPs, one a known stirrer now forced to move on after failing to 'get' Brookes. I for one see signs of a pattern.
And what is the evidence for that headline? A Palestinian news site reported that Arafat's nephew had claimed it. That's it. And yet they do a headline like that.
I have no brief to defend NSNBC or its reporting. I would say I have seen very similar leaps made in the British press, though those would usually use speech marks within the headline. However, my point is and has always been that we must judge things on their content. I read something, and decide if it convinces me or not. I don't decide if I'm convinced or not before reading. That's the difference.
So what is your source that Ukraine has been shelling civilian area, causing mass casualties?
The problem the Tories have is the Pepsi Coke dilemma, if you have a candidate who wants to get out of the EU + supports grammar schools, ie basically UKIP policies, why would you not vote for the real thing rather than UKIP lite
Well yes, along with the right of democratically & legitimately elected governments to use reasonable force against heavily armed foreign-supported-and-supplied insurgents.
Except the democratically elected Government of Ukraine was overthrown.
I understand Yanukovich fled following the use of hired thugs to kidnap and murder protesters. There is now another elected government in place. Whatever your views on who should be President, I would still argue that the Ukraine has the right to defend its territorial integrity against a foreign aggressor.
Your understanding is rather one sided to say the least. But be that as it may, we can all agree that Yanukovich was democratically elected, and he was ousted against his will by a popular protest movement, by actions that fall outside the constitution. The current Kiev government would therefore seem to have little justification for calling the secession of Crimea and the uprisings in Donetsk 'illegal'.
Two statements with no logical connection. Arguing about who should be President is a very different matter to a foreign power supporting armed rebels and subverting the territorial integrity of your country.
So you would agree it has been a very wrong decision of this governement to involve ourselves in the affairs of the Ukraine and Syria then? That it was wrong to back the overthrow of Yanukovich and attempted overthrow of Assad, that the outcome of our interference in said countries has catastrophic consequences?
So are the following subjects just reasonable things not report in the mainstream press?
nsnbc features articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2][3] FEMA concentration camps,[2][4] Bilderberg conspiracies,[2][5] Zionist conspiracies,[6] Rothschild conspiracies,[6] Monsanto conspiracies,[7] Séralini's discredited rat study,[8] vaccine-induced autism,[9] fluoride conspiracies,[10] and cancer woo.[11]
Well, let's take Bilderberg conspiracies for one. For years, decades even, 'tin-foil hat wearers' have claimed the Bilderberg group met in secret to set the world agenda. This was never reported in the mainstream press. In the age of the internet, the (very real) meetings of this group have had to come into the open, they have published agendas, attendee lists etc. So that's one nil to the tin foil hat wearers for a start. I think Bilderberg meetings are valid mainstream news, and it is the internet and the democratisation of the news that means that they are now reported in the mainstream press.
The Bilderberg group was never a great secret: Dennis Healy (a member) spoke at length about it in the 1970s, and talked about how it brought together politicians and industrialists post War to discuss reconstruction. I learned all about it at Cambridge when was there in the early 1990s.
Really, all the Bilderberg group was (and is) is a slightly smaller, even less efficacious, version of Davos.
Well Davros was very efficacious, he created the Daleks didn't he?
The problem the Tories have is the Pepsi Coke dilemma, if you have a candidate who wants to get out of the EU + supports grammar schools, ie basically UKIP policies, why would you not vote for the real thing rather than UKIP lite
Because the 'real thing' is the one which has a chance of delivering.
Re Mike's article: I suspect this is quite good news for UKIP. This guy has no history of electoral success (quite the opposite, in fact), and seems to have been picked solely for his Euroscepticism. I'd also note that it makes it quite difficult for the Cons to differentiate themselves from UKIP, and this is probably not good news for them. Finally, if it discourages tactical voting *to* Conservatives, then that is extremely good news for UKIP.
Current UKIP odds now look too short.
Yes I can see your point. But equally there is the point that some people will NOT (sorry re caps) vote for UKIP because the tory has a history of Euroscepticism. Many people are eurosceptic but are not best charmed by UKIP's concentration on race. Call it perceived concentration if you like but its arguable to say that it will stop straight tory UKIP swap and there is still the anti Farage set who may still chose Tory as the best way to keep him out. I do agree that from the record this chap may not be a good campaigner - but I have no real idea on that. I must say I like the idea of how Thanet S have been quite 'provocative'.
blackburn63 Indeed, and the Labour candidate is quite young and inexperienced and still in his twenties (albeit Mayor of Margate), so Farage much fancy his chances
We shall soon see if Farage is frit of his old colleague. Farage has a pretty poor record of FPTP elections.
The Labour guy has won locally and has a platform as Mayor. His odds look best to me, but I am saving my constituency bets for the spring.
It shows how hard it is for kippers to find a winnable seat.
According to the guy that runs nsnbc, the Bilderbergers are actually an "unholy alliance between International Banksters and the National Socialist International that survived WWII as extraterritorial state"
Mr Jones - so what if this dossier disappeared? It may of course be of great importance - but on the other hand it may not. The existence of the dossier and its delivery were not secret. Presumably Dickens knew what was in it and the likelihood of it being meaningful. Why only now do we start asking questions and questions on the basis that no one knew of the events in question. Why no further statements from him ? What we have are two labour MPs, one a known stirrer now forced to move on after failing to 'get' Brookes. I for one see signs of a pattern.
Perhaps it's something to do with the recent revelation that the political class covered up for Cyril Smith for decades, the ongoing investigation into Elm Tree guest house, it coming out in relation to the north wales children's homes that Morrison had been protected by the political class, the unasked questions from Islington, Channel Islands, Dolphin Square etc, the Savile case dragging up old memories leading to lots of people coming forward with allegations they didn't think would ever be honestly investigated etc.
Or in a nutshell the internet making it harder for the political class to bury this stuff like they have done since Boothby-Driberg.
It mentions that Gbagbo was taken out of power in a French-sponsored coup because he wanted to leave a French-influenced currency union. No mention at all of the fact he'd just lost an election.
I found that article fascinating; I knew nothing about the Ivory Coast, or what I'm sure you'll agree are the iniquitous powers the French continue to wield in their former colonies. The individuals who write for NSNBC have an agenda, as do all publications. This one left out the fact that Gbago was hanging on to power after losing a (disputed) election. An article in a Western publication would no doubt leave out the fact that the West had a very good reason for wanting him out. Both should be heard, and neither should be absorbed as gospel.
Monday's Daily Mail front page - "VIP abusers: new fears of cover-up"
I think this is getting really dangerous for the government. The papers are banging on and on about this, and regardless of when it took place, who may / may not have covered stuff up, most of the public when they here establishment cover-up, that is it something to do with current lot.
You had to listen quite carefully to realise for example that this infamous dossier was handed in 30+ years ago and has been missing for a long long time.
And all you see on the news is Cameron looking flustered, Tebbit saying probably some cover-up and then tomorrow May will be saying something...again if you only catch glimpses of the news and aren't really following this closely (which most of the public never do), it will appear current mob something to do with sex abuse cover-up.
The mayor of margate is elected by his party councillors not the public. Rest assured, Farage will be rubbing his hands together at his opposition.
A 24 year old elected as an MP? Pull the other one
Charles Kennedy was 23 when elected MP.
The fellow clearly has support from his councillors. Their ground game will be up against Farages pub crawl and overflights. I know where I would put my stake.
Mr Jones - so what if this dossier disappeared? It may of course be of great importance - but on the other hand it may not. The existence of the dossier and its delivery were not secret. Presumably Dickens knew what was in it and the likelihood of it being meaningful. Why only now do we start asking questions and questions on the basis that no one knew of the events in question. Why no further statements from him ? What we have are two labour MPs, one a known stirrer now forced to move on after failing to 'get' Brookes. I for one see signs of a pattern.
Lead story on bbc news is Lord Tebbitt admitting a Westminster cover up of paedophiles was likely
Edit
And. It's also the lead item on itv news right now
The problem the Tories have is the Pepsi Coke dilemma, if you have a candidate who wants to get out of the EU + supports grammar schools, ie basically UKIP policies, why would you not vote for the real thing rather than UKIP lite
Because the 'real thing' is the one which has a chance of delivering.
The real things leader will vote to stay in the EU and refuses to open more Grammar schools though.
A 24 year old elected as an MP? Pull the other one
With apologies for the site I'm linking to (first one I found with the text) and obviously she went quite mad later but here is a maiden speech delivered by an MP on her 22nd birthday:
It mentions that Gbagbo was taken out of power in a French-sponsored coup because he wanted to leave a French-influenced currency union. No mention at all of the fact he'd just lost an election.
I found that article fascinating; I knew nothing about the Ivory Coast, or what I'm sure you'll agree are the iniquitous powers the French continue to wield in their former colonies. The individuals who write for NSNBC have an agenda, as do all publications. This one left out the fact that Gbago was hanging on to power after losing a (disputed) election. An article in a Western publication would no doubt leave out the fact that the West had a very good reason for wanting him out. Both should be heard, and neither should be absorbed as gospel.
How does "the West" have a good reason for wanting him out?
The man you are in nduiscussion with claims to be a scottish ex conservative UKIP convert. For some reason I doubt it.
I most certainly don't -I'm English! Came up here to do my marketing post grad. I'm originally from West Sussex.
Then I suggest you get out more. Edinburgh has some nice pubs. A pint in one of them is better than spreading rubbish about Bilderberg. Your defence of your views there is really putting the cart before the horse. It's the interweb that spawned and fed its population of tin foil hat, holgraphic rocket blew up the WTC, fantasists who then need to create the secret scandals that they then propagate as truth. They have not 'discovered' anything at all.
Just a small piece of background information regarding the missing Home Office dossiers. In 2004 the Home Office moved from Queen Anne's Gate to Marsham Street. Now what's the odds that the then 20 year old information at the heart of the latest piece of media hysteria got lost or destroyed accidentally at the time of the move?
Citing Bernadette Devlin is not really relevant to Margate as I'm sure you're aware. Anyway, those who suggest Farage will be dissuaded from standing because of McKinley are either deluded or clutching at straws.
The problem the Tories have is the Pepsi Coke dilemma, if you have a candidate who wants to get out of the EU + supports grammar schools, ie basically UKIP policies, why would you not vote for the real thing rather than UKIP lite
Because the 'real thing' is the one which has a chance of delivering.
The real things leader will vote to stay in the EU and refuses to open more Grammar schools though.
The leader may vote to stay in the EU, but so what? There will be many others who will vote differently and at last the kippers will have their EU referendum.
MacKinlay can deliver, while Farage can only mouth off.
Business leaders have been threatened with “retribution” by the SNP if they speak out against Scottish independence, it will be claimed on Monday. Nineteen firms said they were aware of threats of “retribution down the track” for those who support the Union. The intimidation is alleged to have come from the highest levels of the SNP, including from the office of Alex Salmond, the First Minister.
On Sunday it emerged that a major whisky distiller, William Grant and Sons, had donated a six-figure sum to the Better Together campaign.
Citing Bernadette Devlin is not really relevant to Margate as I'm sure you're aware. Anyway, those who suggest Farage will be dissuaded from standing because of McKinley are either deluded or clutching at straws.
ISAM indeed, Cameron is only promising a referendum he has not yet delivered, and Gove has not even allowed a new grammar to open in Sevenoaks to meet demand
Re Mike's article: I suspect this is quite good news for UKIP. This guy has no history of electoral success (quite the opposite, in fact), and seems to have been picked solely for his Euroscepticism. I'd also note that it makes it quite difficult for the Cons to differentiate themselves from UKIP, and this is probably not good news for them. Finally, if it discourages tactical voting *to* Conservatives, then that is extremely good news for UKIP.
Current UKIP odds now look too short.
Yes I can see your point. But equally there is the point that some people will NOT (sorry re caps) vote for UKIP because the tory has a history of Euroscepticism. Many people are eurosceptic but are not best charmed by UKIP's concentration on race. Call it perceived concentration if you like but its arguable to say that it will stop straight tory UKIP swap and there is still the anti Farage set who may still chose Tory as the best way to keep him out. I do agree that from the record this chap may not be a good campaigner - but I have no real idea on that. I must say I like the idea of how Thanet S have been quite 'provocative'.
What UKIP concentration on race? There hasn't been any concentration on race.
Mr Jones - so what if this dossier disappeared? It may of course be of great importance - but on the other hand it may not. The existence of the dossier and its delivery were not secret. Presumably Dickens knew what was in it and the likelihood of it being meaningful. Why only now do we start asking questions and questions on the basis that no one knew of the events in question. Why no further statements from him ? What we have are two labour MPs, one a known stirrer now forced to move on after failing to 'get' Brookes. I for one see signs of a pattern.
Perhaps it's something to do with the recent revelation that the political class covered up for Cyril Smith for decades, the ongoing investigation into Elm Tree guest house, it coming out in relation to the north wales children's homes that Morrison had been protected by the political class, the unasked questions from Islington, Channel Islands, Dolphin Square etc, the Savile case dragging up old memories leading to lots of people coming forward with allegations they didn't think would ever be honestly investigated etc.
Or in a nutshell the internet making it harder for the political class to bury this stuff like they have done since Boothby-Driberg.
Spot on.
Anyone questioning why this is coming up now must be living in a cave.
Re Mike's article: I suspect this is quite good news for UKIP. This guy has no history of electoral success (quite the opposite, in fact).
This isn't quite true, is it? He's an elected councillor and I believe increased his majority the second time round. Of course he didn't have any success in the elections where he was standing for UKIP, but that's a rather bizarre argument to use in support of the proposition that therefore UKIP will do well. The only other case where he seems to have done badly was in the Police commissioner elections, but those produced many different results around the country on low turnouts, and his opponent had what looked like a very good CV for the job (not that she has turned out well in practice), so I don't think you can draw any conclusions from it.
I don't know anything about the guy beyond the bare info of his Wikipedia entry and newspaper articles of the last few days, but I don't see anything to indicate he is not a good campaigner (or that he is, for that matter).
Comments
The odd post was about UKIP neither offering nor supporting a referendum and the conjecture that might be because whichever way it went it would be the end of UKIP?
I greatly respect Nick Palmer Ex-MP of this parish, who rightly says that PB is at its best when we aren't discussing each other. But then, we all know what his agenda his (we can check his parliamentary voting record after all). It would be good to know what your agenda is. Radical Anti-Establishment Kipper, or are you coming at the universe from a slightly wider angle?
I think you might get on well with The Tap, a most entertaining PB correspondent of yore.
I believe in seeing the world, not how I would wish it to be, but how it is. Let us take conspiracy theories. Going through life imagining everything is a conspiracy would make you a paranoid nut. Going through life imagining that nothing is a conspiracy would make you an incurable dupe. Neither are particularly desirable conditions, the second surely somewhat worse. Therefore what use does the term have, except to shut down debate? I decide whether I believe something on the best evidence available.
What angle that is, I'll leave you to decide.
Defenders of the system believe that prosecutors and police never make mistakes.
Its optimistic to speculate that this 'dossier' was computer generated. it is far more likely to contain hand and type written documents.
Experience has shown that dossiers can be dodgy.
Where were the 'free' press at the time. There is nothing 'secret' about these alegations or the existence of this dossier. Dickens spoke about handoing it over at the time. As far as I can see the 'free' press are hardly reporting this in any proper context.
The reluctance of the press and police to pursue child-molesting MPs going back to the Boothby-Driberg case.
However, I do go along with those who say it’s highly unlikely only one copy existed, although of course the Dickens family may have innocently destroyed the one GD retained, since there’s always a feeling of “what do we want all this for?"
I destroyed all my fathers photo slides, since they were not indexed and I came across them late on the day the family was clearing his house after his death. I sometimes wish I’d kept them and tried to go through them, although I’m quite sure they were just holiday snaps.
I agree entirely though that handwritten or typed was the much more likely format for the time, and those documents are very unlikely to have been scanned and thus retained digitally.
I'd add though that the civil service is really rather good at keeping things. I'd be pretty sure that there are documents that 'don't exist' which in fact do. (On a very small scale mind you and principally connected to the royals)
Her mum would never allow it.
But I thank you for such a generous answer. I was wondering whether you might actually just be trolling ("Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout" FGS) or if you were a full-on Truther à la Tap (whose blog is on rude form, for those worried by his long-time absence from these boards). Now I see you are merely a "very-independently-minded", anti-establishment Kipper. Any chance of you running for office, or for a position in the party organisation?
I must admit I used to think of UKIP as essentially a "narrow" party (in terms of its personnel, rather than its voter coalition which has always been rather broader), though my view has been shifting lately. A party that has room in it for both you and Sean Fear of this parish, is rather wider than I anticipated.
(Not the way Cameron translated it!)
A claim so provocative is classic trollbait - and even if intended seriously, no amount of keystrokes seems to ever knock sense into them. That sort of "debate" is generally a great pollutant of message boards, of no interest to anyone bar the participants and the odd partisan, and a pain in the brain to filter through when reading. They also tend to be particularly prolonged ... lasting days ... weeks ... months. General current affairs boards, like PB.com (in my opinion, the best in business) suffer particularly badly from such an attenuation of the signal-noise ratio. Such debates add no viewer value and are not worth having in such a venue - if posters really want to duke it out, they should do so at a rationalist/skeptic site, or a "conspiracy"/"Truther" one, depending on who wants home-turf advantage. But I shall be avoiding like the mind-plague.
Further, I don't believe in free speech on private forums. If an owner wants to shut down debate, that's fine by me. If I disagree with a decision I'll take my viewing custom elsewhere and stick my eyeballs in front of someone else's banner ads. There were some grotesque and unpleasant debates over holocaust denial on PB and Mike made the call to simply ban the subject. Rightly, in my view, and not only is PB more pleasant to browse but it cut out a lot of "noise". On the other hand, he humoured the occasional musings of The Tap with great tolerance. Sage bloke, Our Gracious Host.
O/T
Just got back from watching Le Tour on Jenkin Road. Absolutely amazing atmosphere. Got cheered cycling up it xD
The first is why the BBC turned so anti-Catholic, with a truly bizarre emphasis on clerical child abuse, even to the extent to searching around the World for it.
Now, if you, like the BBC, had covered up massive child abuse scandals, would you have been so virulent in your attacks? Surely you would follow the 'it's a social problem, not a Catholic/Tory problem' line? Especially if the Government had followed this line itself and you were a Public Corporation?
Up to now, I thought this was just I'm-untouchable BBC arrogance. They thought they would never be held to the same standards they held other organisations.
The second is the ostrich-like behaviour of the BBC. The Acting Head of the BBC Trust gave a speech at the LSE but somehow failed to mention the child abuse scandals affecting the BBC. Now, this is standard BBC practice, but what struck me is she is going for the job on a permanent basis. Surely you would mention how tough you'd be on child abusers at the BBC and how you would clean things up etc.
Again, I put it down to BBC arrogance and their sense of invulnerability.
But, on further reflection, I see a flaw in my argument; how on Earth can those clever people at the BBC think the British people will put up with their antics? They are just too smart to come up with such a dumb strategy.
This weekend's news events have provided a convincing rationale for these two conundrums.
The BBC's confidence is from knowledge of child abuse within all three major parties. That's why they felt they could embark on the kamikaze attack on the Catholic Church and why they are so blasé about addressing the problem within their own organisation.
What's changed is the rise on multi-channel TV and the internet bloggers. The BBC doesn't occupy the near-total dominance it did in 1972. That's why they weren't able to keep the Savile story quiet any more, nor child abuse by MPs.
But Westminster is so slow to spot social change and the BBC has dominated for so long that I don't think they realise the game is up.
Thank you for your thanks! I am a Victorian radical.
But, that shouldn't give the Catholic Church a pass for overlooking or condoning abuse that was carried out by some of it's clergy.
Not sure that is a good analogy. Assad is a very different level of unpleasant to Yanukovych or Putin.
And the 'rebels' that the US, Turkey, Qatar, and KSA (with our support) are sending into Syria are a very different level of unpleasant to Assad.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2682284/Obama-backing-Elizabeth-Warren-president-snub-former-rival-Hillary-Clinton.html
The quote "'The Obamas believe that Warren sees things from the same ideological point of view as they do. She is a committed progressive who, like Obama, wants to transform America into a European-style democratic-socialist state.'" definitely didn't come from a Democrat.
Syria's government had been brutally murdering its own people. Ukraine had done nothing of the sort. And the US is not annexing any part of Syria.
The man you are in nduiscussion with claims to be a scottish ex conservative UKIP convert. For some reason I doubt it.
nsnbc features articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2][3] FEMA concentration camps,[2][4] Bilderberg conspiracies,[2][5] Zionist conspiracies,[6] Rothschild conspiracies,[6] Monsanto conspiracies,[7] Séralini's discredited rat study,[8] vaccine-induced autism,[9] fluoride conspiracies,[10] and cancer woo.[11]
50 reasons to oppose fluoridation - http://nsnbc.me/2013/03/17/50-reasons-to-oppose-fluoridation/
It's like something out of Dr. Strangelove.
'However, I do go along with those who say it’s highly unlikely only one copy existed'
Yes, although my main point is this was all discussed and was known 30 years ago. Dickens expressed pleasure that the Home Office had his 'dossier'.
Dickens also accused the High Commissioner to Canada who was later arrested after he left certain documents in a taxi. I think I can actually vaguely remember that. Dickens named him in parliament, some diaries full of fantasies were found. It happened and was reported. It is not some dark secret just discovered.
So why now is it all resurrected?
Ukraine has not had mass shelling of civilian areas. That's why the death toll isn't anywhere near the scale. More than a thousand people had been killed in Syria before the FSA took up arms, compared to about a dozen since the Ukrainian government tried to reassert its control of the East. That's the difference between targeting civilians and not targeting civilians.
According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”
Why don't you try to fine me the quote in that paper? I'm sure it'll be easy to find when you have a direct quote and it's a government organisation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681318/How-Establishment-hid-monster-midst-As-MPs-demand-inquiry-covering-VIP-child-abuse-ring-chilling-proof-depraved-diplomat-protected-good-great.html
The reluctance of the press and police to pursue child-molesting MPs going back to the Boothby-Driberg case.
Pardon me - but the minute Dickens spoke in Parliament they were public. The minute he said he was pleased the Home Office had his 'dossier' then it was public. The moment the High Commissioner to Canada was arrested it was public - well I accept it only became public 3 years later as his real name was not used in court. But it was all known long ago - read his obituaries. the one in the Indy says .... 'Enough publicity has been given to his involvement in a Paedophile Information exchange, revealed by documents left on a bus. '
There was no VIP child molester, as you put it, Hayman had photos - bad enough - but he did not molest children and by the time Dickens named him he had already been arrested (in 1978) and he had been exposed by Private Eye.
http://will4souththanet.co.uk/
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=222
And furthermore, this shouldn't even be news to anyone with their critical faculties intact -fluoride is a poison; that's why we only let kids have a pea sized amount. We ingest a lot of poisons (horseradish is a poison in large amounts), but the debate as to whether, when, and how much we administer this to the public at large is surely a valid one.
"On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. To determine the possible adverse effects of fluoride, additional data from both the experimental and the clinical sciences are needed."
Perhaps try picking your fights a bit more cautiously?
"Arafat was poisoned and killed by Israel and the USA"
http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/12/arafat-poisoned-killed-israel-usa/
And what is the evidence for that headline? A Palestinian news site reported that Arafat's nephew had claimed it. That's it. And yet they do a headline like that.
Current UKIP odds now look too short.
http://nsnbc.me/2014/05/12/how-colonialism-benefits-from-boko-harams-mass-kidnapping-of-girls/
It mentions that Gbagbo was taken out of power in a French-sponsored coup because he wanted to leave a French-influenced currency union. No mention at all of the fact he'd just lost an election.
Really, all the Bilderberg group was (and is) is a slightly smaller, even less efficacious, version of Davos.
What we have are two labour MPs, one a known stirrer now forced to move on after failing to 'get' Brookes. I for one see signs of a pattern.
"remove forcibly from power"
Nobody physically touched the guy.
I do agree that from the record this chap may not be a good campaigner - but I have no real idea on that.
I must say I like the idea of how Thanet S have been quite 'provocative'.
The Labour guy has won locally and has a platform as Mayor. His odds look best to me, but I am saving my constituency bets for the spring.
It shows how hard it is for kippers to find a winnable seat.
Who knew?
http://nsnbc.me/2012/04/06/confession/
A 24 year old elected as an MP? Pull the other one
Or in a nutshell the internet making it harder for the political class to bury this stuff like they have done since Boothby-Driberg.
I think this is getting really dangerous for the government. The papers are banging on and on about this, and regardless of when it took place, who may / may not have covered stuff up, most of the public when they here establishment cover-up, that is it something to do with current lot.
You had to listen quite carefully to realise for example that this infamous dossier was handed in 30+ years ago and has been missing for a long long time.
And all you see on the news is Cameron looking flustered, Tebbit saying probably some cover-up and then tomorrow May will be saying something...again if you only catch glimpses of the news and aren't really following this closely (which most of the public never do), it will appear current mob something to do with sex abuse cover-up.
The fellow clearly has support from his councillors. Their ground game will be up against Farages pub crawl and overflights. I know where I would put my stake.
Edit
And. It's also the lead item on itv news right now
http://saoirse32.wordpress.com/2006/04/18/bernadette-devlins-maiden-speech-2/
Hundreds of MPs in their 30s / 40s / 50s / 60s / 70s / 80s managed to spent a career in the house without ever making an equivalent impact.
Your defence of your views there is really putting the cart before the horse.
It's the interweb that spawned and fed its population of tin foil hat, holgraphic rocket blew up the WTC, fantasists who then need to create the secret scandals that they then propagate as truth. They have not 'discovered' anything at all.
Of course Labour were in Government then.
MacKinlay can deliver, while Farage can only mouth off.
Personally, I would vote for neither BOO'er.
Business leaders have been threatened with “retribution” by the SNP if they speak out against Scottish independence, it will be claimed on Monday.
Nineteen firms said they were aware of threats of “retribution down the track” for those who support the Union. The intimidation is alleged to have come from the highest levels of the SNP, including from the office of Alex Salmond, the First Minister.
On Sunday it emerged that a major whisky distiller, William Grant and Sons, had donated a six-figure sum to the Better Together campaign.
Anyone questioning why this is coming up now must be living in a cave.
I don't know anything about the guy beyond the bare info of his Wikipedia entry and newspaper articles of the last few days, but I don't see anything to indicate he is not a good campaigner (or that he is, for that matter).