A figurehead and a martyr with a platform to epouse the ideals of Al Queda at length. Then a resting place revered by the Islamists and a place of pilgrimage.
Not exactly a PR triumph for the West.
You can see why he was disposed of and buried at the bottom of the sea.
Not an ideal demonstration of Western justice but balance that against the extra number of casualties produced by three months of Jihad recruitment.
A tragedy? Jezza being elected LOTO would be a tragedy for Labour
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
So what about the open primary for say Sarah Wollaston in Totnes, or Carol Dineage in Gosport, or Kelley Tolhurst at Rochester and Strood ? When the Conservative held those and stood up and told people that it was open to everyone to vote, should they have assumed that Cameron/Pickles really only mean people likely to vote Conservative ?
I would have assumed that yes.. I am sure the intention isn't for people that dislike the party to vote for the person they think is going to do the worst job
If the party isn't stupid there wont be one. Labour was stupid. The Tories offer two candidates and could live with either. It would have been the same if Labour offered Cooper/Burnham, neither is substantially worse, its a personal preference if you think is more important being Northern or having ovaries, under those circumstances opening the competition to the general public carries no risk. It was only later that Corbyn, until then dismissed as a novelty candidate suddenly became a threat and being open to the general public looked like a big liability. I didn't vote in the primary, but I have no sympathy for stupid parties. Cameron is making a load of unforced errors over immigration, I have no sympathy for him either.
Given that Bush and Blair made several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein they can hardly complain if others wish the same outcome for them! It could also be argued that Blair was responsible for more deaths than Bin Laden and deserves the same fate. However, that is not my preferred outcome - I would like to see both hauled before the International Court at the Hague. The vast majority of International Lawyers believe the attack on Iraq to have been unlawful. It took me several years to read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg trial - on the internet - and I am very clear that in respect of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War', Blair & Bush were more guilty than any of those Nazi leaders convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop , though he lacked final executive authority.
I would be interested to see a reference to the legal opinions to which you refer.
I know from a case that I did many many years ago - where international law (though not relating to war) was an issue - that it is not at all clear cut, even when the legal opinions appear to make it so.
At any event, I tend to agree with Marquee Mark that the real issue here is not whether it was lawful. It's whether it was wise.
Those who oppose it (or some of them anyway) use the "it was unlawful" argument because it (a) allows them to brand Blair and Bush as war criminals; and (b) it avoids them having to confront the fact their position meant that they would have allowed Saddam Hussein, a disgusting dictator by any standards, to remain in charge. That is not obviously the better moral position though it may well have been - probably was - the least worst option.
If the war had been deemed lawful e.g. if there had been a second UN resolution authorising the US and the UK to go to war to overthrow Saddam would JC have still opposed it or supported it? Or has his opposition got nothing to do with its lawfulness or otherwise?
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
So what about the open primary for say Sarah Wollaston in Totnes, or Carol Dineage in Gosport, or Kelley Tolhurst at Rochester and Strood ? When the Conservative held those and stood up and told people that it was open to everyone to vote, should they have assumed that Cameron/Pickles really only mean people likely to vote Conservative ?
I would have assumed that yes.. I am sure the intention isn't for people that dislike the party to vote for the person they think is going to do the worst job
If the party isn't stupid there wont be one. Labour was stupid. The Tories offer two candidates and could live with either. It would have been the same if Labour offered Cooper/Burnham, neither is substantially worse, its a personal preference if you think is more important being Northern or having ovaries, under those circumstances opening the competition to the general public carries no risk. It was only later that Corbyn, until then dismissed as a novelty candidate suddenly became a threat and being open to the general public looked like a big liability. I didn't vote in the primary, but I have no sympathy for stupid parties. Cameron is making a load of unforced errors over immigration, I have no sympathy for him either.
I don't feel sorry for anyone over this, I just find it sad, and a reflection of modern life, that people will openly flout the spirit of the game just because they can get away with it
Given that Bush and Blair made several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein they can hardly complain if others wish the same outcome for them! It could also be argued that Blair was responsible for more deaths than Bin Laden and deserves the same fate. However, that is not my preferred outcome - I would like to see both hauled before the International Court at the Hague. The vast majority of International Lawyers believe the attack on Iraq to have been unlawful. It took me several years to read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg trial - on the internet - and I am very clear that in respect of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War', Blair & Bush were more guilty than any of those Nazi leaders convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop , though he lacked final executive authority.
I would be interested to see a reference to the legal opinions to which you refer.
I know from a case that I did many many years ago - where international law (though not relating to war) was an issue - that it is not at all clear cut, even when the legal opinions appear to make it so.
At any event, I tend to agree with Marquee Mark that the real issue here is not whether it was lawful. It's whether it was wise.
Those who oppose it (or some of them anyway) use the "it was unlawful" argument because it (a) allows them to brand Blair and Bush as war criminals; and (b) it avoids them having to confront the fact their position meant that they would have allowed Saddam Hussein, a disgusting dictator by any standards, to remain in charge. That is not obviously the better moral position though it may well have been - probably was - the least worst option.
If the war had been deemed lawful e.g. if there had been a second UN resolution authorising the US and the UK to go to war to overthrow Saddam would JC have still opposed it or supported it? Or has his opposition got nothing to do with its lawfulness or otherwise?
At the time Blair denied any intent to bring about regime change - he only changed his tune when WMD failed to appear. At the end of the day there was no more legal justification for the attack on Iraq than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I would also suggest that had the League of Nations system still been functioning the UK would have been obliged to leave in the same way that Japan, Italy and USSR departed following the invasions of Manchuria, Abysinnia and Finland.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
So what about the open primary for say Sarah Wollaston in Totnes, or Carol Dineage in Gosport, or Kelley Tolhurst at Rochester and Strood ? When the Conservative held those and stood up and told people that it was open to everyone to vote, should they have assumed that Cameron/Pickles really only mean people likely to vote Conservative ?
I would have assumed that yes.. I am sure the intention isn't for people that dislike the party to vote for the person they think is going to do the worst job
If the party isn't stupid there wont be one. Labour was stupid. The Tories offer two candidates and could live with either. It would have been the same if Labour offered Cooper/Burnham, neither is substantially worse, its a personal preference if you think is more important being Northern or having ovaries, under those circumstances opening the competition to the general public carries no risk. It was only later that Corbyn, until then dismissed as a novelty candidate suddenly became a threat and being open to the general public looked like a big liability. I didn't vote in the primary, but I have no sympathy for stupid parties. Cameron is making a load of unforced errors over immigration, I have no sympathy for him either.
I don't feel sorry for anyone over this, I just find it sad, and a reflection of modern life, that people will openly flout the spirit of the game just because they can get away with it
I tend to agree with you. Even though I think Corbyn's views to be repellent, this is not what most people will focus on and he could be quite popular in the short-term. I think that to vote such a man into power - even if you think it will destabilise your opponent - is a silly thing to do and could have all sorts of unintended and disastrous consequences.
After all, the Germans probably hugged themselves with glee at their cleverness at allowing Lenin to travel into Russia and get it knocked out of the war. Look how that turned out in the end.
Given that Bush and Blair made several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein they can hardly complain if others wish the same outcome for them! It could also be argued that Blair was responsible for more deaths than Bin Laden and deserves the same fate. However, that is not my preferred outcome - I would like to see both hauled before the International Court at the Hague. The vast majority of International Lawyers believe the attack on Iraq to have been unlawful. It took me several years to read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg trial - on the internet - and I am very clear that in respect of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War', Blair & Bush were more guilty than any of those Nazi leaders convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop , though he lacked final executive authority.
I would be interested to see a reference to the legal opinions to which you refer.
I know from a case that I did many many years ago - where international law (though not relating to war) was an issue - that it is not at all clear cut, even when the legal opinions appear to make it so.
At any event, I tend to agree with Marquee Mark that the real issue here is not whether it was lawful. It's whether it was wise.
Those who oppose it (or some of them anyway) use the "it was unlawful" argument because it (a) allows them to brand Blair and Bush as war criminals; and (b) it avoids them having to confront the fact their position meant that they would have allowed Saddam Hussein, a disgusting dictator by any standards, to remain in charge. That is not obviously the better moral position though it may well have been - probably was - the least worst option.
If the war had been deemed lawful e.g. if there had been a second UN resolution authorising the US and the UK to go to war to overthrow Saddam would JC have still opposed it or supported it? Or has his opposition got nothing to do with its lawfulness or otherwise?
At the time Blair denied any intent to bring about regime change - he only changed his tune when WMD failed to appear. At the end of the day there was no more legal justification for the attack on Iraq than Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I would also suggest that had the League of Nations system still been functioning the UK would have been obliged to leave in the same way that Japan, Italy and USSR departed following the invasions of Manchuria, Abysinnia and Finland.
You want the assassination of Blair? It's a point of view, I suppose.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The reasons for criticising it are rather more interesting though. But, personally, I don't think the removal of Saddam Hussein was an act of evil on a par with the attack on the Twin Towers or the bombs in Nairobil office blocks, for instance. ....
Whether the war was wise is quite another matter. But that is very different from saying that it was illegal. Something can be legal but unwise.
.....
Given that Bush and Blair made several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein they can hardly complain if others wish the same outcome for them! It could also be argued that Blair was responsible for more deaths than Bin Laden and deserves the same fate. However, that is not my preferred outcome - I would like to see both hauled before the International Court at the Hague. The vast majority of International Lawyers believe the attack on Iraq to have been unlawful. It took me several years to read the entire transcripts of the Nuremburg trial - on the internet - and I am very clear that in respect of the Indictment relating to 'Planning for War', Blair & Bush were more guilty than any of those Nazi leaders convicted - with the possible exception of Ribbentrop , though he lacked final executive authority.
What a bozo you are. Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire agreement which ended the Gulf war. Well it ended the fighting of the Gulf War but it did not end the war. In breaking the ceasefire Saddam laid himself open to further attack. Do you get that? Poland was a legal independent at peace country invaded without cause. Saddam's Iraq was a country which had invaded Kuwait and was finally evicted by international coalition. It was Saddam after that who should have been put on trial. Instead the ceasefire allowed him to say in power under certain conditions which he broke (not least by his Republican Guard massacring his opponents). Yet you in your bigotry try to tell us that Bush and Blair are worse than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Get stu##ed.
A figurehead and a martyr with a platform to epouse the ideals of Al Queda at length. Then a resting place revered by the Islamists and a place of pilgrimage.
Not exactly a PR triumph for the West.
You can see why he was disposed of and buried at the bottom of the sea.
Not an ideal demonstration of Western justice but balance that against the extra number of casualties produced by three months of Jihad recruitment.
A tragedy? Jezza being elected LOTO would be a tragedy for Labour
I thought Islamists disliked tombs and any sort of memorial and worshipping of them or at them. Hence IS destruction of the same. The Saudis don't even have tombs for their kings.
As I say, people with a sense of fair play would have known exactly what she meant, there was no need for lawyer esque caution on her part. Most people have it, it's why most people who support other parties didn't join labour to vote for a leader that was bad for them
You may say it repeatedly, it's just that I'm not sure you're correct.
Labour is, and prides itself on being, a mass movement. I think they were more concerned on getting people involved by voting than on who those voters were. After all, there was a back-stop in the fact that candidates had to get 35 MPs to back them, meaning that poor candidates would not be on the ballot.
Ooops.
I though the intention was to get people that might be inclined to vote for Labour at the next GE involved with the choice of its leader... anyone who doesn't fit that bill and is voting for someone that will damage Labour is not acting within the spirit of fair play, and it disappoints me that such people did it and are proud of it.
So what about the open primary for say Sarah Wollaston in Totnes, or Carol Dineage in Gosport, or Kelley Tolhurst at Rochester and Strood ? When the Conservative held those and stood up and told people that it was open to everyone to vote, should they have assumed that Cameron/Pickles really only mean people likely to vote Conservative ?
I would have assumed that yes.. I am sure the intention isn't for people that dislike the party to vote for the person they think is going to do the worst job
If the party isn't stupid there wont be one. Labour was stupid. The Tories offer two candidates and could live with either. It would have been the same if Labour offered Cooper/Burnham, neither is substantially worse, its a personal preference if you think is more important being Northern or having ovaries, under those circumstances opening the competition to the general public carries no risk. It was only later that Corbyn, until then dismissed as a novelty candidate suddenly became a threat and being open to the general public looked like a big liability. I didn't vote in the primary, but I have no sympathy for stupid parties. Cameron is making a load of unforced errors over immigration, I have no sympathy for him either.
I don't feel sorry for anyone over this, I just find it sad, and a reflection of modern life, that people will openly flout the spirit of the game just because they can get away with it
You're playing god in second guessing the motives of people of whom you know nothing. The ballot was offered, the ballot is secret. Let the voters decide.
"Shifting away from statistics about immigration (which don’t convince) to stories — examples of being helped by foreign-born nurses, or desperate stories of refugees — could also help." Owen Jones
Well, you don't often get a leading player in the game admitting in public that they should ignore the facts and just tell stories.
Maybe you lawyers can answer some questions from a layman, but what is the International Law that you speak of? Where is it written down? Who makes it? Under what authority is it made? If Blair and co are said to have breached international law what act and section are we talking about - surely there must be a defined offence else how else can they be tried and offer a defence?
"Shifting away from statistics about immigration (which don’t convince) to stories — examples of being helped by foreign-born nurses, or desperate stories of refugees — could also help." Owen Jones
Well, you don't often get a leading player in the game admitting in public that they should ignore the facts and just tell stories.
Only positive ones though. I always thought it as dishonest to only highlight positive examples of immigration success as to only highlight negative examples.
Far too busy on PB today.. you should all be out there sweltering in a traffic jam..
Chance would be a fine thing: it's chucking it down.
briiliant sunshine in God's country
One of the hottest and best summers I ever had in this country was in Pitlochry: swimming, walking, just being out in the open. It was simply glorious. It was the year I passed my Bar exams and my boyfriend's father, a Scottish judge (apologies - am not meaning to sound boastful) rang me to tell my results.... He was a lovely man.
Cyclefre, hello, unfortunately this year in general has been dire, worst summer for many a year.
We can agree on something! We didn't even have the early July heatwave down here in Devon; struggled to break through 20C...
I was in Devon just over a week ago.
Horrible, horrible weather.
Also popped into Ilfracombe a place filled with many happy childhood memories.
Sad to see it in its current state.
Ilfracombe is becoming Damien Hirst's plaything. Although I hear good things about his restaurant there.
Actually, both my wife and I thought the statue was the best thing about Ilfracombe at present.
Far too busy on PB today.. you should all be out there sweltering in a traffic jam..
Chance would be a fine thing: it's chucking it down.
briiliant sunshine in God's country
One of the hottest and best summers I ever had in this country was in Pitlochry: swimming, walking, just being out in the open. It was simply glorious. It was the year I passed my Bar exams and my boyfriend's father, a Scottish judge (apologies - am not meaning to sound boastful) rang me to tell my results.... He was a lovely man.
Cyclefre, hello, unfortunately this year in general has been dire, worst summer for many a year.
We can agree on something! We didn't even have the early July heatwave down here in Devon; struggled to break through 20C...
I was in Devon just over a week ago.
Horrible, horrible weather.
Also popped into Ilfracombe a place filled with many happy childhood memories.
Sad to see it in its current state.
Ilfracombe is becoming Damien Hirst's plaything. Although I hear good things about his restaurant there.
Actually, both my wife and I thought the statue was the best thing about Ilfracombe at present.
I have to say I think Ilfracombe is an appalling place. How did it allow itself to get that way?
Comments
A figurehead and a martyr with a platform to epouse the ideals of Al Queda at length. Then a resting place revered by the Islamists and a place of pilgrimage.
Not exactly a PR triumph for the West.
You can see why he was disposed of and buried at the bottom of the sea.
Not an ideal demonstration of Western justice but balance that against the extra number of casualties produced by three months of Jihad recruitment.
A tragedy? Jezza being elected LOTO would be a tragedy for Labour
I know from a case that I did many many years ago - where international law (though not relating to war) was an issue - that it is not at all clear cut, even when the legal opinions appear to make it so.
At any event, I tend to agree with Marquee Mark that the real issue here is not whether it was lawful. It's whether it was wise.
Those who oppose it (or some of them anyway) use the "it was unlawful" argument because it (a) allows them to brand Blair and Bush as war criminals; and (b) it avoids them having to confront the fact their position meant that they would have allowed Saddam Hussein, a disgusting dictator by any standards, to remain in charge. That is not obviously the better moral position though it may well have been - probably was - the least worst option.
If the war had been deemed lawful e.g. if there had been a second UN resolution authorising the US and the UK to go to war to overthrow Saddam would JC have still opposed it or supported it? Or has his opposition got nothing to do with its lawfulness or otherwise?
After all, the Germans probably hugged themselves with glee at their cleverness at allowing Lenin to travel into Russia and get it knocked out of the war. Look how that turned out in the end.
Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire agreement which ended the Gulf war. Well it ended the fighting of the Gulf War but it did not end the war. In breaking the ceasefire Saddam laid himself open to further attack.
Do you get that?
Poland was a legal independent at peace country invaded without cause. Saddam's Iraq was a country which had invaded Kuwait and was finally evicted by international coalition. It was Saddam after that who should have been put on trial. Instead the ceasefire allowed him to say in power under certain conditions which he broke (not least by his Republican Guard massacring his opponents).
Yet you in your bigotry try to tell us that Bush and Blair are worse than Hitler and Nazi Germany. Get stu##ed.
Well, you don't often get a leading player in the game admitting in public that they should ignore the facts and just tell stories.
new thread