For conspiracy theorists everywhere today, watch Person of Interest :-)
I rather like PoI - its got the tiddliest cast, most implausible plots but great viewing. The final episodes in the current series are a bit arse about face - I had to watch them twice to make sure I got all the references as it jumped forward and back through time.
EDIT for anyone interested - The Killing is back on.
For me, the freakiest bit was right at the end of the last episode of series 2. No more details as I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
Have you tried Haven, Eureka, Supernatural or Warehouse 13? They have their ups and downs - IIRC you liked Fringe. I can't get into Continuum yet.
Haven - No Eureka - yes for the first few series then it got silly Supernatural - yes for about 4 series then I lost the plot :-) Warehouse 13 - yes but like you I felt it was rubbish after the first couple of series. Fringe - no, what's it about? Continuum - is that a Stargate spin off?
How about Alphas, not a bad retake on X men, Heroes mutant X etc.
It's almost like we're not one of the top seven economies, have a permanent seat at the UN security council, are one of the few nuclear powers, have an incredibly close intelligence sharing relationship with the world's super power and are one of the few nuclear powers.
Sounds like France.
France is in the EU last time I looked.
Even assuming your argument made even the slightest amount of logical sense (another powerful country that is powerful for a bunch of non-EU reasons is in the EU, thus its power must come from the EU?!?), you're still wrong: France doesn't have an intelligence sharing relationship with the United States. Or us for that matter. That shows up what a crock of shit the close European alliance is: we more freely share information with countries outside the EU than we do with those inside the EU.
For conspiracy theorists everywhere today, watch Person of Interest :-)
I rather like PoI - its got the tiddliest cast, most implausible plots but great viewing. The final episodes in the current series are a bit arse about face - I had to watch them twice to make sure I got all the references as it jumped forward and back through time.
EDIT for anyone interested - The Killing is back on.
For me, the freakiest bit was right at the end of the last episode of series 2. No more details as I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
Have you tried Haven, Eureka, Supernatural or Warehouse 13? They have their ups and downs - IIRC you liked Fringe. I can't get into Continuum yet.
Haven - No Eureka - yes for the first few series then it got silly Supernatural - yes for about 4 series then I lost the plot :-) Warehouse 13 - yes but like you I felt it was rubbish after the first couple of series. Fringe - no, what's it about? Continuum - is that a Stargate spin off?
How about Alphas, not a bad retake on X men, Heroes mutant X etc.
Haven is like Eureka crossed with Supernatural. I liked Eureka - but it needed to stop a season earlier... as is ever the way.
Fringe is based on a female FBI agent/ a mad scientist & his son and lots of weird unexplained sci-fi 'fringe' events. A bit like X-Files but I liked it a lot more.
I haven't seen Stargate - does that have Robert Carlyle in it? He makes an excellent Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon A Time.
Supernatural has some great bits, but I find Dean a really annoying character and it was all over the place in S8. W13 was terrible after S2 and is barely worth even having on whilst making my tea. The characters appear to have become teenage versions of themselves. It's down to 500k viewers and is being axed.
Haven't tried Alphas - thanks for the tip. Assume you've seen Grimm?
I've also just noted that the All Party Parliamentary Group on immigration has the left-wing Migrant Rights' Network as it's secretariat! These are the people who have a formal aim to "ensure recognition of immigration in the creation of culturally rich and diverse societies".
What a massive conflict of interest... it's becoming clear just how biased the whole report is. Yet the BBC treat it like some neutral body, when they clearly have an agenda.
I don't see any conflict of interest.
Why are you so animated by people wishing to see immigrants treated ok? Where's your decency?
I think Cameron's word-cloud is far better than the other leaders, particularly the one that matters - Ed.
Better to be Out of Touch, arrogant and standing up for Britain rather than out of depth, weak and likeable.
The word clouds of Clegg and EdM are very similar while Cameron's is markedly different from the other two. EdM only differentiates himself from Clegg on greater weirdness and likeability.
For conspiracy theorists everywhere today, watch Person of Interest :-)
I rather like PoI - its got the tiddliest cast, most implausible plots but great viewing. The final episodes in the current series are a bit arse about face - I had to watch them twice to make sure I got all the references as it jumped forward and back through time.
EDIT for anyone interested - The Killing is back on.
For me, the freakiest bit was right at the end of the last episode of series 2. No more details as I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
Have you tried Haven, Eureka, Supernatural or Warehouse 13? They have their ups and downs - IIRC you liked Fringe. I can't get into Continuum yet.
Haven - No Eureka - yes for the first few series then it got silly Supernatural - yes for about 4 series then I lost the plot :-) Warehouse 13 - yes but like you I felt it was rubbish after the first couple of series. Fringe - no, what's it about? Continuum - is that a Stargate spin off?
How about Alphas, not a bad retake on X men, Heroes mutant X etc.
Haven is like Eureka crossed with Supernatural. I liked Eureka - but it needed to stop a season earlier... as is ever the way.
Fringe is based on a female FBI agent/ a mad scientist & his son and lots of weird unexplained sci-fi 'fringe' events. A bit like X-Files but I liked it a lot more.
I haven't seen Stargate - does that have Robert Carlyle in it? He makes an excellent Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon A Time.
Supernatural has some great bits, but I find Dean a really annoying character and it was all over the place in S8. W13 was terrible after S2 and is barely worth even having on whilst making my tea. The characters appear to have become teenage versions of themselves. It's down to 500k viewers and is being axed.
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll try both Haven and Fringe, sound like the sort of thing I'd watch - it would be alone though as it's definitely not Mrs rog's cup of tea.
I'm really into GoT at the moment and was wondering what the other HBO offerings are like - Spartacus, Vikings etc.
On topic, sort of: I had a 'phone interview by Ipsos MORI a couple of days ago. It was putatively political, but there were sneaky questions about car/'phone/house-ownership/newspaper-reading, etc. Indeed, given their format of black-white/either-or styling, those were the only questions that were rigorous. By contrast, I would not like to think that the superficial level of their political queries would influence anybody to do anything.
For conspiracy theorists everywhere today, watch Person of Interest :-)
I rather like PoI - its got the tiddliest cast, most implausible plots but great viewing. The final episodes in the current series are a bit arse about face - I had to watch them twice to make sure I got all the references as it jumped forward and back through time.
EDIT for anyone interested - The Killing is back on.
For me, the freakiest bit was right at the end of the last episode of series 2. No more details as I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
Have you tried Haven, Eureka, Supernatural or Warehouse 13? They have their ups and downs - IIRC you liked Fringe. I can't get into Continuum yet.
Haven - No Eureka - yes for the first few series then it got silly Supernatural - yes for about 4 series then I lost the plot :-) Warehouse 13 - yes but like you I felt it was rubbish after the first couple of series. Fringe - no, what's it about? Continuum - is that a Stargate spin off?
How about Alphas, not a bad retake on X men, Heroes mutant X etc.
Haven is like Eureka crossed with Supernatural. I liked Eureka - but it needed to stop a season earlier... as is ever the way.
Fringe is based on a female FBI agent/ a mad scientist & his son and lots of weird unexplained sci-fi 'fringe' events. A bit like X-Files but I liked it a lot more.
I haven't seen Stargate - does that have Robert Carlyle in it? He makes an excellent Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon A Time.
Supernatural has some great bits, but I find Dean a really annoying character and it was all over the place in S8. W13 was terrible after S2 and is barely worth even having on whilst making my tea. The characters appear to have become teenage versions of themselves. It's down to 500k viewers and is being axed.
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll try both Haven and Fringe, sound like the sort of thing I'd watch - it would be alone though as it's definitely not Mrs rog's cup of tea.
I'm really into GoT at the moment and was wondering what the other HBO offerings are like - Spartacus, Vikings etc.
I've not seen Spartacus, but Vikings is excellent. Good theme music too.
Re Bilderberg and Government spying it is sensible to re-read the comments of Adam Smith
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. "
Does anyone really think that does not apply to Bilderberg?
And:
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."
And: "There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people."
He really was some writer. Pithy and pointed. Governments are responsible if someone is hurt these days. It seems unfair but in fact it is their biggest advantage. If they are responsible they must do something about it, right? And if they must, they must have sources of information and the power to take it from us. We should be wary.
One last one: "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
These principles apply at least as much to those that seek power over us as they do to businessmen.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
For conspiracy theorists everywhere today, watch Person of Interest :-)
I rather like PoI - its got the tiddliest cast, most implausible plots but great viewing. The final episodes in the current series are a bit arse about face - I had to watch them twice to make sure I got all the references as it jumped forward and back through time.
EDIT for anyone interested - The Killing is back on.
For me, the freakiest bit was right at the end of the last episode of series 2. No more details as I don't want to spoil it for anyone.
Have you tried Haven, Eureka, Supernatural or Warehouse 13? They have their ups and downs - IIRC you liked Fringe. I can't get into Continuum yet.
Haven - No Eureka - yes for the first few series then it got silly Supernatural - yes for about 4 series then I lost the plot :-) Warehouse 13 - yes but like you I felt it was rubbish after the first couple of series. Fringe - no, what's it about? Continuum - is that a Stargate spin off?
How about Alphas, not a bad retake on X men, Heroes mutant X etc.
Haven is like Eureka crossed with Supernatural. I liked Eureka - but it needed to stop a season earlier... as is ever the way.
Fringe is based on a female FBI agent/ a mad scientist & his son and lots of weird unexplained sci-fi 'fringe' events. A bit like X-Files but I liked it a lot more.
I haven't seen Stargate - does that have Robert Carlyle in it? He makes an excellent Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon A Time.
Supernatural has some great bits, but I find Dean a really annoying character and it was all over the place in S8. W13 was terrible after S2 and is barely worth even having on whilst making my tea. The characters appear to have become teenage versions of themselves. It's down to 500k viewers and is being axed.
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll try both Haven and Fringe, sound like the sort of thing I'd watch - it would be alone though as it's definitely not Mrs rog's cup of tea.
I'm really into GoT at the moment and was wondering what the other HBO offerings are like - Spartacus, Vikings etc.
I got bored with GoT sometime during S2 - it wasn't really going anywhere, if its picked up some pace, I'll try it again. If you aren't a reader of IMDb - it has really useful viewer reviews for every show and film you could imagine. Just type the name into the Search box and away you go. All reviews are marked with Spoiler Alerts so you can avoid them.
I watched the first series of Fringe and whilst it does try a bit too hard to be quirky - especially Dad - the final very ballsy image at the end of that first series was worth the whole run up to that point. I have only seen random late night episodes of subsequent series - worth running through?
I watched the first series of Fringe and whilst it does try a bit too hard to be quirky - especially Dad - the final very ballsy image at the end of that first series was worth the whole run up to that point. I have only seen random late night episodes of subsequent series - worth running through?
Definitely - I think it was rather hard to follow during S1 but the rest were well worth the eyeball time. I wasn't sure if the lady with the red hair was a goody or a baddy until right at the end of final season.
I've also just noted that the All Party Parliamentary Group on immigration has the left-wing Migrant Rights' Network as it's secretariat! These are the people who have a formal aim to "ensure recognition of immigration in the creation of culturally rich and diverse societies".
What a massive conflict of interest... it's becoming clear just how biased the whole report is. Yet the BBC treat it like some neutral body, when they clearly have an agenda.
I don't see any conflict of interest.
You don't see any conflict of interest from a parliamentary group on an issue receiving contributions from a lobby group that takes one side of that issue? Perhaps a parliamentary group on the Israel-Palestine issue could get support from the World Zionist Organisation? What about a parliamentary group on welfare reform having the Taxpayer's Alliance as its secretariat?
PS. I absolutely think immigrants should be treated humanely. I just think we should be stringent on how many immigrants there are.
@DavidL Your point about Bilderberg would be better made about G20 summits and the like, which are conspiracies for the mutual glorification of "world leaders". Every now and then, they have something useful to say or do, but most of the time these are make-work for politicians in need of a distraction from more tedious things at home.
@DavidL Your point about Bilderberg would be better made about G20 summits and the like, which are conspiracies for the mutual glorification of "world leaders". Every now and then, they have something useful to say or do, but most of the time these are make-work for politicians in need of a distraction from more tedious things at home.
How is Bilderberg any different from a G20 summit, other than the fact it also gives the 1% special access to our political class, further distorting their view of what the most important issues are?
We had a great example of the skewed views of politicians the other day, when the socialist President of France said the Eurozone crisis was over, despite almost 20 million people being out of work.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
@Socrates The Bilderberg Group is a talking shop. The G20 is not. The G20 is a chance for world leaders to parade and look important. The Bilderberg conference is not. The G20 is an opportunity for world leaders to make vacuous public pronouncements. The Bilderberg conference is an opportunity for them to hear different views behind closed doors.
While I'm sure that the Bilderberg conference reinforces bad behaviour among world leaders, it's relatively harmless.
Essentially you are an evil conspiracy, for example the Bermuda Triangle or the Gnomes of Zurich, seeking to take over the world by building a network of apparently harmless front organisations like the Boy Scouts, the Post Office and the Stamp Collectors. Each has a profile of many characteristics, left/right wing, weird/straight, etc. and the special charm of the game is that you can choose to subtly adjust your own group's profile so as to attract others - for instance, you can decide to become More Weird.
There is also a simpler card game version (which actually came first), and it's all discussed here:
@DavidL Your point about Bilderberg would be better made about G20 summits and the like, which are conspiracies for the mutual glorification of "world leaders". Every now and then, they have something useful to say or do, but most of the time these are make-work for politicians in need of a distraction from more tedious things at home.
How is Bilderberg any different from a G20 summit, other than the fact it also gives the 1% special access to our political class, further distorting their view of what the most important issues are?
We had a great example of the skewed views of politicians the other day, when the socialist President of France said the Eurozone crisis was over, despite almost 20 million people being out of work.
Bilderberg, hah!
This was the most recent officer list I could fine quickly for the organisation that matters... And that's just the US officers...
- Miner Warner: Order of St. John of Jerusalem & President of the ESU - Mark Sisk: Bishop of New York - Kissinger & Volcker I assume people know - John Whitehead: former co-Chairman of Goldman - Laurence Windsor: Council of the Sovereign Military Orderof the Temple of Jerusalem - Robin Duke: wife of Angier Biddle Duke (Duke Tobacco, Duke University, and the Biddles of Andalusia)
@Socrates The Bilderberg Group is a talking shop. The G20 is not. The G20 is a chance for world leaders to parade and look important. The Bilderberg conference is not. The G20 is an opportunity for world leaders to make vacuous public pronouncements. The Bilderberg conference is an opportunity for them to hear different views behind closed doors.
While I'm sure that the Bilderberg conference reinforces bad behaviour among world leaders, it's relatively harmless.
They're both talking shops. They both are chances for world leaders to parade and look important. It's just one does it to TV cameras and the other does it to rich businessmen.
What I'd like is a conference of world leaders and a randomly selected group of the world's population.
@Socrates The Bilderberg Group is a talking shop. The G20 is not. The G20 is a chance for world leaders to parade and look important. The Bilderberg conference is not. The G20 is an opportunity for world leaders to make vacuous public pronouncements. The Bilderberg conference is an opportunity for them to hear different views behind closed doors.
While I'm sure that the Bilderberg conference reinforces bad behaviour among world leaders, it's relatively harmless.
They're both talking shops. They both are chances for world leaders to parade and look important. It's just one does it to TV cameras and the other does it to rich businessmen.
What I'd like is a conference of world leaders and a randomly selected group of the world's population.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
TBF in this case it's something that happens in business as well. Our systems fell over? This is costing us millions, get me the person who's supposed to keep them running so I can yell at them. What do you mean we fired him to save money?
I suspect if you look into the decision-making process leading to these savings that cost money you'll find more similarities with equivalent private-sector cock-ups that looked good on the Powerpoint at the time but everybody on the ground could tell would backfire, like the involvement of people with MBAs.
@Socrates Günter Grass argued in "The Flounder" that the UN should be relocated to Calcutta so that the delegates could actually see the way that much of humanity in greatest need lived, and draw up policies accordingly. I have a lot of sympathy with that line of thought.
rachel younger @rachyoungersky 6 men who pleaded guilty to plotting to attack #EDL rally in "murderous plot" sentenced to between 18 yrs & 9 months and 19 yrs & 6 months
If the political class cared about terrorism they'd control the border and deport radical preachers. The stasi state they're building isn't for terrorists it's for the public.
Problem is that the lefties and the lawyers make it difficult to take any prompt action within the law. Laws need to be changed.
Seriously, is there no restriction on immigration that lefties won't oppose?
I have come to the conclusion this is a career thing. The other day in a bored moment I looked at the front page of 'socialist worker' website.
Most of the stories were about the EDL, or immigration in some form. The revolution is very much on the back burner. YOu could argue its been cryogenically frozen.
The left are opposing the right on immigration because it's something to do. There isn't much else - as labour's promise to stick to tory spending plans tells us.
Essentially you are an evil conspiracy, for example the Bermuda Triangle or the Gnomes of Zurich, seeking to take over the world by building a network of apparently harmless front organisations like the Boy Scouts, the Post Office and the Stamp Collectors. Each has a profile of many characteristics, left/right wing, weird/straight, etc. and the special charm of the game is that you can choose to subtly adjust your own group's profile so as to attract others - for instance, you can decide to become More Weird.
There is also a simpler card game version (which actually came first), and it's all discussed here:
The game has been criticised by conspiracy theorists as making fun of them. Surely not?
The Illuminatus! Trilogy is one our our favourite books. When I first met Mrs J, we would confuse our colleagues by shouting references based on the books across the office to each other, and occasionally in meetings:
"immanentize the eschaton!" "Beware the golden apple!" "Let's go to Fernando Poo!" "We all live in a golden submarine" "We need Hagbard!"
Somehow we weren't sacked...
It really is worth reading the trilogy, if only to see how spaced out Playboy authors were in the 1960s. Some people actually believe some elements of the story,including one ex-colleague of mine who later went into scientology.
And the Iluminatus! Trilogy also gave us some of hte KLF;s greatest songs:
They SOUND pretty reasonable and forward-looking - were they previously OUP moderates? Why not team up with Alliance?
Yes - Basil McCrea was from the liberal wing of the party though his crushing defeat in the leadership election to the frankly useless Tom Elliot revealed how small the liberal wing of that party is. He (and McCallister) eventually split on the issue of Unionist-unity, they didnt fancy getting into bed with the DUP.
The most logical explanation for not joining with Alliance would be problems in agreeing who would be candidates in different constituencies. Though I note that while not a unionist party they are claiming to be pro-union. If you can figure that one out. Also Alliance are probably too illiberal for Basil.
I see the left wing immigration report is still the third story on BBC News. The official report on grooming victims being failed, which is a more recent news story, is seventh.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
If councils don't chase up rents they will be short of cash at the end of the year - same as when people don't stump up for council tax.
I would have thought Boles is more likely to be the target of the turnip taliban than the real thing, what with his plans for what remains of England's green and pleasant land.
Seriously, is there no restriction on immigration that lefties won't oppose?
I have come to the conclusion this is a career thing. The other day in a bored moment I looked at the front page of 'socialist worker' website.
Most of the stories were about the EDL, or immigration in some form. The revolution is very much on the back burner. YOu could argue its been cryogenically frozen.
The left are opposing the right on immigration because it's something to do. There isn't much else - as labour's promise to stick to tory spending plans tells us.
It's a serious question: is there any restriction on immigration that's been supported by Labour? I can't think of one.
It's a serious question: is there any restriction on immigration that's been supported by Labour? I can't think of one.
To be fair, they did belatedly (nearly at the end of their 13 years in power) bring in the points-based system for non-EU immigrants, which was a sensible package of measures. It's just a pity they didn't do it a decade earlier.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
If councils don't chase up rents they will be short of cash at the end of the year - same as when people don't stump up for council tax.
Punters refuse to pay ? Well eviction beckons.
Then they have to be housed somewhere at higher cost.
Talking of Bilderberg, I'm prompted to give a plug to this great play-by-email game:
If one is talking about games, you might be interested in Illyriad. In many ways it is very similar to Civilisation, but unlike many of the similar games on the internet, the wars tend to be won by the side that is most politically adept at winning public opinion within the game.
I would have thought Boles is more likely to be the target of the turnip taliban than the real thing, what with his plans for what remains of England's green and pleasant land.
I honestly have not got a clue why Boles was targeted. Unfortunately Al-Beeb likes to mask attacks upon places of Cult-worship* as 'racist'.
Neither I nor Al-Beeb have any proof about our suspiscions. Unfortunately a political-elite in Al-Beeb/Panorama can distort the truth to fit their lies.**
* I don't really mind most muzzies; having worked with many reasonably good software-developers of said faith and - sadly - having them within the paternal side of the family.***
** Did Panorama only expose Mercer and the Ulster-Unionist Lord? If so why did they ignore Jack Cunningham and that other Labour Lord-Turd that were also exposed...?
*** Ofcourse they are the sensible, Shia-Alevi, types. Beer, pork and Christmas...!
It's almost as if someone issued a press release. Scoundrels! Have you ever heard the like?
The phrase doesn't exist on the press release on the APPG's website, or in the report itself.
Secondly, even if it is in a press release somewhere, since when should the national broadcaster, with a mandate to be impartial, be repeating phrases cut from press releases?
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
If councils don't chase up rents they will be short of cash at the end of the year - same as when people don't stump up for council tax.
Punters refuse to pay ? Well eviction beckons.
Then they have to be housed somewhere at higher cost.
Misery for no benefit.
That's the Tory way.
Can I suggest somewhere with an appropriate number of bedrooms that is more within their means ?
Like the rest of the nation that doesn't have a council property.
Another day, another bunch of posts from Socrates about immigrants and/or Muslims. We get that you're very concerned and think that us lefties don't pay enough attention to it. You sound a decent bloke and are clearly genuinely worried. But you don't half go on about it on every thread. Could you maybe post some cat videos or something to avoid us feeling you're a bit obsessed?
@DavidL Your point about Bilderberg would be better made about G20 summits and the like, which are conspiracies for the mutual glorification of "world leaders". Every now and then, they have something useful to say or do, but most of the time these are make-work for politicians in need of a distraction from more tedious things at home.
How is Bilderberg any different from a G20 summit, other than the fact it also gives the 1% special access to our political class, further distorting their view of what the most important issues are?
We had a great example of the skewed views of politicians the other day, when the socialist President of France said the Eurozone crisis was over, despite almost 20 million people being out of work.
I think the difference between a Bilderberg or a Davos, for example, and a G20 is that the former are opportunities for rich and powerful businessmen to cosy up to our leaders and influence the future in a way that is beneficial to their interests in the way Adam Smith described all that time ago.
I agree with antifrank that G20 and the like are simply opportunities for our leaders to feel important and to break up the daily grind of their work but as these are usually exclusively intergovernmental they don't have quite the same potential for corruption.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
If councils don't chase up rents they will be short of cash at the end of the year - same as when people don't stump up for council tax.
Punters refuse to pay ? Well eviction beckons.
Then they have to be housed somewhere at higher cost.
Misery for no benefit.
That's the Tory way.
Can I suggest somewhere with an appropriate number of bedrooms that is more within their means ?
Like the rest of the nation that doesn't have a council property.
Should have left well alone. There was no issue, just petty Tory spite.
"“To succeed, it’s no use just hiding away from the world – we’ve got to roll our sleeves up and compete in it.”"
Yes, he is. Shame that he thinks the way to do that is to stay in an organisation that puts up trade barriers with the rest of the world, spends half its budget on agricultural subsidies and regulates the hell out of product and labour markets.
That is not what that article says. It says that the UK is challenging the attempt to have greater financial regulatory powers(over short selling in this case) to the ECJ. Where it will no doubt stay for several years.
The government has been clear from the time that they agreed to greater EZ integration that they reserved the right to challenge any provision which purported to affect the UK. And they have delivered on that undertaking in relation to the proposed financial services tax and now this.
"“To succeed, it’s no use just hiding away from the world – we’ve got to roll our sleeves up and compete in it.”"
Absolutely. We are in a global competition, for jobs, for business, for education and for prices, as well as energy and food.
In general Western Europe has paid itself far too much for years and so has way out-priced itself in the global market. Our only possible resource is new technology and the Chinese, Indians and Africans are catching up very fast, as their children are generally far better educated than ours and with higher standards and aspirations from both school and parents (using British educational and behavioural standards that we taught them and have largely abandoned ). Also they do not wait for work to come to them, but they seek it out and are prepared to go wherever the opportunities are revealed.
EU protectionism is not the answer to our problems. The business is out there - you just have to go and find it.
That is not what that article says. It says that the UK is challenging the attempt to have greater financial regulatory powers(over short selling in this case) to the ECJ. Where it will no doubt stay for several years.
The government has been clear from the time that they agreed to greater EZ integration that they reserved the right to challenge any provision which purported to affect the UK. And they have delivered on that undertaking in relation to the proposed financial services tax and now this.
The article also mentioned that they had now completely failed on the bonus issue, which is more what I was talking about. I remember Richard Nabavi saying that if this went through, he'd want to leave the EU.
I think that is inevitably where we are headed. We will have a looser "associate" membership with the EU which gives us access to their markets (and they to ours' of course) but with far greater flexibility about whether we choose to adopt EU law or not and smaller but not non-existent contributions. I think that is the sort of scheme that Cameron will be offering and I think the British people will say yes to it.
TGOHF is correct that Cameron is spot on about the need to engage and compete with the world but the relationship with the EU has been fundamentally changed by the creation of the EZ and a new relationship is needed.
I also think he is right to take on UKIP in this way. The world is a lot more complicated than it seems over a G&T. So acknowledge the concerns (which are genuine and valid) but explain the real options rather than the fantasy.
Did anyone else watch the series of programmes about the railways on BBC Parliament last night? I hope they do the same about other subjects, especially during the summer, when all they seem to show are reruns of debates from the Welsh Assembly.
Cameron hasn't got a chance in hell of negotiating some sort of associate member status. The best he'll get is reform of a couple of areas, and some minor repatriations. We'll still be subject to the vast majority of EU law, we'll still be an integral part of the CAP, we'll still have no control over EU immigration, and we'll still not be able to negotiate our own trading agreements.
What UKIP are wanting is just a network of bilateral trade deals. That's very realistic and is what plenty of other countries in the world have. Why on Earth is it a "fantasy" to get an arrangement that already exists in the world, but realistic to get some imaginary partial EU membership that does not exist, and would need unanimous agreement to get?
Why on Earth is it a "fantasy" to get an arrangement that already exists in the world, but realistic to get some imaginary partial EU membership that does not exist, and would need unanimous agreement to get???
What irked me a little was DavidL's patronising attitude. 'the world is a lot more complicated than it seems over a gin and tonic' is the attitude of someone who has learned nothing whatever from the rise of UKIP.
UKIP are popular because the voters are sick of being talked down to by those who consider it their calling to organise the world on their behalf.
That is not what that article says. It says that the UK is challenging the attempt to have greater financial regulatory powers(over short selling in this case) to the ECJ. Where it will no doubt stay for several years.
The government has been clear from the time that they agreed to greater EZ integration that they reserved the right to challenge any provision which purported to affect the UK. And they have delivered on that undertaking in relation to the proposed financial services tax and now this.
The article also mentioned that they had now completely failed on the bonus issue, which is more what I was talking about. I remember Richard Nabavi saying that if this went through, he'd want to leave the EU.
The article is also a bit simplistic about this too although the news is not great. There are 2 new pieces of legislation, the Capital Requirements Regulation which is directly applicable across all member states and the Capital Requirements Direction which has to be implemented in each member state. The vote that the UK lost was in the EU parliament on the latter where the majority (including Labour MEPs) voted for the 2:1 limit.
These rules would come into force either on 1.1.14 or 1.7.14 but if they follow the normal course there will then be a period in which MSs have to bring them into effect. We have a reputation of gold plating such directives. Whether we do so in this case may well depend on the outcome of the next election.
But there are key obstacles in the way of that vision. Most notably the French.
Some EU and / or EZ countries really want to compete, as they realise that is the only way to survive in a globalised world. This camp includes Dave, the Germans, the Finns, probably the Dutch and others.
Then there is the 'let's put globalisation back in its box, build trade barriers and fester inside our own cess' tendency. The French lead this with only Brussels itself in second place. This camp will die in the ditch before they allow open competition with the rest of the world. Is there even a phrase for 'supply side reform' in French? Does not compute.
We (and others seeking to compete) will never get what we want from the EU. BOO is the way to go.
Why on Earth is it a "fantasy" to get an arrangement that already exists in the world, but realistic to get some imaginary partial EU membership that does not exist, and would need unanimous agreement to get???
What irked me a little was DavidL's patronising attitude. 'the world is a lot more complicated than it seems over a gin and tonic' is the attitude of someone who has learned nothing whatever from the rise of UKIP.
UKIP are popular because the voters are sick of being talked down to by those who consider it their calling to organise the world on their behalf.
Fair point taffys, that was gratuitous and unfair.
""We're familiar with some of the arguments," he said. "Open your borders. National sovereignty is obsolete. Multilateral relationships are the only ones that matter, bilateral ones are so 20th century. "And we're familiar, too, with their frankly patronising approach to those who may disagree.
"You're a Little Englander' they say. 'You don't get the modern world. This approach - largely pursued under the last Government - didn't feel too good for ordinary people and frankly it didn't do too much for our competitiveness either.""
The article is also a bit simplistic about this too although the news is not great.
There you go again. People who oppose EU membership simply cannot get their heads around the complexities of why its such a good idea. Therefore they shouldn't be listened to. Its an utterly toxic attitude that is as responsible for the rise of UKIP as anything else.
Another day, another bunch of posts from Socrates about immigrants and/or Muslims. We get that you're very concerned and think that us lefties don't pay enough attention to it. You sound a decent bloke and are clearly genuinely worried. But you don't half go on about it on every thread. Could you maybe post some cat videos or something to avoid us feeling you're a bit obsessed?
What a cheek,if you had spoken out at the time your Government were in office,when they had open borders to Unrestricted immigration ,then maybe a lot more people wouldn't be so worried.
Did you mr palmer ever speak out on mass immigration by your government ?
@taffys UKIP are popular because a section of society are tired of having to wrestle with the complexities and shades of grey that the modern world requires, and would prefer not to have to think about them. Grubby compromise isn't as much fun as flouncing off in a purist huff. But it's usually a better solution in the long term.
Could there possibly be a worse/better name for a massive surveillance programme than Boundless Informant? I've just seen its PRISM's sibling run by the NSA... :^O
Another day, another bunch of posts from Socrates about immigrants and/or Muslims. We get that you're very concerned and think that us lefties don't pay enough attention to it. You sound a decent bloke and are clearly genuinely worried. But you don't half go on about it on every thread. Could you maybe post some cat videos or something to avoid us feeling you're a bit obsessed?
What a cheek,if you had spoken out at the time your Government were in office,when they had open borders to Unrestricted immigration ,then maybe a lot more people wouldn't be so worried.
Did you mr palmer ever speak out on mass immigration by your government ?
Cameron's speech today references the attitudes held by the ex-Mp of whom you talk.
But there are key obstacles in the way of that vision. Most notably the French.
Some EU and / or EZ countries really want to compete, as they realise that is the only way to survive in a globalised world. This camp includes Dave, the Germans, the Finns, probably the Dutch and others.
Then there is the 'let's put globalisation back in its box, build trade barriers and fester inside our own cess' tendency. The French lead this with only Brussels itself in second place. This camp will die in the ditch before they allow open competition with the rest of the world. Is there even a phrase for 'supply side reform' in French? Does not compute.
We (and others seeking to compete) will never get what we want from the EU. BOO is the way to go.
I think that these are our options. Out or associate status. I agree that getting the latter is not goign to be easy and will require us to threaten the former in a way that shows that we mean it. I don't think it will prove impossible as long as we are convincing though. In the meantime the actions taken by the government in respect of financial services are not unuseful in setting the ground works for such discussions.
The article is also a bit simplistic about this too although the news is not great.
There you go again. People who oppose EU membership simply cannot get their heads around the complexities of why its such a good idea. Therefore they shouldn't be listened to. Its an utterly toxic attitude that is as responsible for the rise of UKIP as anything else.
Actually I think what we've seen since Cameron's Europe speech is that pandering to the vastly over simplistic UKIP line on the EU actually feeds the monster.
And poll after poll highlights the British public's lack of knowledge about the EU and how it works. You don't have to like the EU, it has many failings, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to respect the opinions of Outers when so much of it is built upon sheer ignorance.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haven_(TV_series)
Better to be Out of Touch, arrogant and standing up for Britain rather than out of depth, weak and likeable.
Fringe is based on a female FBI agent/ a mad scientist & his son and lots of weird unexplained sci-fi 'fringe' events. A bit like X-Files but I liked it a lot more.
Gets great ratings in IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/?ref_=sr_1
I haven't seen Stargate - does that have Robert Carlyle in it? He makes an excellent Rumplestiltskin in Once Upon A Time.
Supernatural has some great bits, but I find Dean a really annoying character and it was all over the place in S8. W13 was terrible after S2 and is barely worth even having on whilst making my tea. The characters appear to have become teenage versions of themselves. It's down to 500k viewers and is being axed.
Haven't tried Alphas - thanks for the tip. Assume you've seen Grimm?
Why are you so animated by people wishing to see immigrants treated ok? Where's your decency?
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll try both Haven and Fringe, sound like the sort of thing I'd watch - it would be alone though as it's definitely not Mrs rog's cup of tea.
I'm really into GoT at the moment and was wondering what the other HBO offerings are like - Spartacus, Vikings etc.
I had a 'phone interview by Ipsos MORI a couple of days ago. It was putatively political, but there were sneaky questions about car/'phone/house-ownership/newspaper-reading, etc. Indeed, given their format of black-white/either-or styling, those were the only questions that were rigorous. By contrast, I would not like to think that the superficial level of their political queries would influence anybody to do anything.
http://www.history.com/shows/vikings
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. "
Does anyone really think that does not apply to Bilderberg?
And:
"It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."
And:
"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people."
He really was some writer. Pithy and pointed. Governments are responsible if someone is hurt these days. It seems unfair but in fact it is their biggest advantage. If they are responsible they must do something about it, right? And if they must, they must have sources of information and the power to take it from us. We should be wary.
One last one:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
These principles apply at least as much to those that seek power over us as they do to businessmen.
Tories of course will never learn that a government's P&L is quite unlike that of a household or Business. When you reduce a cost in a household or company budget it can positively affect your overall budget balance.
When a government tries to do it, the cost doesn't necessarily disappear, it just ends up on another - often more expensive - line.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt
Two MLAs and they've already sorted out who the leader and who the deputy leader are.
PS. I absolutely think immigrants should be treated humanely. I just think we should be stringent on how many immigrants there are.
See Question 5 in Test Paper IV:
http://silonov.narod.ru/parents/green/1066_08.htm
We had a great example of the skewed views of politicians the other day, when the socialist President of France said the Eurozone crisis was over, despite almost 20 million people being out of work.
Daenerys' unsullied scene is my favourite so far.
While I'm sure that the Bilderberg conference reinforces bad behaviour among world leaders, it's relatively harmless.
http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/illumin.htm
Essentially you are an evil conspiracy, for example the Bermuda Triangle or the Gnomes of Zurich, seeking to take over the world by building a network of apparently harmless front organisations like the Boy Scouts, the Post Office and the Stamp Collectors. Each has a profile of many characteristics, left/right wing, weird/straight, etc. and the special charm of the game is that you can choose to subtly adjust your own group's profile so as to attract others - for instance, you can decide to become More Weird.
There is also a simpler card game version (which actually came first), and it's all discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_(game)
The game has been criticised by conspiracy theorists as making fun of them. Surely not?
This was the most recent officer list I could fine quickly for the organisation that matters... And that's just the US officers...
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/organisations/pilgrims02/Pilgrims_relevant/2006_Pilgrims_officers_list_tax_form.gif
for those that don't recognise some of the names:
- Miner Warner: Order of St. John of Jerusalem & President of the ESU
- Mark Sisk: Bishop of New York
- Kissinger & Volcker I assume people know
- John Whitehead: former co-Chairman of Goldman
- Laurence Windsor: Council of the Sovereign Military Orderof the Temple of Jerusalem
- Robin Duke: wife of Angier Biddle Duke (Duke Tobacco, Duke University, and the Biddles of Andalusia)
What I'd like is a conference of world leaders and a randomly selected group of the world's population.
I suspect if you look into the decision-making process leading to these savings that cost money you'll find more similarities with equivalent private-sector cock-ups that looked good on the Powerpoint at the time but everybody on the ground could tell would backfire, like the involvement of people with MBAs.
rachel younger @rachyoungersky
6 men who pleaded guilty to plotting to attack #EDL rally in "murderous plot" sentenced to between 18 yrs & 9 months and 19 yrs & 6 months
I have come to the conclusion this is a career thing. The other day in a bored moment I looked at the front page of 'socialist worker' website.
Most of the stories were about the EDL, or immigration in some form. The revolution is very much on the back burner. YOu could argue its been cryogenically frozen.
The left are opposing the right on immigration because it's something to do. There isn't much else - as labour's promise to stick to tory spending plans tells us.
"Omar Khan, Jewel Uddin, Mohammed Hasseen, Mohammed Saud, Zohaib Ahmed and Anzal Hussain had all admitted terrorism offences in April.
Five of the men took a bomb, knives and sawn-off shotguns to the rally.
But the plotters arrived after the EDL event - held last June in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire - had ended."
"immanentize the eschaton!"
"Beware the golden apple!"
"Let's go to Fernando Poo!"
"We all live in a golden submarine"
"We need Hagbard!"
Somehow we weren't sacked...
It really is worth reading the trilogy, if only to see how spaced out Playboy authors were in the 1960s. Some people actually believe some elements of the story,including one ex-colleague of mine who later went into scientology.
And the Iluminatus! Trilogy also gave us some of hte KLF;s greatest songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX0mcases4M
And the perfect song for our Scottish friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6eo3bnYmwA
The most logical explanation for not joining with Alliance would be problems in agreeing who would be candidates in different constituencies. Though I note that while not a unionist party they are claiming to be pro-union. If you can figure that one out. Also Alliance are probably too illiberal for Basil.
- National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity.
- Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation.
- An honest politician is a national calamity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine's_Lawshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-22837723
What with events in Chiselhurst all over the MSM I wonder if this might presage another Panorama cover-up...?
Punters refuse to pay ? Well eviction beckons.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100220985/westminster-the-last-closed-shop-in-britain/
New Statesman: "How the government's immigration rules are tearing families apart"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/how-governments-immigration-rules-are-tearing-families-apart
Guardian: "Immigration policy tearing families apart, report shows"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/10/immigration-rules-separating-thousands-families
BBC: "How UK immigration laws are splitting families apart"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20207357
When did the memo go round on how to report this?
Misery for no benefit.
That's the Tory way.
Neither I nor Al-Beeb have any proof about our suspiscions. Unfortunately a political-elite in Al-Beeb/Panorama can distort the truth to fit their lies.**
* I don't really mind most muzzies; having worked with many reasonably good software-developers of said faith and - sadly - having them within the paternal side of the family.***
** Did Panorama only expose Mercer and the Ulster-Unionist Lord? If so why did they ignore Jack Cunningham and that other Labour Lord-Turd that were also exposed...?
*** Ofcourse they are the sensible, Shia-Alevi, types. Beer, pork and Christmas...!
Secondly, even if it is in a press release somewhere, since when should the national broadcaster, with a mandate to be impartial, be repeating phrases cut from press releases?
LOL
Poor old tory backbenchers, what a shame.
Like the rest of the nation that doesn't have a council property.
Oh, but thanks for the low-down on the new NI grouplet: at first I wondered whether Basil might be related to the Singing Rev)
Quite. Nige will be laughing into his pint this lunchtime...
LOL
Poor old tory backbenchers, what a shame.
David Cameron is a Europhile shock?
http://www.cityam.com/article/businesses-call-renegotiation-uk-s-relationship-european-union
It'll come as a shock to all those gullible enough to believe the flounce that wasn't and his other cast iron posturing.
"“To succeed, it’s no use just hiding away from the world – we’ve got to roll our sleeves up and compete in it.”"
I agree with antifrank that G20 and the like are simply opportunities for our leaders to feel important and to break up the daily grind of their work but as these are usually exclusively intergovernmental they don't have quite the same potential for corruption.
Now there is an issue. And greater cost.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-09/u-k-fights-eu-short-sale-powers-after-bank-bonus-defeat.html
The government has been clear from the time that they agreed to greater EZ integration that they reserved the right to challenge any provision which purported to affect the UK. And they have delivered on that undertaking in relation to the proposed financial services tax and now this.
In general Western Europe has paid itself far too much for years and so has way out-priced itself in the global market. Our only possible resource is new technology and the Chinese, Indians and Africans are catching up very fast, as their children are generally far better educated than ours and with higher standards and aspirations from both school and parents (using British educational and behavioural standards that we taught them and have largely abandoned ). Also they do not wait for work to come to them, but they seek it out and are prepared to go wherever the opportunities are revealed.
EU protectionism is not the answer to our problems. The business is out there - you just have to go and find it.
TGOHF is correct that Cameron is spot on about the need to engage and compete with the world but the relationship with the EU has been fundamentally changed by the creation of the EZ and a new relationship is needed.
I also think he is right to take on UKIP in this way. The world is a lot more complicated than it seems over a G&T. So acknowledge the concerns (which are genuine and valid) but explain the real options rather than the fantasy.
Cameron hasn't got a chance in hell of negotiating some sort of associate member status. The best he'll get is reform of a couple of areas, and some minor repatriations. We'll still be subject to the vast majority of EU law, we'll still be an integral part of the CAP, we'll still have no control over EU immigration, and we'll still not be able to negotiate our own trading agreements.
What UKIP are wanting is just a network of bilateral trade deals. That's very realistic and is what plenty of other countries in the world have. Why on Earth is it a "fantasy" to get an arrangement that already exists in the world, but realistic to get some imaginary partial EU membership that does not exist, and would need unanimous agreement to get?
I would love to agree with you, but experience tells me its very doubtful the EU will allow Cameron to offer the public a such a deal.
What irked me a little was DavidL's patronising attitude. 'the world is a lot more complicated than it seems over a gin and tonic' is the attitude of someone who has learned nothing whatever from the rise of UKIP.
UKIP are popular because the voters are sick of being talked down to by those who consider it their calling to organise the world on their behalf.
These rules would come into force either on 1.1.14 or 1.7.14 but if they follow the normal course there will then be a period in which MSs have to bring them into effect. We have a reputation of gold plating such directives. Whether we do so in this case may well depend on the outcome of the next election.
But there are key obstacles in the way of that vision. Most notably the French.
Some EU and / or EZ countries really want to compete, as they realise that is the only way to survive in a globalised world. This camp includes Dave, the Germans, the Finns, probably the Dutch and others.
Then there is the 'let's put globalisation back in its box, build trade barriers and fester inside our own cess' tendency. The French lead this with only Brussels itself in second place. This camp will die in the ditch before they allow open competition with the rest of the world. Is there even a phrase for 'supply side reform' in French? Does not compute.
We (and others seeking to compete) will never get what we want from the EU. BOO is the way to go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10110200/David-Cameron-dont-patronise-little-Englanders-worried-by-immigration.html
""We're familiar with some of the arguments," he said. "Open your borders. National sovereignty is obsolete. Multilateral relationships are the only ones that matter, bilateral ones are so 20th century.
"And we're familiar, too, with their frankly patronising approach to those who may disagree.
"You're a Little Englander' they say. 'You don't get the modern world.
This approach - largely pursued under the last Government - didn't feel too good for ordinary people and frankly it didn't do too much for our competitiveness either.""
There you go again. People who oppose EU membership simply cannot get their heads around the complexities of why its such a good idea. Therefore they shouldn't be listened to.
Its an utterly toxic attitude that is as responsible for the rise of UKIP as anything else.
Did you mr palmer ever speak out on mass immigration by your government ?
The only things stopping Uk leaving by 2020 are the EU failing to give Cam enough - or a Lib/Lab government in 2015.
Ukip will therefore by getting 5%+ at the GE keep us in until at least 2020.
And poll after poll highlights the British public's lack of knowledge about the EU and how it works. You don't have to like the EU, it has many failings, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to respect the opinions of Outers when so much of it is built upon sheer ignorance.