"As it happened, it was not a donkey jacket at all, but a very expensive short overcoat that his wife, Jill, had chosen for him because she thought it made him look elegant.
Even the late Queen Mother, at the post-ceremony reception, commented on what a splendid garment it was."
The opportunity for a free vote on day marriage was in the tory manifesto. Probably the LD one as well.
No, it wasnt, it was announced in a document called "Contract for Equalities" which was published with little fanfair on 4th May 2010, two days before the general election. I am not personally anti- but underhand behaviour like that is almost purpose build to piss off people that are. It was a typic Osborne "too-clever-by-halfism"
The govt have stopped the sub continent student scam and EU immigration is work and economy related. Economic times will change and many immigrants will return home.
It "promised" the electorate it would cut net immigration, then it didnt, they its tried to weasel out by saying the promise was a comment, then it dropped the pledge completely, more silly lies and positioning. The economic times will only affect immigrant numbers from Eastern Europe if our economy turns down heavily, in which case there won't be any jobs for British Citizens either, otherwise earning 3-4 times as much with free healthcare, free schooling, in work benefits and just going to be too attractive.
Even if EU migration had magically fallen to keep its share of the target, this government STILL didn't cut non-EU immigration enough. Not even halfway. David "No Ifs, No Buts" Cameron has utterly failed on this. He simply can not be trusted on immigration any more.
But forget Con + LD + Ukip. Any notion of working with the fruitloop brigade who are their diametric opposite politically will be a step too far for virtually all LDs,
People would have said that about CON+LD five years ago, and yet here we are. Desire for power does strange things to politicians, all sorts of disqualifications can suddenly be overlooked to get your hands on a red box.
Michael Foot had a good line in invective. One of his good points
He was, a few years ago, I listened to Michael Foot winding up the No Confidence debate in 1979, he was very impressive.
Unfortunately for him, everyone remembers him for the donkey jacket* and being the Ed Miliband of his day.
*It wasn't a donkey jacket.
Someone posted the documentary of that debate earlier this morning. He quipped about David Steel:
"He's passed from rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period whatsoever"
Edit: apparently that wasn't said at the debate, but before. Silly me!
My favourite Michael Foot line was during the Profumo Scandal
The members of our secret service have apparently spent so much time under the bed looking for communists that they haven't had the time to look in the bed.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
First it was keeping the chances of a Tory majority at the next election low to hoodwink the Scottish voters into staying in the Union, and now providing a bit of breathing room for Ed... us Tories are canny bastards
That, or we are going to lose the next election.... hm!
On gay marriage, I remember John Prescott saying he urged Ton Blair not to ditch Clause 4 because it would 'tear the heart out of the party'. Did gay marriage tear the heart out of the Tories? It's possible I guess. But Blair ditched clause 4 and went on to win 3 elections, in large part because his grassroots were desperate to win. Are the Tory grassroots desperate to win? I think not. There was a small chunk of the electorate who had many of the self-reliant characteristics of Tories but were rigidly opposed to the party because of its apparent dislike of their lifestyle. Here was a chance to win some of them over. Did they want to?
It's an interesting point. Labour won where they needed to win, under Blair. But, they withered away in areas of historic strength, which may now prevent them from winning a majority, or even ending up as largest single party.
Cameron's strategy was not wholly unsuccessful. Leaving aside the polls taken in the immediate aftermath of the Rochester by-election, he's won over 2-3% of the electorate who used to vote Lib Dem.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
For those of us who have been on PB a long time, some of us remember when some posters accused Mike of being fixated on bad news for Gordon Brown/Labour
Actually thinking further the truth is I don't know, I think from 0 -> 15 UKIP certainly hurts the Conservatives, but 16 + the distro of Lab/Con switchers is probably around parity or some such ?
A lot of the Con > UKIP switchers left the Conservatives to "Don't know", or Labour before choosing UKIP.
A decline in the UKIP vote will not necessarily increase Conservative support. The decline in Labour support over the past year has not gone to the Conservatives.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
Can you refer me to the specific post? Or at least a word string I can CTRL + F for?
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
"When Enoch Powell was going through a period of unpopularity in all parties (it was just after the "rivers of blood" speech), Michael Foot sat down beside him in the Commons library and engaged him in conversation. They were both experienced parliamentarians. Indeed, it was in that year, 1968, that they had both combined to defeat the reform of the House of Lords introduced by Foot's friend, Richard Crossman.
Foot admired Powell. And Powell, for his part, loved Foot. "And shall I tell you why I love him?" Powell said, who was much given to answering his own questions. "It is because he speaks beautiful English." "
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
I have never denied that I have had two screen names. So has Fitalass (ChristinaD) and so has iSam (Sam). So have many people I should think? Who cares?
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
I have never denied that I have had two screen names. So has Fitalass (ChristinaD) and so has iSam (Sam). So have many people I should think? Who cares?
For those of us who have been on PB a long time, some of us remember when some posters accused Mike of being fixated on bad news for Gordon Brown/Labour
Mike Smithson has only two bad news fixations :
Burnley FC and follicular deficiency research. Sadly it would appear both will ensure a long term condition.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
You were banned for wishing me dead as I recall!
No , I joked "Dont worry I am sorry you are alive" when you said "Sorry.. " for something else.
It was a line from BlackAdder II that was obviously meant as a joke, but you blubbed about it for long enough to get me banned.
And the reason I said it in the first place was down to you trolling by having various accounts, BobaJob, TheLastBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges to name but four
I never pretended that my old account wasnt "sam" and I only changed it because the password didn't work on my iPad
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
Can you refer me to the specific post? Or at least a word string I can CTRL + F for?
For those of us who have been on PB a long time, some of us remember when some posters accused Mike of being fixated on bad news for Gordon Brown/Labour
Mike Smithson has only two bad news fixations :
Burnley FC and follicular deficiency research. Sadly it would appear both will ensure a long term condition.
No dissing of OGH, please. He is a lovely bloke, with no hairs and graces about him.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
I have never denied that I have had two screen names. So has Fitalass (ChristinaD) and so has iSam (Sam). So have many people I should think? Who cares?
@Bobajob_ It only becomes a problem when you use a second account as a "sock puppet", other than that, it is just a screen name.
To be honest it was a mistake last night. I used the mobile thinking it was under one login and it was under the other one. The spam filter stopped either working so I just re-registered. I personally don't care when one anonymous poster comes back as another anonymous poster, but its life or death to some PBers!!
But forget Con + LD + Ukip. Any notion of working with the fruitloop brigade who are their diametric opposite politically will be a step too far for virtually all LDs,
People would have said that about CON+LD five years ago, and yet here we are. Desire for power does strange things to politicians, all sorts of disqualifications can suddenly be overlooked to get your hands on a red box.
Not this one. Although I haven't been an activist for several years and am now just a armchair supporter I am quite sure conference would never approve any sort of grand coalition involving Ukip, it will be difficult enough passing a motion approving one just with Labour or the Tories but it may be possible if we survive the GE without being too depleted.
Interesting that when Ed allows the shadow cabinet to make speeches as pseudo-kippers in favour of immigration controls, the left-wing protest. Yet Labour rise in the polls.
They're learned a lesson there, so I expect Labour to continue the Ukip-light rhetoric periodically until May 2015 and then revert to their default setting when safely in power.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
For those of us who have been on PB a long time, some of us remember when some posters accused Mike of being fixated on bad news for Gordon Brown/Labour
Mike Smithson has only two bad news fixations :
Burnley FC and follicular deficiency research. Sadly it would appear both will ensure a long term condition.
No dissing of OGH, please. He is a lovely bloke, with no hairs and graces about him.
For those of us who have been on PB a long time, some of us remember when some posters accused Mike of being fixated on bad news for Gordon Brown/Labour
Mike Smithson has only two bad news fixations :
Burnley FC and follicular deficiency research. Sadly it would appear both will ensure a long term condition.
No dissing of OGH, please. He is a lovely bloke, with no hairs and graces about him.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
You were banned for wishing me dead as I recall!
No , I joked "Dont worry I am sorry you are alive" when you said "Sorry.. " for something else.
It was a line from BlackAdder II that was obviously meant as a joke, but you blubbed about it for long enough to get me banned.
And the reason I said it in the first place was down to you trolling by having various accounts, BobaJob, TheLastBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges to name but four
I never pretended that my old account wasnt "sam" and I only changed it because the password didn't work on my iPad
Try retrieving that post and reading it back to yourself – it wasn't much of a joke and I didn't blub about it at all. I merely pointed out that it was a bloody dodgy thing to say, some seconds later the moderator stepped in. I didn't ask him to - not at all. You have a worrying victim complex that doesn't bode well for your ambitions to go into politics.
As for the various names – as I have said before: Who cares? And by the way you have been right about some and laughably wrong about others.
But whatever, life is too short. I will again offer you an olive branch and offer to put the whole thing behind us. Do you accept?
We’ve had enough interesting posters leaving this site recently without having any more. I do feel though that people shouldn't engage in arguments with themselves, or appear to support themselves, under another name.
We’ve had enough interesting posters leaving this site recently without having any more. I do feel though that people shouldn't engage in arguments with themselves, or appear to support themselves, under another name.
I didn't! I don't think I even had a conversation with myself last night – it was just a blunder on my part using two different devices. But thanks for your support anyway – appreciated. If people want me banned I am happy to voluntarily ban myself.
I don't think so. Just because Ed's having a shocker lately doesn't mean Dave has anything in the bag. Far from it. Both main parties are suffering serious structural problems. Labour have an utterly useless leader, no raison d'etre, no policies and are a cynical metropoloitam clique. But then again even though Dave has some successes and is facing in the right direction he has nonetheless successfully split the right, aliented his traditional core, failed in many key areas, deeply upset many of his backbenchers and failed (despite, I think, being quite nice personally) to detoxify the Tory brand in much of the country. He's only 1 inch or so closer to the Clapham Omnibus than Ed.
Mid 30s looks like a ceiling for both parties right now.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Bobajob/isam and others, this conversation is now closed.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is not permissible to have more than one active account on PB, bar those which are the same, such as Poster, and Poster2, as some posters have had some login/password problems, and a new account is required.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
You were banned for wishing me dead as I recall!
No , I joked "Dont worry I am sorry you are alive" when you said "Sorry.. " for something else.
It was a line from BlackAdder II that was obviously meant as a joke, but you blubbed about it for long enough to get me banned.
And the reason I said it in the first place was down to you trolling by having various accounts, BobaJob, TheLastBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges to name but four
I never pretended that my old account wasnt "sam" and I only changed it because the password didn't work on my iPad
Try retrieving that post and reading it back to yourself – it wasn't much of a joke and I didn't blub about it at all. I merely pointed out that it was a bloody dodgy thing to say, some seconds later the moderator stepped in. I didn't ask him to - not at all. You have a worrying victim complex that doesn't bode well for your ambitions to go into politics.
As for the various names – as I have said before: Who cares? And by the way you have been right about some and laughably wrong about others.
But whatever, life is too short. I will again offer you an olive branch and offer to put the whole thing behind us. Do you accept?
If I think someone is an idiot or deceiving others I will call it out no matter what line of work I am in. You are guilty of both so I called it out.
I don't like you so I wont agree to your offer, especially as you insult me in the first paragraph then pretend to be the bigger man in the final one, which is typical of all of you
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
He can't be BobaFett or HanDodges, both of those are me. Also please stop trying to claim the credit for "Sam". I put a lot of work into that one.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
You were banned for wishing me dead as I recall!
No , I joked "Dont worry I am sorry you are alive" when you said "Sorry.. " for something else.
It was a line from BlackAdder II that was obviously meant as a joke, but you blubbed about it for long enough to get me banned.
And the reason I said it in the first place was down to you trolling by having various accounts, BobaJob, TheLastBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges to name but four
I never pretended that my old account wasnt "sam" and I only changed it because the password didn't work on my iPad
Try retrieving that post and reading it back to yourself – it wasn't much of a joke and I didn't blub about it at all. I merely pointed out that it was a bloody dodgy thing to say, some seconds later the moderator stepped in. I didn't ask him to - not at all. You have a worrying victim complex that doesn't bode well for your ambitions to go into politics.
As for the various names – as I have said before: Who cares? And by the way you have been right about some and laughably wrong about others.
But whatever, life is too short. I will again offer you an olive branch and offer to put the whole thing behind us. Do you accept?
If I think someone is an idiot or deceiving others I will call it out no matter what line of work I am in. You are guilty of both so I called it out.
I don't like you so I wont agree to your offer, especially as you insult me in the first paragraph then pretend to be the bigger man in the final one, which is typical of all of you
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
The political logic was that the gay community had many of the characteristics of an upper middle class segment of society - but was not voting Tory in any meaningful way. The Tories were seen as delegitimised by their historical opposition to gay rights - gay marriage, as well as being the right thing to do, was an attempt legitimise a conversation with that community.
The calculation - and I suspect they are right - is that it is not enough of a salient issue with non-gays to change many votes. Many of people moving their support away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
Simply shows Cameron isn't that good at politics, losing more people than you're gaining isn't a recipe for winning elections.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
On topic, how much of the SNP's advantage is coming from people who used to be non-voters, and are they going to turn out in 2015? It's one thing to vote in a referendum, but mere general elections are a pain in the arse.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
When was that confirmed?
Last nights thread
You were banned for wishing me dead as I recall!
No , I joked "Dont worry I am sorry you are alive" when you said "Sorry.. " for something else.
It was a line from BlackAdder II that was obviously meant as a joke, but you blubbed about it for long enough to get me banned.
And the reason I said it in the first place was down to you trolling by having various accounts, BobaJob, TheLastBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges to name but four
I never pretended that my old account wasnt "sam" and I only changed it because the password didn't work on my iPad
Try retrieving that post and reading it back to yourself – it wasn't much of a joke and I didn't blub about it at all. I merely pointed out that it was a bloody dodgy thing to say, some seconds later the moderator stepped in. I didn't ask him to - not at all. You have a worrying victim complex that doesn't bode well for your ambitions to go into politics.
As for the various names – as I have said before: Who cares? And by the way you have been right about some and laughably wrong about others.
But whatever, life is too short. I will again offer you an olive branch and offer to put the whole thing behind us. Do you accept?
If I think someone is an idiot or deceiving others I will call it out no matter what line of work I am in. You are guilty of both so I called it out.
I don't like you so I wont agree to your offer, especially as you insult me in the first paragraph then pretend to be the bigger man in the final one, which is typical of all of you
The one issue which we have learned of which, in our view, could have been decisive only came to light after the attack. This was an online exchange in December 2012 between Adebowale and an extremist overseas, in which Adebowale expressed his intent to murder a soldier in the most graphic and emotive manner.
This was highly significant. Had MI5 had access to this exchange at the time, Adebowale would have become a top priority. There is then a significant possibility that MI5 would have been able to prevent the attack.
We have examined whether the Agencies could have discovered this intelligence before the attack, had they had cause to do so: it is highly unlikely. What is clear is that the one party which could have made a difference was the company on whose system the exchange took place. However, this company does not regard themselves as under any obligation to ensure that they identify such threats, or to report them to the authorities.
We find this unacceptable: however unintentionally, they are providing a safe haven for terrorists
So unless I miss read this, he states that they didn't have cause to consider the attacker prior to the attack (ie he wasn't a suspect or being watched), so that being the case how are ISPs supposed to know what to send to the security services unless they send everything.
In any case with all the 5-eyes technology exposed by Edward Snowden they should be able to see all this stuff anyway without asking the ISP. Giving intelligence agencies carte blanche to read email, is like letting government people at the post office open all letters, or people search all houses without a warrant or probable cause.
Worse he appears to be suggesting that the ISPs should read the emails and notify the police of anything they think is suspicious. Would he say that BT were providing safe havens for terrorist because they let them use the telephone network without listening to every call.
The one issue which we have learned of which, in our view, could have been decisive only came to light after the attack. This was an online exchange in December 2012 between Adebowale and an extremist overseas, in which Adebowale expressed his intent to murder a soldier in the most graphic and emotive manner. This was highly significant. Had MI5 had access to this exchange at the time, Adebowale would have become a top priority. There is then a significant possibility that MI5 would have been able to prevent the attack. We have examined whether the Agencies could have discovered this intelligence before the attack, had they had cause to do so: it is highly unlikely. What is clear is that the one party which could have made a difference was the company on whose system the exchange took place. However, this company does not regard themselves as under any obligation to ensure that they identify such threats, or to report them to the authorities. We find this unacceptable: however unintentionally, they are providing a safe haven for terrorists
So unless I miss read this, he states that they didn't have cause to consider the attacker prior to the attack (ie he wasn't a suspect or being watched), so that being the case how are ISPs supposed to know what to send to the security services unless they send everything. In any case with all the 5-eyes technology exposed by Edward Snowden they should be able to see all this stuff anyway without asking the ISP. Giving intelligence agencies carte blanche to read email, is like letting government people at the post office open all letters, or people search all houses without a warrant or probable cause. Worse he appears to be suggesting that the ISPs should read the emails and notify the police of anything they think is suspicious.
I want to know what Rifkind suggests we do about the Royal Mail, which has been conspicuously failing to read the letters and postcards they deliver and report everybody to the relevant authorities for decades.
Indigo, one wonders what would have happened had the exchange related to something which was likely to happen on US territoty.
Well quite. In any case the conversation was apparently in a private message exchange between two parties neither of whom were either suspects or being monitored. How exactly is the ISP supposed to tip off the security services short of reading everyones email, leaving aside the civil liberties nightmare, how many staff would that take!
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
The one issue which we have learned of which, in our view, could have been decisive only came to light after the attack. This was an online exchange in December 2012 between Adebowale and an extremist overseas, in which Adebowale expressed his intent to murder a soldier in the most graphic and emotive manner. This was highly significant. Had MI5 had access to this exchange at the time, Adebowale would have become a top priority. There is then a significant possibility that MI5 would have been able to prevent the attack. We have examined whether the Agencies could have discovered this intelligence before the attack, had they had cause to do so: it is highly unlikely. What is clear is that the one party which could have made a difference was the company on whose system the exchange took place. However, this company does not regard themselves as under any obligation to ensure that they identify such threats, or to report them to the authorities. We find this unacceptable: however unintentionally, they are providing a safe haven for terrorists
So unless I miss read this, he states that they didn't have cause to consider the attacker prior to the attack (ie he wasn't a suspect or being watched), so that being the case how are ISPs supposed to know what to send to the security services unless they send everything. In any case with all the 5-eyes technology exposed by Edward Snowden they should be able to see all this stuff anyway without asking the ISP. Giving intelligence agencies carte blanche to read email, is like letting government people at the post office open all letters, or people search all houses without a warrant or probable cause.
Worse he appears to be suggesting that the ISPs should read the emails and notify the police of anything they think is suspicious. Would he say that BT were providing safe havens for terrorist because they let them use the telephone network without listening to every call.
As Snowden pointed out they had the information to stop 9 11 but it got lost in the mountains of irrelevant data.
Do you always bear huge grudges? The offer is still there if you want to accept it. As I say, I have no idea what I am supposed to have done to you to make you hate me so much – if you could let me know then I may be able to make amends. Your own link a) doesn't show where you wished me dead and b) clearly shows that I didn't whinge to the moderator as you claimed.
As I say, do let me know what I have done that is such grounds for your ire and I will try to solve the problem.
"To protect ourselves and our free society the police should be able to see every site you visit and every e-mail you send."
Reminds of Deep Space Nine [no, really], when Sisko argues that you can't 'destroy paradise in order to save it'.
In the same couple of weeks that Ms May attacks Facebook and Google about social media, and the head of GCHQ demonises ISPs for not helping, something smells like rotten fish.
"To protect ourselves and our free society the police should be able to see every site you visit and every e-mail you send."
Reminds of Deep Space Nine [no, really], when Sisko argues that you can't 'destroy paradise in order to save it'.
Actually what Rifkind seems to be suggesting is even worse than that: Not only does he want the police to be able to read all your email, he also seems to want everybody who helps transmit your email to read it as well, then report back to the police if you're doing anything suspicious.
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
The political logic was that the gay community had many of the characteristics of an upper middle class segment of society - but was not voting Tory in any meaningful way. The Tories were seen as delegitimised by their historical opposition to gay rights - gay marriage, as well as being the right thing to do, was an attempt legitimise a conversation with that community.
The calculation - and I suspect they are right - is that it is not enough of a salient issue with non-gays to change many votes. Many of people moving their support away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
Simply shows Cameron isn't that good at politics, losing more people than you're gaining isn't a recipe for winning elections.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
Flawed analysis on both counts.
Gay marriage lost voters and activists and is why the Conservatives can't break out of the low 30s.
The Republicans swept the mid terms on an anti immigration platform but lost the Presidential elections when McCain and Romney pandered.
Maybe I'm sentimental, but I can't help feeling that it's rather a bigger breach of your fundamental human rights to be hacked to death with knives and a cleaver at the age of 25 than to have your emails scanned by a computer (not that anyone is suggesting blanket scanning of emails, of course).
Bobajob/isam and others, this conversation is now closed. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not permissible to have more than one active account on PB, bar those which are the same, such as Poster, and Poster2, as some posters have had some login/password problems, and a new account is required.
Mr. Tokyo, Mr. Indigo, it's depressing as hell. Either these people don't understand anything about social media, or they're utter knaves.
As has been pointed out, the volume of information would swamp every force in the country. And that's without pointing out a society where you give the police everything they want is a police state.
It's nuts. It's not on.
Bloody hell. All I want to do is vote Conservative to try and stop Balls keeping his seat, but they're not making it easy.
Indigo, one wonders what would have happened had the exchange related to something which was likely to happen on US territoty.
Exactly the same, they're saying whatever company it was didn't read those particular communications and notice the bit about planning terrorism.
That said, Google's algorithms are pretty good. Maybe MI5 should try advertising some useful terrorism products then seeing who clicks on them.
100 BILLION emails are sent each day, good luck to them narrowing that down to a useful number even with Google's algorithms. It would cost a vast amount of hardware and a ridiculous number of staff to process, and would make all ISPs completely unaffordable - and even if they did manage to do it, it could be circumvented using a simple VPN or off the shelf encryption package. ISPs certainly dont have the resources to crack encryption and then process all the emails.
"To protect ourselves and our free society the police should be able to see every site you visit and every e-mail you send."
Reminds of Deep Space Nine [no, really], when Sisko argues that you can't 'destroy paradise in order to save it'.
In the same couple of weeks that Ms May attacks Facebook and Google about social media, and the head of GCHQ demonises ISPs for not helping, something smells like rotten fish.
There's a balance isn't there between security and liberty. Home Secretaries ALWAYS err on the side of security. It's their job I suppose. Personally I prefer to err on the side of liberty and believe that the occasional casualty in defence of liberty is a price society should accept for its liberty. Otherwise we risk authoritarian politicos (from either side) getting the opportunity to develop their inner police state tendencies. (p.s. I don't think the liberty/security divide is necessarily aligned in any way to left/right politics - I seem to remember eg Nabavi voting on the security side). For me it's simple - my hatred, fear and mistrust of politicians and the near certainty of what they will do to my liberties far outweighs my fear, hatred and dislike of Muslim fanatics and what they might (with a vanishingly small % likelihood) do to me personally.
Maybe I'm sentimental, but I can't help feeling that it's rather a bigger breach of your fundamental human rights to be hacked to death with knives and a cleaver at the age of 25 than to have your emails scanned by a computer.
Quite a lot more people than that were blown to pieces in two world wars to preserve those rights... AND IT WONT STOP ANYTHING The second its know that ISP are monitoring emails, people will stop plotting by email, they will download a VPN client, or an encryption package, or they will post a letter by mail, or they will get in their car and go and talk to someone, or make a phone call with RedPhone, or chat using TextSecure etc etc etc
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
Okay – I think you are over-reacting massively – AFAIK I never never actually denied being Scout or BobaFett except perhaps in clear jest. After all BobaFett and TLBS both contained a massive clue didn't they – in their names? That was intentional. It was a bit of fun.
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
I agree with your " Tories...too thick to work out that they didn't actually win power in 2010 " comment. There have been numbers I have spoken too who appear unaware they are in a Coalition with written agreements...
To be fair the issue which did Dave the most damage with his core was gay marriage which wasn't in the coalition deal as far as I am aware, and certainly not in the manifesto, irrespective of the merits of the policy, its was a foolhardy political decision to bring it to the fore when he didn't have a substantial majority, and rub his core votes face in it. As Zaphod said "10 out of 10 for style, but minus several million for good thinking"
It was the right thing to do.
The right thing is not always easy or popular
That's as maybe, if you deliberately do unpopular things, even if they are right, you can't look surprised when people vote somewhere else.
The political logic was that the gay community had many of the characteristics of an upper middle class segment of society - but was not voting Tory in any meaningful way. The Tories wport away from the Tories are opposed to gay marriage, but in how many cases is that the *true* reason?
Simply shows Cameron isn't that good at politics, losing more people than you're gaining isn't a recipe for winning elections.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
Chales, I voted Cameron in 2010 but won't next time. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, though I did watch somewhat bemused as he got himself entangled in a fight he didn't need to get in to. What the issue said however as David herdson has pointed out up thread was that Cameron managed to contrast the effort he would put in to policies for his favoured groups versus his total lack of effort for groups he didn't have time for. His job is to manage a broad church and he has shown her struggles to do this.
Now suddenly he realises he needs the votes of people he has switched off and will not get them back.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
Okay – I think you are over-reacting massively – AFAIK I never never actually denied being Scout or BobaFett except perhaps in clear jest. After all BobaFett and TLBS both contained a massive clue didn't they – in their names? That was intentional. It was a bit of fun.
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
Is there an award for the most number of flounces by a single poster?
Quite a lot more people than that were blown to pieces in two world wars to preserve those rights...
Really?
Given that at the time the government didn't even admit that the security services existed, let alone have them open to democratic and judicial oversight as they are now, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that.
But nothing’s happening about their failure. I just wonder what happen in those circumstance in the Land of the Free1
Seriously, nothing. Even in the US nobody is seriously suggesting that Facebook and Gmail are responsible for law enforcement. Rifkind is taking this thing to a whole new level of bonkers.
Maybe I'm sentimental, but I can't help feeling that it's rather a bigger breach of your fundamental human rights to be hacked to death with knives and a cleaver at the age of 25 than to have your emails scanned by a computer (not that anyone is suggesting blanket scanning of emails, of course).
Probably would have been easier to not have let them in the country and actually enforced our drugs laws.
But to the case, these guys had a background and activities that puts them under suspicion, instead of using resources to pointlessly collect innocent people's private information they should have been surveilled and investigated, with warrants if needed.
But to the case, these guys had a background and activities that puts them under suspicion, instead of using resources to pointlessly collect innocent people's private information they should have been surveilled and investigated, with warrants if needed.
Sure - once you've identified who they are. The opponents of the government seem to think that MI5 should use clairvoyance to figure out who to keep on eye on.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
Chales, I voted Cameron in 2010 but won't next time. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, though I did watch somewhat bemused as he got himself entangled in a fight he didn't need to get in to. What the issue said however as David herdson has pointed out up thread was that Cameron managed to contrast the effort he would put in to policies for his favoured groups versus his total lack of effort for groups he didn't have time for. His job is to manage a broad church and he has shown her struggles to do this.
Now suddenly he realises he needs the votes of people he has switched off and will not get them back.
I for one am glad he went ahead with it, and it was a Tory PM that advocated the change. Saying that, I am quite tired of some of the PR disasters that have befallen this government, and of the jobs for the boys mentality he seems to have. He seems like a nice enough guy, but I can relate to people saying he is out of touch. Still, better blue than red!
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
Okay – I think you are over-reacting massively – AFAIK I never never actually denied being Scout or BobaFett except perhaps in clear jest. After all BobaFett and TLBS both contained a massive clue didn't they – in their names? That was intentional. It was a bit of fun.
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
Do what you like.
I am happy you admitted what I have said all along, I stuck to my guns and was proved right.
Quite a lot more people than that were blown to pieces in two world wars to preserve those rights...
Really?
Given that at the time the government didn't even admit that the security services existed, let alone have them open to democratic and judicial oversight as they are now, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that.
But its either futile or mendacious, the proposed measure won't stop anything, they are so easy to circumvent its laughable, any eveyone a little bit serious will be unaffected, it will just be the everyday citizen that is monitored, which will be fine until the first authoritarian government gets elected. Bearing in mind what happened with RIPA would you be happy for a Green Party government being able to read your mail ?
Can I just add an observation on the multiple identities, insults, arguments and general ability for aggression and aggressive defence to be common place on forums.
With the exception of posters who post under their own name (seanT, Nick Palmer, alanbrooke OGH as examples), or posters who have a known identity regardless of using a partial name or pseudonym ( Charles, MorrisDancer TSE for example) all other posts are from anonymous keyboard warriors, some of whom get kicks from appearing tough, outspoken and showing how muscular they are, others just have ideas to share.
There is a fault when anyone is so sensitive as to respond to the bait thrown out from time to time, to legitimise any anonymous faux anger and indignity with a response that propels the discussion into the faces of the whole board. There are many times in virtual life where the same amount or greater self control is required than is used in the physical world. It is very hard to be insulted as an anonymous person by an unknown person, or for that insult to carry any weight. Surf over it, don't give the pleasure of legitimising the insult by responding. Be a real man with balls of steel, duck a stupid fight.
An angry response to an antagonistic anonymous adversary is little more than self defeating and self denigrating.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
Chales, I voted Cameron in 2010 but won't next time. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, though I did watch somewhat bemused as he got himself entangled in a fight he didn't need to get in to. What the issue said however as David herdson has pointed out up thread was that Cameron managed to contrast the effort he would put in to policies for his favoured groups versus his total lack of effort for groups he didn't have time for. His job is to manage a broad church and he has shown her struggles to do this.
Now suddenly he realises he needs the votes of people he has switched off and will not get them back.
I for one am glad he went ahead with it, and it was a Tory PM that advocated the change. Saying that, I am quite tired of some of the PR disasters that have befallen this government, and of the jobs for the boys mentality he seems to have. He seems like a nice enough guy, but I can relate to people saying he is out of touch. Still, better blue than red!
Personally I don't really care one way or the other about GM. gays have as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us. However the odd bit was gays weren't actually screaming from the roof tops for new legislation, it was one of those things the Cameroons just decided to do. Cameron invested a lot of his political capital in the project but has seen no return for it.
But its either futile or mendacious, the proposed measure won't stop anything, they are so easy to circumvent its laughable, any eveyone a little bit serious will be unaffected
This is completely wrong, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of intelligence (even anyone who has read a book on WW2 intelligence) will be able to tell you. The big problem is to know where to look.
But nothing’s happening about their failure. I just wonder what happen in those circumstance in the Land of the Free1
Seriously, nothing. Even in the US nobody is seriously suggesting that Facebook and Gmail are responsible for law enforcement. Rifkind is taking this thing to a whole new level of bonkers.
Maybe I'm sentimental, but I can't help feeling that it's rather a bigger breach of your fundamental human rights to be hacked to death with knives and a cleaver at the age of 25 than to have your emails scanned by a computer (not that anyone is suggesting blanket scanning of emails, of course).
*rolls eyes*
That's either a false dichotomy or it's a fact that anyone not having their email scanned will be chopped up.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
Chales, I voted Cameron in 2010 but won't next time. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, though I did watch somewhat bemused as he got himself entangled in a fight he didn't need to get in to. What the issue said however as David herdson has pointed out up thread was that Cameron managed to contrast the effort he would put in to policies for his favoured groups versus his total lack of effort for groups he didn't have time for. His job is to manage a broad church and he has shown her struggles to do this.
Now suddenly he realises he needs the votes of people he has switched off and will not get them back.
I for one am glad he went ahead with it, and it was a Tory PM that advocated the change. Saying that, I am quite tired of some of the PR disasters that have befallen this government, and of the jobs for the boys mentality he seems to have. He seems like a nice enough guy, but I can relate to people saying he is out of touch. Still, better blue than red!
Personally I don't really care one way or the other about GM. gays have as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us. However the odd bit was gays weren't actually screaming from the roof tops for new legislation, it was one of those things the Cameroons just decided to do. Cameron invested a lot of his political capital in the project but has seen no return for it.
That is true, but I agree with Charles' (I think) point that it will probably be worth it in the long term, especially after section 28.
But to the case, these guys had a background and activities that puts them under suspicion, instead of using resources to pointlessly collect innocent people's private information they should have been surveilled and investigated, with warrants if needed.
Sure - once you've identified who they are. The opponents of the government seem to think that MI5 should use clairvoyance to figure out who to keep on eye on.
Are clairvoyance and reading all the emails the only possibilities here? How did the police used to catch criminals before they had a vast surveillance apparatus?
Given that this is the official testimony / record of events then I think the Grand Jury made the right call. Not that that will do anything at all to advance race relations in the USA.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
Okay – I think you are over-reacting massively – AFAIK I never never actually denied being Scout or BobaFett except perhaps in clear jest. After all BobaFett and TLBS both contained a massive clue didn't they – in their names? That was intentional. It was a bit of fun.
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
Is there an award for the most number of flounces by a single poster?
But its either futile or mendacious, the proposed measure won't stop anything, they are so easy to circumvent its laughable, any eveyone a little bit serious will be unaffected
This is completely wrong, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of intelligence (even anyone who has read a book on WW2 intelligence) will be able to tell you. The big problem is to know where to look.
Start by checking the archives for FluffyThoughts posts, they're definitely some form of steganography.
But to the case, these guys had a background and activities that puts them under suspicion, instead of using resources to pointlessly collect innocent people's private information they should have been surveilled and investigated, with warrants if needed.
Sure - once you've identified who they are. The opponents of the government seem to think that MI5 should use clairvoyance to figure out who to keep on eye on.
Are clairvoyance and reading all the emails the only possibilities here? How did the police used to catch criminals before they had a vast surveillance apparatus?
Using local knowledge for local criminals.
The nature of the crimes, the methods for conception of crime, recruiting and all other aspects are in no way comparable to those of 20 or 30 years ago.
To ask the authorities to use exclusively the same methods that they did years ago is like fighting the next war with bows and arrows.
So what we all knew has been confirmed. A poster has been using various different names to troll, and accusing anyone who rumbled of stalking or being obsessed. Similar to how a teenage girl flirts then pretends not to understand why she is getting attention.
When I pointed out almost a year ago this was happening, Mike emailed me to warn that accusing new posters of being old ones was something that could result in a ban.
It was also said that anyone using more than one account would be banned.
As the truth is now known, and I was right all along, surely the person involved should be banned?
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
Okay – I think you are over-reacting massively – AFAIK I never never actually denied being Scout or BobaFett except perhaps in clear jest. After all BobaFett and TLBS both contained a massive clue didn't they – in their names? That was intentional. It was a bit of fun.
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
There are some on here will not be satisfied until PB becomes a LAB free zone.
I think you should stick in there Bob
I am regularly abused by several posters but will be here till Mike shuts PB down.
I predict this will be in less than 12 months time.
I would say at least 10 posters on here are no better than school yard bullies.
You're missing my point: I don't think he lost many votes *specifically* because of gay marriage. So looked at in isolation, it may be the right thing to do. (The analysis is complicated by the fact that many people who no longer support the Tories *also* oppose gay marriage, but I suspect that in most cases they would no longer support the Tories *regardless* of gay marriage).
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
Chales, I voted Cameron in 2010 but won't next time. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it, though I did watch somewhat bemused as he got himself entangled in a fight he didn't need to get in to. What the issue said however as David herdson has pointed out up thread was that Cameron managed to contrast the effort he would put in to policies for his favoured groups versus his total lack of effort for groups he didn't have time for. His job is to manage a broad church and he has shown her struggles to do this.
Now suddenly he realises he needs the votes of people he has switched off and will not get them back.
I for one am glad he went ahead with it, and it was a Tory PM that advocated the change. Saying that, I am quite tired of some of the PR disasters that have befallen this government, and of the jobs for the boys mentality he seems to have. He seems like a nice enough guy, but I can relate to people saying he is out of touch. Still, better blue than red!
Personally I don't really care one way or the other about GM. gays have as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us. However the odd bit was gays weren't actually screaming from the roof tops for new legislation, it was one of those things the Cameroons just decided to do. Cameron invested a lot of his political capital in the project but has seen no return for it.
That is true, but I agree with Charles' (I think) point that it will probably be worth it in the long term, especially after section 28.
cant see it myself, most of the people who understand section 28 will be dead by then. I think it's simply cameroons trying to make the best of a bad job.
Are clairvoyance and reading all the emails the only possibilities here? How did the police used to catch criminals before they had a vast surveillance apparatus?
In much the same way, allowing for the technology differences. They kept a watch on dubious pubs, they intercepted letters (theoretically with warrants, although I suspect that was honoured much in the breach in the mythical good old days of civil liberties), they tracked phone call records, they accessed bank records.
Given that this is the official testimony / record of events then I think the Grand Jury made the right call. Not that that will do anything at all to advance race relations in the USA.
Why the hell do you care? You also have had two names Sam and iSam. It's not illegal as fas as I know.
As I said, if your only two accounts were Bobajob and Bobajob_ or whatever it wouldn't matter.. it s that you are also THeLAstBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges etc that is the problem
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
Why do you care AT ALL? If you came back as the Giant_Pink_Panda it wouldn't make any difference to my life in any way whatsoever.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter to me in the slightest what makes any difference to your life. As I think you are a complete idiot, that's hardly a convincing argument for me to change my way is it?
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
Okay – I think you are over-reacting massively – AFAIK I never never actually denied being Scout or BobaFett except perhaps in clear jest. After all BobaFett and TLBS both contained a massive clue didn't they – in their names? That was intentional. It was a bit of fun.
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
There are some on here will not be satisfied until PB becomes a LAB free zone.
I think you should stick in there Bob
I am regularly abused by several posters but will be here till Mike shuts PB down.
I predict this will be in less than 12 months time.
I would say at least 10 posters on here are no better than school yard bullies.
As they all have several multiple identities, isn't 10 all of the posters?
I do agree that going is not the best answer. Stick around. (addressed at Bob not BJO)
Are clairvoyance and reading all the emails the only possibilities here? How did the police used to catch criminals before they had a vast surveillance apparatus?
In much the same way, allowing for the technology differences. They kept a watch on dubious pubs, they intercepted letters (theoretically with warrants, although I suspect that was honoured much in the breach in the mythical good old days of civil liberties), they tracked phone call records, they accessed bank records.
That is completely possibly now but only if you have suspects. According to Mr Rifkind these attackers had not come to the notice of the security services.
If you know who you are looking for, you can bring the full power of the state to bear, break codes, tap conversations, and they are going to be in big trouble, if you dont, it's trivially easy to not come to anyones attention.
A friend of mine is getting divorced and his lawyer advised him not to carry out any correspondence on related subjects to anyone by email because his partner could file for production on those email, and to send letters by post instead. Even now email is seen as an unsafe medium except to the uninformed.*
If I wanted to plot something unlawful with a third party I wouldn't use email now, and certainly not in the future. I would meet face-to-face, or call with a throw away SIMM, or send a letter. If I really had to send an online communication I would encrypt it, and probably upload the file to an online file sharing service, its not rocket science, its even in Tom Clancy novels.
Next year all of Gmail is going to be encrypted, so which emails are you proposing the ISP shows to the security services.
Comments
"As it happened, it was not a donkey jacket at all, but a very expensive short overcoat that his wife, Jill, had chosen for him because she thought it made him look elegant.
Even the late Queen Mother, at the post-ceremony reception, commented on what a splendid garment it was."
The members of our secret service have apparently spent so much time under the bed looking for communists that they haven't had the time to look in the bed.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Michael_Foot
That, or we are going to lose the next election.... hm!
Cameron's strategy was not wholly unsuccessful. Leaving aside the polls taken in the immediate aftermath of the Rochester by-election, he's won over 2-3% of the electorate who used to vote Lib Dem.
But, he's lost 7-8% of the electorate to UKIP.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9049
A decline in the UKIP vote will not necessarily increase Conservative support. The decline in Labour support over the past year has not gone to the Conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary
Foot admired Powell. And Powell, for his part, loved Foot. "And shall I tell you why I love him?" Powell said, who was much given to answering his own questions. "It is because he speaks beautiful English." "
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/alan-watkins/alan-watkins-michael-foot-ndash-an-intellectual-prizefighter-1917426.html
It only becomes a problem when you use a second account as a "sock puppet", other than that, it is just a screen name.
Burnley FC and follicular deficiency research. Sadly it would appear both will ensure a long term condition.
It was a line from BlackAdder II that was obviously meant as a joke, but you blubbed about it for long enough to get me banned.
And the reason I said it in the first place was down to you trolling by having various accounts, BobaJob, TheLastBoyScout, BobaFett, HanDodges to name but four
I never pretended that my old account wasnt "sam" and I only changed it because the password didn't work on my iPad
They're learned a lesson there, so I expect Labour to continue the Ukip-light rhetoric periodically until May 2015 and then revert to their default setting when safely in power.
It could work.
I only got a new account because the old login failed, and never tried to pretend that both were not me
As for the various names – as I have said before: Who cares? And by the way you have been right about some and laughably wrong about others.
But whatever, life is too short. I will again offer you an olive branch and offer to put the whole thing behind us. Do you accept?
Mid 30s looks like a ceiling for both parties right now.
As I say, I am happy to offer the olive branch (again) and put it behind us. Do you accept?
For the avoidance of doubt, it is not permissible to have more than one active account on PB, bar those which are the same, such as Poster, and Poster2, as some posters have had some login/password problems, and a new account is required.
I don't like you so I wont agree to your offer, especially as you insult me in the first paragraph then pretend to be the bigger man in the final one, which is typical of all of you
The offer is still there, if you want to accept.
To use an analogy - and don't read any labels across to any group: the GOP could reach out to Hispanics in an organised way, but in so doing lose the KKK vote. In my view - even if for 1 or 2 elections they don't have a net gain in votes - in the medium term the strategy will pay dividends
18.5-20.5
I bought at 20.5 a week ago or so. I'm surprised this price is still available.
IMO, I'd put the spread at 21.5-23.5 right now.
But here is the argument that got me banned
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/234765/#Comment_234765
As we can all see, the poster I argued with, which you are saying is yourself, was @BobaFett
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11252116/Lee-Rigby-report-live.html So unless I miss read this, he states that they didn't have cause to consider the attacker prior to the attack (ie he wasn't a suspect or being watched), so that being the case how are ISPs supposed to know what to send to the security services unless they send everything.
In any case with all the 5-eyes technology exposed by Edward Snowden they should be able to see all this stuff anyway without asking the ISP. Giving intelligence agencies carte blanche to read email, is like letting government people at the post office open all letters, or people search all houses without a warrant or probable cause.
Worse he appears to be suggesting that the ISPs should read the emails and notify the police of anything they think is suspicious. Would he say that BT were providing safe havens for terrorist because they let them use the telephone network without listening to every call.
I want to know what Rifkind suggests we do about the Royal Mail, which has been conspicuously failing to read the letters and postcards they deliver and report everybody to the relevant authorities for decades.
"To protect ourselves and our free society the police should be able to see every site you visit and every e-mail you send."
Reminds of Deep Space Nine [no, really], when Sisko argues that you can't 'destroy paradise in order to save it'.
It's not a case of accepting anything. We now know that you are deceitful and dishonest, that will do for me, and I am prepared to leave it at that for now.
In any case with all the 5-eyes technology exposed by Edward Snowden they should be able to see all this stuff anyway without asking the ISP. Giving intelligence agencies carte blanche to read email, is like letting government people at the post office open all letters, or people search all houses without a warrant or probable cause.
Worse he appears to be suggesting that the ISPs should read the emails and notify the police of anything they think is suspicious. Would he say that BT were providing safe havens for terrorist because they let them use the telephone network without listening to every call.
As Snowden pointed out they had the information to stop 9 11 but it got lost in the mountains of irrelevant data.
http://rt.com/usa/162576-nbc-snowden-september-attack/
Do you always bear huge grudges? The offer is still there if you want to accept it. As I say, I have no idea what I am supposed to have done to you to make you hate me so much – if you could let me know then I may be able to make amends. Your own link a) doesn't show where you wished me dead and b) clearly shows that I didn't whinge to the moderator as you claimed.
As I say, do let me know what I have done that is such grounds for your ire and I will try to solve the problem.
That said, Google's algorithms are pretty good. Maybe MI5 should try advertising some useful terrorism products then seeing who clicks on them.
Gay marriage lost voters and activists and is why the Conservatives can't break out of the low 30s.
The Republicans swept the mid terms on an anti immigration platform but lost the Presidential elections when McCain and Romney pandered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3565551.stm
As has been pointed out, the volume of information would swamp every force in the country. And that's without pointing out a society where you give the police everything they want is a police state.
It's nuts. It's not on.
Bloody hell. All I want to do is vote Conservative to try and stop Balls keeping his seat, but they're not making it easy.
That said I don’t see how or why a company could or should be expected to monitor all emails.
Off to the cinema now to see the Alan Turing film. Bye!
AND IT WONT STOP ANYTHING
The second its know that ISP are monitoring emails, people will stop plotting by email, they will download a VPN client, or an encryption package, or they will post a letter by mail, or they will get in their car and go and talk to someone, or make a phone call with RedPhone, or chat using TextSecure etc etc etc
Nevertheless, your intense dislike for me upsets me – and disturbs me, a lot. Coupled with your threats and sentiments in the past, it makes me think, with regret, that I cannot safely post here again under any name. So I will resign from posting under any name.
Good luck with the political ambitions. I'll look out for your name during the campaign and might introduce myself. You'll never know it is me – and you might even think I'm a decent bloke!
Now suddenly he realises he needs the votes of people he has switched off and will not get them back.
Given that at the time the government didn't even admit that the security services existed, let alone have them open to democratic and judicial oversight as they are now, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that.
But to the case, these guys had a background and activities that puts them under suspicion, instead of using resources to pointlessly collect innocent people's private information they should have been surveilled and investigated, with warrants if needed.
I am happy you admitted what I have said all along, I stuck to my guns and was proved right.
That'll do.
http://www.cityam.com/1416564242/politicians-brought-down-twitter-emily-thornberrys-rochester-nightmare-dianne-abbotts
Don't know what brought that to mind ;-)
With the exception of posters who post under their own name (seanT, Nick Palmer, alanbrooke OGH as examples), or posters who have a known identity regardless of using a partial name or pseudonym ( Charles, MorrisDancer TSE for example) all other posts are from anonymous keyboard warriors, some of whom get kicks from appearing tough, outspoken and showing how muscular they are, others just have ideas to share.
There is a fault when anyone is so sensitive as to respond to the bait thrown out from time to time, to legitimise any anonymous faux anger and indignity with a response that propels the discussion into the faces of the whole board.
There are many times in virtual life where the same amount or greater self control is required than is used in the physical world. It is very hard to be insulted as an anonymous person by an unknown person, or for that insult to carry any weight. Surf over it, don't give the pleasure of legitimising the insult by responding. Be a real man with balls of steel, duck a stupid fight.
An angry response to an antagonistic anonymous adversary is little more than self defeating and self denigrating.
There's an election coming up dontcyha know.
That's either a false dichotomy or it's a fact that anyone not having their email scanned will be chopped up.
A difficult concept after New Labour, admittedly.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848366/You-p-y-shoot-Explosive-grand-jury-evidence-reveals-aggressive-Michael-Brown-taunted-cop-Darren-Wilson-shot-dead.html
Given that this is the official testimony / record of events then I think the Grand Jury made the right call. Not that that will do anything at all to advance race relations in the USA.
The nature of the crimes, the methods for conception of crime, recruiting and all other aspects are in no way comparable to those of 20 or 30 years ago.
To ask the authorities to use exclusively the same methods that they did years ago is like fighting the next war with bows and arrows.
I think you should stick in there Bob
I am regularly abused by several posters but will be here till Mike shuts PB down.
I predict this will be in less than 12 months time.
I would say at least 10 posters on here are no better than school yard bullies.
I do agree that going is not the best answer. Stick around. (addressed at Bob not BJO)
If you know who you are looking for, you can bring the full power of the state to bear, break codes, tap conversations, and they are going to be in big trouble, if you dont, it's trivially easy to not come to anyones attention.
A friend of mine is getting divorced and his lawyer advised him not to carry out any correspondence on related subjects to anyone by email because his partner could file for production on those email, and to send letters by post instead. Even now email is seen as an unsafe medium except to the uninformed.*
If I wanted to plot something unlawful with a third party I wouldn't use email now, and certainly not in the future. I would meet face-to-face, or call with a throw away SIMM, or send a letter. If I really had to send an online communication I would encrypt it, and probably upload the file to an online file sharing service, its not rocket science, its even in Tom Clancy novels.
Next year all of Gmail is going to be encrypted, so which emails are you proposing the ISP shows to the security services.
See also: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/does_using_gmail_put_attorney_client_privilege_at_risk/