This is why the s##t could go everywhere. I do love the way the BBC are totally and utterly focused on saying the 1980's, 1980's, 1980's....I've no idea why they don't seem to have any interest in the 1970s, after all the dossier etc was very very early 1980's i.e I'm sure involved incidents / people alleged to be active in the 1970's.
And of course we all know about PIE, and various high profile individuals links to that organisation, in the 1970's...
But if you just listened to the BBC, you would think that establishment paedos only operated in the 1980's. Not before, not after.
Well put, its as if any history pre-1979 has been airbrushed completely from history.
Speedy Agree, though at least Dubya allowed Lehmans to go bust, unlike Brown who bailed out every one which asked and orchestrated the disastrous Lloyds takeover of HBOS
@Speedy Or the Boston Tea Party? It is only when the people protest that anything really changes, and those at the top like to make sure we don't.
That is true, Thatcher was going under only when the middle class rioted in London against the huge increase in housing taxes for them, also known as the poll tax in 1990. Or when the republicans lost the west coast after the 1992 L.A. riots, never to regain it again.
The poll tax rioters in London were Trots and assorted ne'er do wells. Complaining about a tax which to them was no more than a packet of fags each week.
Despite seeing my local MP at her surgery last Saturday morning, imploring her to vote against, she wasn't one of them - oh well.
The key for why so many MP's voted for it . "It’s also legislation which states that MPs should be exempt from this blatant invasion of privacy." MP's to be above the law they vote for all others.
@Speedy Or the Boston Tea Party? It is only when the people protest that anything really changes, and those at the top like to make sure we don't.
Boston Tea Party made things worse. What was a simple tax disagreement turned into a situation of violence and then a repressive response to that violence.
Like the english civil war no taxation without represenation or a shift of power to parliament, the diffence was that the colonists couldn't conquer Britain and cut the head off George III.
This is why the s##t could go everywhere. I do love the way the BBC are totally and utterly focused on saying the 1980's, 1980's, 1980's....I've no idea why they don't seem to have any interest in the 1970s, after all the dossier etc was very very early 1980's i.e I'm sure involved incidents / people alleged to be active in the 1970's.
And of course we all know about PIE, and various high profile individuals links to that organisation, in the 1970's...
But if you just listened to the BBC, you would think that establishment paedos only operated in the 1980's. Not before, not after.
Well put, its as if any history pre-1979 has been airbrushed completely from history.
When you looked at the pleadings and indeed the reported cases where the Church and numerous other institutions have been sued for child sex abuse nearly all of the evidence averred and referred to has been earlier than the 80s.
The most recent Supreme Court case was this one: The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants (FC), The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others reported last year. It involved allegations of the abuse of 170 boys between 1958 and 1992. In my experience this is pretty typical.
"The prime minister, who has often been criticised for a lackadaisical approach to government, showed that he had learnt from his political hero Harold Macmillan when he wielded the No 10 carving knife in a manner rarely seen in recent years. Macmillan famously sacked a third of his cabinet in 1962 in the "night of the long knives"." -----
Well I heard last night referred to as the 'night of the thong wives'! And I think its a reshuffle more out of weakness rather than strength, removing both Gove and Patterson as the 2 most unpopular ministers from their posts, and the response to Ashcroft Crosby polling. Meanwhile, this was easily the most important appointment of the lot:
Despite seeing my local MP at her surgery last Saturday morning, imploring her to vote against, she wasn't one of them - oh well.
The key for why so many MP's voted for it . "It’s also legislation which states that MPs should be exempt from this blatant invasion of privacy." MP's to be above the law they vote for all others.
@Speedy Or the Boston Tea Party? It is only when the people protest that anything really changes, and those at the top like to make sure we don't.
That is true, Thatcher was going under only when the middle class rioted in London against the huge increase in housing taxes for them, also known as the poll tax in 1990. Or when the republicans lost the west coast after the 1992 L.A. riots, never to regain it again.
The poll tax rioters in London were Trots and assorted ne'er do wells. Complaining about a tax which to them was no more than a packet of fags each week.
1 million trots just in London would have given the SWP quite a number of seats. Or with the 18 million who refused to pay the tax, majority government.
This is why the s##t could go everywhere. I do love the way the BBC are totally and utterly focused on saying the 1980's, 1980's, 1980's....I've no idea why they don't seem to have any interest in the 1970s, after all the dossier etc was very very early 1980's i.e I'm sure involved incidents / people alleged to be active in the 1970's.
And of course we all know about PIE, and various high profile individuals links to that organisation, in the 1970's...
But if you just listened to the BBC, you would think that establishment paedos only operated in the 1980's. Not before, not after.
Well put, its as if any history pre-1979 has been airbrushed completely from history.
When you looked at the pleadings and indeed the reported cases where the Church and numerous other institutions have been sued for child sex abuse nearly all of the evidence averred and referred to has been earlier than the 80s.
The most recent Supreme Court case was this one: The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants (FC), The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others reported last year. It involved allegations of the abuse of 170 boys between 1958 and 1992. In my experience this is pretty typical.
I was very glad that Baroness Butler Sloss won't be heading up the inquiry after her late brother was AG at the time to which some of the inquiry relates, as well as the allegation that she was prepared to cover up for a bishop involved to 'protect the church'. Had quite an argument with my local MP over this at the surgery last Saturday morning, so Monday was quite a satisfying day! I found it amazing that she couldn't read the tea leaves by the time of the surgery!
Libya calls to be re-invaded to help put down CIA linked general who wants to ousts islamists from power put there by the help of William Hague. Where is Gaddafi when you need him? Oh that's right, dead.
This is why the s##t could go everywhere. I do love the way the BBC are totally and utterly focused on saying the 1980's, 1980's, 1980's....I've no idea why they don't seem to have any interest in the 1970s, after all the dossier etc was very very early 1980's i.e I'm sure involved incidents / people alleged to be active in the 1970's.
And of course we all know about PIE, and various high profile individuals links to that organisation, in the 1970's...
But if you just listened to the BBC, you would think that establishment paedos only operated in the 1980's. Not before, not after.
Well put, its as if any history pre-1979 has been airbrushed completely from history.
When you looked at the pleadings and indeed the reported cases where the Church and numerous other institutions have been sued for child sex abuse nearly all of the evidence averred and referred to has been earlier than the 80s.
The most recent Supreme Court case was this one: The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants (FC), The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others reported last year. It involved allegations of the abuse of 170 boys between 1958 and 1992. In my experience this is pretty typical.
I was very glad that Baroness Butler Sloss won't be heading up the inquiry after her late brother was AG at the time to which some of the inquiry relates, as well as the allegation that she was prepared to cover up for a bishop involved to 'protect the church'. Had quite an argument with my local MP over this at the surgery last Saturday morning, so Monday was quite a satisfying day! I found it amazing that she couldn't read the tea leaves by the time of the surgery!
The bishop allegation was the more concerning of the two. I think she did the right thing in standing down.
"The prime minister, who has often been criticised for a lackadaisical approach to government, showed that he had learnt from his political hero Harold Macmillan when he wielded the No 10 carving knife in a manner rarely seen in recent years. Macmillan famously sacked a third of his cabinet in 1962 in the "night of the long knives"." -----
Well I heard last night referred to as the 'night of the thong wives'! And I think its a reshuffle more out of weakness rather than strength, removing both Gove and Patterson as the 2 most unpopular ministers from their posts, and the response to Ashcroft Crosby polling. Meanwhile, this was easily the most important appointment of the lot:
Ian Katz (@iankatz1000) 15/07/2014 21:54 Tories have made 37 ministerial appointments today but can't - or won't - field one of them to go on #newsnight
SeanF Indeed, a clear 1/3 of the Parliament now anti Federalist. Ironically it was the Parliament's support for Juncker which was supposed to be the reason for the Council to endorse him, his 'mandate' clearly less than overwhelming. Not good for Dave's powers of persuasion therefore that he could not get even 10% of the Council of Ministers to support him.
WTF? He won 422 to 250. That's a huge, crushing, overwhelming majority. Hardly anyone wins a parliamentary vote by a margin like that.
On topic I think there's something to be said for Cameron's approach here. Blair woud have looked at the polling sooner and stepped in to stop his ministers doing unpopular things. Cameron gives them a good four years to do what they think is best without meddling or micro-managing, and only steps in if the minister has proved that they're a clear liability and they're not going to turn the thing around.
This evening I heard - form a reliable source - a very convoluted, but clever, explanation and analysis of why Gove's move is a good thing, for several different reasons.
This evening I heard - form a reliable source - a very convoluted, but clever, explanation and analysis of why Gove's move is a good thing, for several different reasons.
This evening I heard - form a reliable source - a very convoluted, but clever, explanation and analysis of why Gove's move is a good thing, for several different reasons.
Go on Mr L, pray tell.
If I remember correctly:
(a) Gove is unpopular with the teachers. Therefore the mad lefty teachers will be fooled into thinking that his departure as Education Secretary is a good thing, because they are mad enough to think that the policy will change with someone else. Merely by Gove not being there any more, a few gullible wishy-washy teachers will be persuaded to vote Conservative again.
(b) The new Education Secretary is a woman and therefore useful window-dressing.
(c) Gove is popular with normal people (i.e. parents and people, rather than teachers) and will therefore be persuasive in his new propaganda and campaigning position.
(d) All of Gove's education reforms have already been enacted, and are therefore secure and will look after themselves in their implementation.
(e) Gove was getting bored and wanted to move to something else anyway. By making it look as though he has been "demoted", the mad lefty teachers will be fooled into thinking that he has been "sacked".
(f)(g)(h) There were probably a few more reasons, but I'm not clever enough to remember or understand them all.
(i) Michael Gove looks like Heinrich Himmler, so therefore... erm... I can't remember that bit.
jayfdee It has not aged, core power play never does, and Kevin Spacey's US version also very watchable
Also re watching " Edge of darkness" it still disturbs me,and the music courtesy of Clapo really adds to the sinister effect.
If you two are stripmining past political dramas, you may want to compare "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (the 1979 BBC version) and "Washington: Behind Closed Doors". Both are on YouTube.
The Alec Guinness version on TV was absolutely brilliant. The film a couple of years ago was seriously disappointing.
I *really* like the Guinness version, and was pleasantly surprised by how well it'd aged. The recent film version: well, it had sparks, and Gary Oldman was wonderful, but I thought it was overdesigned (the Circus interiors were rubbish), they muffed the Heydon reveal ,and finally squeezed too much plot into not enough time. Still like it, tho...
I liked both versions of "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy", but that may be because of the order in which I watched them. (a) the 2011 film (b) the book (c) the 1979 TV series. I was too young to watch the 1979 version the first time, although I was aware of my father being a big fan of it. After I saw the 2011 film, he loaned me the book, and as I read it I was imagining Alec Guinness as Smiley but the other characters as they were from the 2011 film.
Comments
http://tumblr.nickjackson.me/post/91856571960/if-your-mp-is-on-this-list-they-voted-against
Despite seeing my local MP at her surgery last Saturday morning, imploring her to vote against, she wasn't one of them - oh well.
"It’s also legislation which states that MPs should be exempt from this blatant invasion of privacy."
MP's to be above the law they vote for all others.
The most recent Supreme Court case was this one: The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants (FC), The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools and others reported last year.
It involved allegations of the abuse of 170 boys between 1958 and 1992. In my experience this is pretty typical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hill,_Baron_Hill_of_Oareford
Who had heard of him before yesterday? I certainly hadn't!
Or with the 18 million who refused to pay the tax, majority government.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/libya-tripoli-airport-closed-rocket-attacks
Libya calls to be re-invaded to help put down CIA linked general who wants to ousts islamists from power put there by the help of William Hague.
Where is Gaddafi when you need him? Oh that's right, dead.
15/07/2014 21:54
Tories have made 37 ministerial appointments today but can't - or won't - field one of them to go on #newsnight
(a) Gove is unpopular with the teachers. Therefore the mad lefty teachers will be fooled into thinking that his departure as Education Secretary is a good thing, because they are mad enough to think that the policy will change with someone else. Merely by Gove not being there any more, a few gullible wishy-washy teachers will be persuaded to vote Conservative again.
(b) The new Education Secretary is a woman and therefore useful window-dressing.
(c) Gove is popular with normal people (i.e. parents and people, rather than teachers) and will therefore be persuasive in his new propaganda and campaigning position.
(d) All of Gove's education reforms have already been enacted, and are therefore secure and will look after themselves in their implementation.
(e) Gove was getting bored and wanted to move to something else anyway. By making it look as though he has been "demoted", the mad lefty teachers will be fooled into thinking that he has been "sacked".
(f)(g)(h) There were probably a few more reasons, but I'm not clever enough to remember or understand them all.
(i) Michael Gove looks like Heinrich Himmler, so therefore... erm... I can't remember that bit.
(a) the 2011 film
(b) the book
(c) the 1979 TV series.
I was too young to watch the 1979 version the first time, although I was aware of my father being a big fan of it. After I saw the 2011 film, he loaned me the book, and as I read it I was imagining Alec Guinness as Smiley but the other characters as they were from the 2011 film.