True. But Corbyn claims to be different. This was his constituency. He was told. He chose to do nothing. He claims to be on the side of the oppressed. Who is more oppressed than parentless children abused by those who should care for them? Ann Cryer MP was told and - courageously - spoke out. He did not. Let's not have this man of principle fighting for the underdog bollocks anymore. It's nauseating bullsh*t.
I think your posts have gone way beyond what is reasonable on Corbyn (& I am not particularly a supporter of his).
Corbyn is no more or no less culpable on child abuse than many (probably almost all) other MPs, many councillors, almost everyone who belongs to political parties, almost everyone at the BBC, almost everyone at boarding schools or at Chethams’ Music school or the Royal Northern College of Music, and so on.
Many at the BBC will have heard rumours about the Man Who Cannot Be Mentioned on this Blog. Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true). Many could have called for investigations but did not.
Fair enough to criticise Corbyn, but now let’s hear you criticism of all these other Goddam organisations as well.
If every who bears some guilt for what has happened over child abuse is forced to resign, we’d be looking for 650 new MPs, many thousands of new councillors, entirely new political parties, a new broadcasting corporation and tens of thousands of staff at all the boarding, music and performance schools where child abuse has occurred.
And a new LotO.
This is a ludicrous post. You cannot try to nail the likely new LOTO without condemning every other Tom, Dick or Harry who may or may not have committed similar indiscretions or crimes to those which you have identified in connection with said potential LOTO. What a wally.
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
I suppose Assad and Gaddafi were a very good thing in your eyes? I'm sure you'd have been happy to be ruled by them?
Being contrarian for the sake of it does not make you big or clever.
In my view Assad and Ghaddafi were complete and utter bastards, and the latter was probably also certifiable. However, what has that got to do with anything.
Is the population of Syria better off now than they were before the Arab Spring which was aided and abetted by the people groups I have already mentioned? With half of them dead or fled and the country in ruins, I think it would be a hard thing to justify the assertion that they are.
Libya seems to be now in a state of pure anarchy where divers criminal gangs compete for control. Oh, and an awful lot of sophisticated weaponry has also disappeared but which will probably resurface in some later terrorist attack. What life is like for the ordinary Libyan now compared to how it was I don't know. I doubt it is any better and from an international point of view overthrowing the ghastly Ghaddafi regime has been a disaster.
You think I am being contrarian for the sake of it.
It would be an interesting legal case. Would a previous lifetime annuity have stopped paying if it could be shown definitively that Lazarus was dead before being miraculously raised from the dead?
It would be a holy alliance between the insurance company and those wishing to believe in the miracle.
I have done some truly bizarre cases in my time but that would be a new one!
Yet the Valkyrie plotters were described as traitors even in allied newsreels at the time. It is only in subsequent years that they and the White Rose Movement have been held up as "good germans".
I didn't know that - seems odd. Normally anyone who fights one's enemy in wartime is described as heroic, if only to encourage more.
I remember Churchill being quoted in the 50s as being horrified to learn that a Russian spy had defected to us - "How can a man betray his country in such a way?" But it's an unusual view, and in principle a wrong one IMO.
It would be an interesting legal case. Would a previous lifetime annuity have stopped paying if it could be shown definitively that Lazarus was dead before being miraculously raised from the dead?
It would be a holy alliance between the insurance company and those wishing to believe in the miracle.
I have done some truly bizarre cases in my time but that would be a new one!
I would hope so. I appreciate that many Scots have messianic faith in their leaders but I have yet to hear claims that Nicola Sturgeon's miraculous powers extend to performing resurrections.
No: in fact, western concern in what was going on in Syria pre-dated the use of chemical weapons. And with good reason: just look at the 1981, and particularly the 1982, Hama massacres for examples of what people feared Assad might do.
Different Assad.
And again a somewhat arbitrary position, on that premise we should have invaded North Korea some time this decade, overthrown Mugabe, occupied Somalia and be rolling our tabks through ISIS land.
I'd suggest to you that HMG thought it could get easy regime change for not much effort and hadn't thought through what might replace it.
The Charles Atlas Foreign Policy
Yes, I know it was Bashar's father, but it was the same regime and, sadly, "like father, like son" is sometimes valid. And there was plenty of indication that Bashar wasn't the most stable person, either in temperament or position.
No, I think HMG were faced with a terrible choice: not to do anything and see tens of thousands slaughtered (even after which, the situation may not have been finalised), or to try and support people who wanted democracy against a dictator.
It's not as if the outcome of any of the alternatives were clear: supporting Assad, as some on here seem to be calling for, supporting the army rebels and protesters, as we wanted to do, or just sitting on our hands and whistling.
On that basis we'd better ban Jeb Bush from standing for WH16.
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own. I'd also suggest there was no real evidence that Syria was just bursting for western style democracy.
The whole Middle East is an irrational cesspit and the only sensible thing to do is to stay well out of it and work with those countries elsewhere which actually do want to improve their lot.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
There have been similar suggestions made about the instinctively absurd claims made against Harvey Proctor/Heath etc etc.
Because of the McAlpine case I thought the Westminster paedophile issue was all an invention.
It was only PtP and RCS saying here that there was real substance to it which changed my mind.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
There is one thing on which I am willing to pay some small tribute to Corbyn and that is that he voted against ID cards. Just as Dianne Abbott gave a very good speech against detention without trial in the pre-2010 Parliament.
I still don't want him as LoTo though, though I hope that Labour wholly rethink the authoritarianism they fell into as New Labour.
One of the solutions them French suggested for us to stop the illegal immigrants was to introduce ID cards in the UK. In other words we can't be bothered to stop them so you lot have to have ID cards. It's an interesting viewpoint I suppose.
There is one thing on which I am willing to pay some small tribute to Corbyn and that is that he voted against ID cards. Just as Dianne Abbott gave a very good speech against detention without trial in the pre-2010 Parliament.
I still don't want him as LoTo though, though I hope that Labour wholly rethink the authoritarianism they fell into as New Labour.
The only policy issue on here that Nick has ever seemed truly passionate about defending on its own merits. Although he was in favour
Not easy for ABC for sure, but I am mentally screaming at the telly at their honed ability to say nothing at all.
Well, it was partly Corbyn's willingness to give polite straight answers that made me vote for him. I disagree with some of his thoughts, but I'm glad he doesn't try to disguise them in blancmange, and I think it won't do British politics any harm to have that quality knocking around: Cameron may find it slightly unnerving too.
Maybe, but I am really suspicious that he will retain straight answers if he has to do the top job. Bland, obfuscations are the order of the day because political opponents jump on the slightest hint of poor choice of words ('swarming' being a case in point) to condemn people. Given the speeches I've seen show Corbyn is no strange to the meaningless cliche despite being so apparently 'different', I don't know that he will react that differently to anyone else in the top job, even if his fundamental difference from the Spads mean it will be a little different.
Some of the answers he has given - "He didn't say anything anti-Semitic to me" (FFS!) - show that he will be at least as good as Spads at coming out with rubbish.
Even when he talks about the economy he comes out with sentimental cliche after cliche. It's empty incoherence which can be torn apart with no trouble.
Jesus: even I could come up with a better programme for the Left than he's done!
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
No, Mr Jessup, at the time the bleeding hearts were encouraging the Arab Spring nobody had used chemical weapons. That came later when deluded people on the ground started to believe in the "Arab Spring" nonsense and civil war broke out.
Nobody in the bleeding-heart crowd seems willing to own up to actually have some responsibility for the resultant God-awful mess. No great surprise I don't see Cameron saying much about the state of anarchy in Libya either.
However, I know now that Assad is a very bad man and the Arab Spring was a very good thing, even though it has led to tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths and a flood of refugees banging at Europe's gates (to say nothing of what it has done to Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey).
I suppose Assad and Gaddafi were a very good thing in your eyes? I'm sure you'd have been happy to be ruled by them?
Being contrarian for the sake of it does not make you big or clever.
In my view Assad and Ghaddafi were complete and utter bastards, and the latter was probably also certifiable. However, what has that got to do with anything.
Is the population of Syria better off now than they were before the Arab Spring which was aided and abetted by the people groups I have already mentioned? With half of them dead or fled and the country in ruins, I think it would be a hard thing to justify the assertion that they are.
Libya seems to be now in a state of pure anarchy where divers criminal gangs compete for control. Oh, and an awful lot of sophisticated weaponry has also disappeared but which will probably resurface in some later terrorist attack. What life is like for the ordinary Libyan now compared to how it was I don't know. I doubt it is any better and from an international point of view overthrowing the ghastly Ghaddafi regime has been a disaster.
You think I am being contrarian for the sake of it.
The Arab Spring was led by the local populace not the people you mentioned. The people you mentioned promised to back up the populace but when push came to shove we flaked out and didn't. Therefore the variance in our activity is not starting the Arab Spring (which we didn't do) but the refusal to back up the local populace (which we did do).
If we had a do-over then we couldn't prevent the Arab Spring because our actions weren't responsible for it. But we could honour our word and our ethics and have acted. The ruins are not caused by the Arab Spring, the ruins are caused by standing back and letting two evils fight it out because we won't take a stand.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
It was too big a risk that he would be toppled only for ISIS now to be in control of Damascus
Syria was quite late in on the Arab Spring. As I recall, Tunisia started the whole thing off and that's gone really well hasn't it.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Whenever I read the Powell & Thatcher exchange about British Values vs My Country Right or Wrong, I am reminded of EM Forster:
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”
Personally: my country is my country so long as it embodies my values. Countries are created by man, and all - in time - will return to dust and memories and history books. It is a sobering thought that one day, the last person to know and understand the words "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will die.
And that is why Mrs Thatcher was right. We fight for what we want our country to be. We betray our principles, our friends, and our countrymen, should we fall into the trap of believing My Country, Right or Wrong.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
I love that! Powell was a very intelligent man. It was a great shame he was ruined by a poor education. Think what he could have done had he had a scientific training.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
Question for PBers. I'm thinking of going to Zagreb in a couple of weeks time for the Arsenal match but looking at the cost of a flight to Zagreb I'm thinking of flying to Vienna and getting the train to Zagreb from there. Given what's going on in Hungary at the moment, does anyone think that getting the train could be a bit dodgy?
Speaking as a Yid, I think that should be just fine
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
As I said above, Germany is in a very different situation to us demographically and economically. While we're at record population levels (with a fast growing population) and people say we are full and have a housing crisis etc ... Germany has a shrinking population and appalling demographics. The arrival of extra migrants is arguably a very good thing for Germany as well as the migrants who need a new home. Win/win.
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
Quite. After Iraq, USA wouldn't act unilaterally. Britain pulling out removed their political cover.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
Quite. After Iraq, USA wouldn't act unilaterally. Britain pulling out removed their political cover.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
I don't think its unknown, Bush was going come what may.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
I think the decline in the AfD vote share is caused by two factors:
1. The CDU/CSU taking a firm line with Greece 2. The AfD has essentially split, electing a FN style leader, and losing all its ex-FDP, pro business members.
Hence it has gone from 6% in the polls to 3.5% or so.
You sir, are a sage. My sister in law was told today that her elbow surgery has been delayed until 'at least' September 9. The reason given was 'uncertainty of supplies'.
Meantime she is stuck at home with her entire arm in plaster and a large amount of pain killers.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
I think the decline in the AfD vote share is caused by two factors:
1. The CDU/CSU taking a firm line with Greece 2. The AfD has essentially split, electing a FN style leader, and losing all its ex-FDP, pro business members.
Hence it has gone from 6% in the polls to 3.5% or so.
If that happens they'll fail to win anything under the German model will they? Are the FDP recovering or are they deceased now?
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
The Arab Spring was led by the local populace not the people you mentioned. The people you mentioned promised to back up the populace but when push came to shove we flaked out and didn't. Therefore the variance in our activity is not starting the Arab Spring (which we didn't do) but the refusal to back up the local populace (which we did do).
If we had a do-over then we couldn't prevent the Arab Spring because our actions weren't responsible for it. But we could honour our word and our ethics and have acted. The ruins are not caused by the Arab Spring, the ruins are caused by standing back and letting two evils fight it out because we won't take a stand.
Now with that I wouldn't disagree too much. Maybe the Marsh Arabs against Saddam after GW1 would be the nearest comparison. We gave them every support and encouragement short of actual help. Would the Marsh Arabs have risen up if they thought that the West was not going to support them? We will never know because all the people who could answer are long dead.
I have a sneaking suspicion though that without the Western propaganda "support", similar to that we gave the Syrian Arab Springers, they might just have kept their heads down and got on with life as they had for decades past, and waited.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
I think the decline in the AfD vote share is caused by two factors:
1. The CDU/CSU taking a firm line with Greece 2. The AfD has essentially split, electing a FN style leader, and losing all its ex-FDP, pro business members.
Hence it has gone from 6% in the polls to 3.5% or so.
If that happens they'll fail to win anything under the German model will they? Are the FDP recovering or are they deceased now?
The FDP is now polling above the AfD, but are still just below the 5% threshold.
You cannot have a democracy where the majority of the population think that the state's laws should be based on the laws of one religion. Theocracy and democracy are incompatible.
How can you have opposition? How can you repeal laws coming from God? How can someone who is not of the religion be compelled to comply with such laws?
Credal states are not democratic states. This may be an unpalatable fact for us as far as the Middle East is concerned. But it is a fact we should be taking much more account of when considering interference in the Middle East. There are secular states but they have rarely been democracies either.
And this also means that the opposition to the various bastards that have been in charge are far more likely to come from those who dislike the secularism rather than from those who want democracy. As we have been seeing.
The biggest delusion that the West has about the Middle East is that the opponents of authoritarian vicious leaders are necessarily liberal democrats. Why should that be? There is no history of liberalism in the region and very little earth in which the seeds of liberalism could grow. Democracy and liberalism are states of mind before they are institutions. They took a long time to get established in the West and, even now, do not have as strong roots as we would like. Why on earth did all those Middle Eastern experts in the FO and elsewhere think that there was fertile soil for such ideas given the very different history and culture of the place?
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
Quite. After Iraq, USA wouldn't act unilaterally. Britain pulling out removed their political cover.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
I don't think its unknown, Bush was going come what may.
In the end he would - they couldn't have pulled back by the time the Commons was debating it in Parliament, the troops were massed at the border. But Blair had made the decision to back the US much earlier. I don't think it is certain that he couldn't have stopped it before. Although Blair presumably thought he couldn't.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
Would torturing and murdering people for no reason still be wrong even if human beings had never existed?
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
When communism collapsed in the Eastern Bloc it took a long time for the new states to turn around and for democracy and liberal values to take root. The Arab Spring will likely follow a similar if more difficult path, and it's worth nothing that some countries are doing a lot better than others, such as Tunisia and Algeria.
Whatever the end result of the Arab Spring turns out to be it was not a Western plot. The people in North Africa and the Middle East wanted change and acted, lets hope they get something better in the long run.
Interesting that you judge Tunisia as a top performer. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not have a very significant religious complication (Yugoslavia yes, SU no). The other Arab Spring issue is that Islam and democracy are not comfy bedfellows. I think it's extremely unlikely to end well in Western terms, ie with democracy for all.
In what is probably a first on PB someone is going to admit to not understanding something (genuinely, not the pretend "I don't understand what you are saying..." technique used to mean " I understand exactly what you are saying but am pretending that such wrong headed thinking is beneath me")
This conversation between Enoch and Thatcher
"John Casey records an exchange between Powell and Thatcher during a meeting of the Conservative Philosophy Group:
Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."
Can anyone explain?
I love that! Powell was a very intelligent man. It was a great shame he was ruined by a poor education. Think what he could have done had he had a scientific training.
Powell was an intelligent man who failed to understand that common-sense is at least as important.
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
Quite. After Iraq, USA wouldn't act unilaterally. Britain pulling out removed their political cover.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
He should have bloody well said so then. And we could have debated whether it was worth joining them on that basis.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
Indeed, this is the graphic which brings home the extent of this crisis:
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
@glw The WVM tends to read red-tops, such as The Sun or the Mirror. The Daily Mail is generally read by females, with most of its readers being women. Says a lot about the women reading it, though.
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
When communism collapsed in the Eastern Bloc it took a long time for the new states to turn around and for democracy and liberal values to take root. The Arab Spring will likely follow a similar if more difficult path, and it's worth nothing that some countries are doing a lot better than others, such as Tunisia and Algeria.
Whatever the end result of the Arab Spring turns out to be it was not a Western plot. The people in North Africa and the Middle East wanted change and acted, lets hope they get something better in the long run.
Interesting that you judge Tunisia as a top performer. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not have a very significant religious complication (Yugoslavia yes, SU no). The other Arab Spring issue is that Islam and democracy are not comfy bedfellows. I think it's extremely unlikely to end well in Western terms, ie with democracy for all.
Religion and democracy are not good bedfellows at all. The rise of democracy in the west has come with (by necessity) a rise in secularism. A religious democracy is an oxymoron.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
Possibly, probably even.
As I said if it wasn't for PtP and RCS I wouldn't have thought there was anything to the Westminster paedophile story.
Now I've learnt to always keep an open mind and ask questions.
After the various abuse scandals, the various corruption scandals, the various hospital scandals and the various banking scandals I think that's sensible.
@glw The WVM tends to read red-tops, such as The Sun or the Mirror. The Daily Mail is generally read by females, with most of its readers being women. Says a lot about the women reading it, though.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
"By some estimates, half of Syrians have either fled their homes or died."
I do hope the bleeding heart liberals, and especially that twat William Hague and the lovies at the FCO/BBC, who were encouraging the "Arab Spring" feel ashamed of themselves.
The Arab Spring was a good thing.
I hope the isolationists who felt that Assad using chemical weapons in Syria was not sufficient grounds for us to intervene feel ashamed of themselves.
It was too big a risk that he would be toppled only for ISIS now to be in control of Damascus
Syria was quite late in on the Arab Spring. As I recall, Tunisia started the whole thing off and that's gone really well hasn't it.
Indeed, ironically the most vehemently anti Islamist government in the Middle East is now Egypt, run by a military government in a complete reversal of the Arab Spring
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
Quite. After Iraq, USA wouldn't act unilaterally. Britain pulling out removed their political cover.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
He should have bloody well said so then. And we could have debated whether it was worth joining them on that basis.
I'm pretty sure he did, if you looked hard enough. It's just he tended to use it as a second or even third fall back argument to try and convince those who were sceptical about the basic case for war. ie. "I believe that it is right to be doing this. However even if you disagree with me, America are going anyway and it would be better if they did so with allies". He was quite concerned about the anti-American feeling in much of Western Europe and saw it as his role to combat that. I'm sure i can remember him expounding on this theme repeatedly. A unilateral US invasion would have made that much harder.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
There is a reason why politicians obfuscate. It is basically a necessary part of the job. Even more so for those in Government who will often have to keep secret about things which they would much rather reveal to avert political flak.
It is very easy being a "straight talker" when you only need to appeal to a narrow constituency and aren't in a position to wield power. Being attracted towards someone for these purposes is just an indulgence, and they will soon be forced to disappoint once the reality of their position intrudes.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
That ship sailed long ago
Or we could believe everything the establishment tells us.
Like you did when it said that there was nothing happening in Rotherham.
You cannot have a democracy where the majority of the population think that the state's laws should be based on the laws of one religion. Theocracy and democracy are incompatible.
How can you have opposition? How can you repeal laws coming from God? How can someone who is not of the religion be compelled to comply with such laws?
Credal states are not democratic states. This may be an unpalatable fact for us as far as the Middle East is concerned. But it is a fact we should be taking much more account of when considering interference in the Middle East. There are secular states but they have rarely been democracies either.
And this also means that the opposition to the various bastards that have been in charge are far more likely to come from those who dislike the secularism rather than from those who want democracy. As we have been seeing.
The biggest delusion that the West has about the Middle East is that the opponents of authoritarian vicious leaders are necessarily liberal democrats. Why should that be? There is no history of liberalism in the region and very little earth in which the seeds of liberalism could grow. Democracy and liberalism are states of mind before they are institutions. They took a long time to get established in the West and, even now, do not have as strong roots as we would like. Why on earth did all those Middle Eastern experts in the FO and elsewhere think that there was fertile soil for such ideas given the very different history and culture of the place?
Mrs. Free, I am not sure that the experts in the FCO would have thought that. If indeed there are any experts left after that fine old institution was hollowed out under Blair (like much of the UK he couldn't understand the FCO so he buggered it up). However, the FCO can only advise. One can have a the best briefing document possible but if the minister is focused elsewhere, or is as thick as two short planks (we have had both types of Foreign Secretary in recent years) one might just as well write the damn thing in swahili.
That said not every ruler in the Middle East is either a bastard or unpopular with his own people. HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman being the obvious example of a popular monarch who has moved his people and country a very long way forward without compromising those matters that are important to them or falling into the Islamist medieval mindset. Mind you what happens after he snuffs it is anyones guess (HM being one of nature's bachelors).
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
That ship sailed long ago
Or we could believe everything the establishment tells us.
Like you did when it said that there was nothing happening in Rotherham.
I was specifically referring to some of the stuff you had said, and had to retract.
As an aside, I was going through the PB archives the other day, there are some corkers when Louise Casey asked for an extension into her report.
Stuff along the lines, it'll be a whitewash, establishment cover up, it's being kicked into the long grass etc.
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own.
Where do you get this crazy notion that Britain was going to act unilaterally? Obama was the one leading the action.
Quite. After Iraq, USA wouldn't act unilaterally. Britain pulling out removed their political cover.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
He should have bloody well said so then. And we could have debated whether it was worth joining them on that basis.
I'm pretty sure he did, if you looked hard enough. It's just he tended to use it as a second or even third fall back argument to try and convince those who were sceptical about the basic case for war. ie. "I believe that it is right to be doing this. However even if you disagree with me, America are going anyway and it would be better if they did so with allies". He was quite concerned about the anti-American feeling in much of Western Europe and saw it as his role to combat that. I'm sure i can remember him expounding on this theme repeatedly. A unilateral US invasion would have made that much harder.
Thank you. The irony is that there is now much more anti-Americanism as a result of the Iraq war.
Blair is, I think, an example of a politician whose analysis was good but whose policies following his analysis turned out to be disastrous.
In tomorrow's Times, looks like that lifelong Pro-European David Owen is reportedly strongly inclined to vote No if presented in a referendum with an EU that has not been restructured
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
That rather falls down as McAlpine has suffered from rumours and whispers for a couple of decades. And given his ill-health, they could not guarantee he would be around to defend himself. As it is, he very nearly was not.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
You do know what "Richard" is rhyming slang for I presume
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
You cannot have a democracy where the majority of the population think that the state's laws should be based on the laws of one religion. Theocracy and democracy are incompatible.
How can you have opposition? How can you repeal laws coming from God? How can someone who is not of the religion be compelled to comply with such laws?
Credal states are not democratic states. This may be an unpalatable fact for us as far as the Middle East is concerned. But it is a fact we should be taking much more account of when considering interference in the Middle East. There are secular states but they have rarely been democracies either.
And this also means that the opposition to the various bastards that have been in charge are far more likely to come from those who dislike the secularism rather than from those who want democracy. As we have been seeing.
The biggest delusion that the West has about the Middle East is that the opponents of authoritarian vicious leaders are necessarily liberal democrats. Why should that be? There is no history of liberalism in the region and very little earth in which the seeds of liberalism could grow. Democracy and liberalism are states of mind before they are institutions. They took a long time to get established in the West and, even now, do not have as strong roots as we would like. Why on earth did all those Middle Eastern experts in the FO and elsewhere think that there was fertile soil for such ideas given the very different history and culture of the place?
Mrs. Free, I am not sure that the experts in the FCO would have thought that. If indeed there are any experts left after that fine old institution was hollowed out under Blair (like much of the UK he couldn't understand the FCO so he buggered it up). However, the FCO can only advise. One can have a the best briefing document possible but if the minister is focused elsewhere, or is as thick as two short planks (we have had both types of Foreign Secretary in recent years) one might just as well write the damn thing in swahili.
That said not every ruler in the Middle East is either a bastard or unpopular with his own people. HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman being the obvious example of a popular monarch who has moved his people and country a very long way forward without compromising those matters that are important to them or falling into the Islamist medieval mindset. Mind you what happens after he snuffs it is anyones guess (HM being one of nature's bachelors).
It's an irony that monarchies or empires may be better for the people living under them than their replacements. It took a long time before the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ended up in a better position than they were in in 1913.
Almost all members of political parties will have heard rumours about misdeeds by senior MPs in their parties (many of which have turned out most likely to be true).
"many of which have turned out most likely to be true."
I think the smears and whispered innuendo that poor McAlpine had to face for decades shows the stupidity of your thinking.
McAlpine was lucky. He was alive, he got to the chance to rebut the wrong accusations made against him. (For which the highly irresponsible BBC and the BoIJ were responsible, not me or Jeremy Corbyn).
However, there was abuse at the North Walian children’s home in Clwyd (and there have been 6 convictions & prison sentences). There were also a number of false accusations.
I feel sorry for dead MPs who have been accused of abuse of children because their reputations will not recover (whether they are innocent or guilty). Much better to be accused while you are alive, so that there is some chance of mounting a defence if innocent.
A little conspiracy theory that I've thought of is that McAlpine was deliberately smeared by the establishment because they knew he was innocent and could prove it.
With the consequence that the whole Westminster paedophile issue would be discredited thus protecting those members of the establishment who were guilty.
Wow. You must be fun to be around
Well I'm certainly more conspiracy conscious than I was a decade ago.
How much that is caused by the endless line of scandals that have arisen. the effects of too much PB or reading SeanT's torture thrillers I'm not sure.
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
Oh dear,hope the mad woman knows what the future holds.
There'll always be a crazy minority, thankfully the polls show its a diminishing minority in Germany. Lets hope it stays that way, last thing we need is a rising German Far Right.
They were happy times indeed. Now, when things are gloomy, and we live under a one party state, we will look back when UK politics was quite exciting (sort of).
O/T- I tell you Florence and its fireworks. Every night I have to endure fireworks, and poor old Trotsky is petrified.
You cannot have a democracy where the majority of the population think that the state's laws should be based on the laws of one religion. Theocracy and democracy are incompatible.
How can you have opposition? How can you repeal laws coming from God? How can someone who is not of the religion be compelled to comply with such laws?
.................
And this also means that the opposition to the various bastards that have been in charge are far more likely to come from those who dislike the secularism rather than from those who want democracy. As we have been seeing.
The biggest delusion that the West has about the Middle East is that the opponents of authoritarian vicious leaders are necessarily liberal democrats. Why should that be? There is no history of liberalism in the region and very little earth in which the seeds of liberalism could grow. Democracy and liberalism are states of mind before they are institutions. They took a long time to get established in the West and, even now, do not have as strong roots as we would like. Why on earth did all those Middle Eastern experts in the FO and elsewhere think that there was fertile soil for such ideas given the very different history and culture of the place?
Mrs. Free, I am not sure that the experts in the FCO would have thought that. If indeed there are any experts left after that fine old institution was hollowed out under Blair (like much of the UK he couldn't understand the FCO so he buggered it up). However, the FCO can only advise. One can have a the best briefing document possible but if the minister is focused elsewhere, or is as thick as two short planks (we have had both types of Foreign Secretary in recent years) one might just as well write the damn thing in swahili.
That said not every ruler in the Middle East is either a bastard or unpopular with his own people. HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman being the obvious example of a popular monarch who has moved his people and country a very long way forward without compromising those matters that are important to them or falling into the Islamist medieval mindset. Mind you what happens after he snuffs it is anyones guess (HM being one of nature's bachelors).
It's an irony that monarchies or empires may be better for the people living under them than their replacements. It took a long time before the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ended up in a better position than they were in in 1913.
What utter tripe ! So "our" dictators are better than theirs. Remember these monarchs have no historical claim. Some were just put in their place by the British.
Bahrain being a good example. Slight dissension and the Saudi armoured vehicles roll in. Al-Sisi murders 600 people in one night and the FCO stays schtum !
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
Plus she's a scientist too. Just like the greatest of them all, Margaret Thatcher.
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
Plus she's a scientist too. Just like the greatest of them all, Margaret Thatcher.
It's an irony that monarchies or empires may be better for the people living under them than their replacements. It took a long time before the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ended up in a better position than they were in in 1913.
There is no irony involved, Mr. Free. The idea that universal franchise democracy is somehow of itself good is a very new concept and one which maybe turning out to be less than optimal for the people living under it. I certainly expect it to disappear if not in my son's lifetime then in his children's. Dante wrote a very good piece in which he argued that the population can only be truly free under a monarchy.
Tyson posted - I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot
I think she might have something in common with you,she might think her cities are to white.
Or maybe not,she wouldn't have any feelings for immigrants who think other immigrants should go to another country because they hanging on street corners frightening the old people.
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
Plus she's a scientist too. Just like the greatest of them all, Margaret Thatcher.
You should love Thatcher too. She signed the Single European Act.
Mrs. Free, I am not sure that the experts in the FCO would have thought that. If indeed there are any experts left after that fine old institution was hollowed out under Blair (like much of the UK he couldn't understand the FCO so he buggered it up). However, the FCO can only advise. One can have a the best briefing document possible but if the minister is focused elsewhere, or is as thick as two short planks (we have had both types of Foreign Secretary in recent years) one might just as well write the damn thing in swahili.
That said not every ruler in the Middle East is either a bastard or unpopular with his own people. HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman being the obvious example of a popular monarch who has moved his people and country a very long way forward without compromising those matters that are important to them or falling into the Islamist medieval mindset. Mind you what happens after he snuffs it is anyones guess (HM being one of nature's bachelors).
It's an irony that monarchies or empires may be better for the people living under them than their replacements. It took a long time before the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ended up in a better position than they were in in 1913.
Not so sure about the latter stages of the Austro-Hungarian empire. However any people will be better off for being governed by good people who are motivated and seek to govern for the good of those for whom they are responsible. The problem with much of the discussion about the promotion of democracy is that it often holds up democracy as an end in itself, when really it should be seen as the best (least imperfect) means of ensuring the basic aim of having a Govt pursuing the interests of its people. But democratic systems can easily be designed that don't do this effectively. And non-democracies sometimes can. Enlightened despotism is not a theoretically bad model. Just has the flaw of how you get the right person in the post!
What? Like wearing a dress & stuff? (And maybe red shoes)
I have a weakness for the Germans. If I wasn't an Englishman, I'd wish I was a German.
I quite like the Germans. I love their cars. However, If I were not an Englishman then I would want to be Irish, Welsh or Scottish. That way, I could still be British.
Oh dear,hope the mad woman knows what the future holds.
There'll always be a crazy minority, thankfully the polls show its a diminishing minority in Germany. Lets hope it stays that way, last thing we need is a rising German Far Right.
I was talking to a friend who lives in Germany and he said that being anti-migrant is associated with the Neo Nazis which is driving a lot of Germans to be pro-migrant
Even if Corbyn repudiated all his comments, you know what still lies in his head.
With Osborne, and his Bullingdon Club and Young Tories and Hang Mandela- when he talks about compassion today he is sort of (very sort of ish...) believable. You kind of give him the benefit of the doubt, even though you probably still think that he is pretty evil inside still.
Corbyn you know is, always was, and always will be an unreconstructed throwback to a Trotskyite 70's lefty. ffs he's 66- he's someone whose never grown up. That is why all the youngies love him.
What? Like wearing a dress & stuff? (And maybe red shoes)
I have a weakness for the Germans. If I wasn't an Englishman, I'd wish I was a German.
I quite like the Germans. I love their cars. However, If I were not an Englishman then I would wan't to be Irish, Welsh or Scottish. That way, I could still be British.
I love their cars too.
I love the fact every German I have spoken to, have spoken better English than most Brits.
You cannot have a democracy where the majority of the population think that the state's laws should be based on the laws of one religion. Theocracy and democracy are incompatible.
How can you have opposition? How can you repeal laws coming from God? How can someone who is not of the religion be compelled to comply with such laws?
Credal states are not democratic states. This may be an unpalatable fact for us as far as the Middle East is concerned. But it is a fact we should be taking much more account of when considering interference in the Middle East. There are secular states but they have rarely been democracies either.
And this also means that the opposition to the various bastards that have been in charge are far more likely to come from those who dislike the secularism rather than from those who want democracy. As we have been seeing.
The biggest delusion that the West has about the Middle East is that the opponents of authoritarian vicious leaders are necessarily liberal democrats. Why should that be? There is no history of liberalism in the region and very little earth in which the seeds of liberalism could grow. Democracy and liberalism are states of mind before they are institutions. They took a long time to get established in the West and, even now, do not have as strong roots as we would like. Why on earth did all those Middle Eastern experts in the FO and elsewhere think that there was fertile soil for such ideas given the very different history and culture of the place?
I agree with this totally. It is difficult at present to see any way for the Arab world to settle peaceably given Shia and Sunni divisions, and whilst the West tries to push Islamic nations into entirely alien democracies. You describe this much better than I do. Any direct western intervention has to be on a de minimis basis and unequivocally by invitation.
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
Plus she's a scientist too. Just like the greatest of them all, Margaret Thatcher.
You should love Thatcher too. She signed the Single European Act.
You talk up Thatcher alot,what was immigration like under her,let's put it one way,she's no merkel,infact she would have the same feeling has me,she's mad.
All gets a bit tedious in the end. He really does hate this county. What I find most disturbing is his inability to place any blame on the perpetrators, blaming us first and them second. Ugh.
Even if Corbyn repudiated all his comments, you know what still lies in his head.
With Osborne, and his Bullingdon Club and Young Tories and Hang Mandela- when he talks about compassion today he is sort of (very sort of ish...) believable. You kind of give him the benefit of the doubt, even though you probably still think that he is pretty evil inside still.
Corbyn you know is, always was, and always will be an unreconstructed throwback to a Trotskyite 70's lefty. ffs he's 66- he's someone whose never grown up. That is why all the youngies love him.
There have been some tweets tonight about former Corbyn supporters who have switched to Burnham at the last minute, Corbyn must still be strong favourite but Burnham may be worth a punt to scrape home on preferences
And the establishment has been protecting the guilty for a couple of decades.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
He would never have been proved innocent, and certainly not in the way he did: in court.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
That ship sailed long ago
Or we could believe everything the establishment tells us.
Like you did when it said that there was nothing happening in Rotherham.
I was specifically referring to some of the stuff you had said, and had to retract.
As an aside, I was going through the PB archives the other day, there are some corkers when Louise Casey asked for an extension into her report.
Stuff along the lines, it'll be a whitewash, establishment cover up, it's being kicked into the long grass etc.
I remember you saying some stuff as well, but all water under an endless series of bridges.
I am impressed you have time to go through old PB archives - that's real commitment to the job.
BTW have I missed anything of interest during the last three months - interesting PBers either new or returnees, new acroynms, SeanT flounces etc ?
As to Casey its hardly surprising that people (was I one of the sceptics or were you referring generally ?) suspected a whitewash etc, that tends to be the standard with government enquiries. Chilcot for instance. Fortunately Pickles chose someone both honest and purposeful - its a pity we haven't had a similar enquiry into the SYP.
And I wonder if you'd like to post a thread based on that old Sion Simon article - remember the 'Pushkin Princes' - given the dismal efforts of Cooper and Burnham over the summer it should be worth a talking point.
I love Merkel- maybe we could start some kind of pbCOM appreciation society for the mighty Merkel. Her childlike exuberance for football, her compassion for asylum seekers, her insight.... she is genuinely a titan amongst pygmies.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
Plus she's a scientist too. Just like the greatest of them all, Margaret Thatcher.
Merkel is certainly by far the brightest world leader around today
EU faces migrant crisis of 'biblical proportions' as Germany registers 3,500 new refugees in just one day
I can see this hitting Merkel's party in the polls,she's mad.
Not so far. The polls show virtually no change whatever since the last election, except for the usual pattern that the junior governing party (the social democrats) is losing a bit of ground. The anti-immigrant AfD are drifting down too, Greens and far left slightly up.
Pretty much spot on. And as I pointed out earlier a leading member of Corbyn's campaign team - a close associate - is Cat Fletcher ''now Deputy Mayor on Islington council ''
It all goes back to 1992
...at which time Kat Fletcher was 12 years old. Your point about her is?
We will see in the months ahead.
Did you see the German football fans this weekend? I think you're underestimating the Germans
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
UK gives 0.72% of GDP as foreign aid, while Germany only gives 0.38% of GDP so it probably all balances out in the end.
Well, it certainly led to a civil war in Syria, anarchy in Libya and the replacement of a stable, if not very nice regime, in Egypt with a less stable but even less nice regime. Elsewhere aside from lots of people dying not much seems to have changed.
If that is your idea of a good thing, I dread to think what you would regard as a bad one looks like.
When communism collapsed in the Eastern Bloc it took a long time for the new states to turn around and for democracy and liberal values to take root. The Arab Spring will likely follow a similar if more difficult path, and it's worth nothing that some countries are doing a lot better than others, such as Tunisia and Algeria.
Whatever the end result of the Arab Spring turns out to be it was not a Western plot. The people in North Africa and the Middle East wanted change and acted, lets hope they get something better in the long run.
Interesting that you judge Tunisia as a top performer. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not have a very significant religious complication (Yugoslavia yes, SU no). The other Arab Spring issue is that Islam and democracy are not comfy bedfellows. I think it's extremely unlikely to end well in Western terms, ie with democracy for all.
Religion and democracy are not good bedfellows at all. The rise of democracy in the west has come with (by necessity) a rise in secularism. A religious democracy is an oxymoron.
I'm an atheist so I don't feel biased when I say that I think Christianity has coped with democracy best. I think it's also played a part in its evolution. But I do take your point
Comments
Is the population of Syria better off now than they were before the Arab Spring which was aided and abetted by the people groups I have already mentioned? With half of them dead or fled and the country in ruins, I think it would be a hard thing to justify the assertion that they are.
Libya seems to be now in a state of pure anarchy where divers criminal gangs compete for control. Oh, and an awful lot of sophisticated weaponry has also disappeared but which will probably resurface in some later terrorist attack. What life is like for the ordinary Libyan now compared to how it was I don't know. I doubt it is any better and from an international point of view overthrowing the ghastly Ghaddafi regime has been a disaster.
You think I am being contrarian for the sake of it.
I remember Churchill being quoted in the 50s as being horrified to learn that a Russian spy had defected to us - "How can a man betray his country in such a way?" But it's an unusual view, and in principle a wrong one IMO.
No, I think HMG were faced with a terrible choice: not to do anything and see tens of thousands slaughtered (even after which, the situation may not have been finalised), or to try and support people who wanted democracy against a dictator.
It's not as if the outcome of any of the alternatives were clear: supporting Assad, as some on here seem to be calling for, supporting the army rebels and protesters, as we wanted to do, or just sitting on our hands and whistling.
On that basis we'd better ban Jeb Bush from standing for WH16.
As for HMG's choices it had only one choice , do nothing as it is delusional to pretend we could start and maintain a military intervention on our own. I'd also suggest there was no real evidence that Syria was just bursting for western style democracy.
The whole Middle East is an irrational cesspit and the only sensible thing to do is to stay well out of it and work with those countries elsewhere which actually do want to improve their lot.
Not how I expected to win... (pennies)
It was only PtP and RCS saying here that there was real substance to it which changed my mind.
We came very, very close to utterly besmirching the reputation of an innocent man. And why?
Even when he talks about the economy he comes out with sentimental cliche after cliche. It's empty incoherence which can be torn apart with no trouble.
Jesus: even I could come up with a better programme for the Left than he's done!
If we had a do-over then we couldn't prevent the Arab Spring because our actions weren't responsible for it. But we could honour our word and our ethics and have acted. The ruins are not caused by the Arab Spring, the ruins are caused by standing back and letting two evils fight it out because we won't take a stand.
As this shows
@iankatz1000: Stirring detail frm refugee drama in Europe: Munich police urge people to stop bringing food + gifts for refugees bcause they are overwhelmd
“If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”
Personally: my country is my country so long as it embodies my values. Countries are created by man, and all - in time - will return to dust and memories and history books. It is a sobering thought that one day, the last person to know and understand the words "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will die.
And that is why Mrs Thatcher was right. We fight for what we want our country to be. We betray our principles, our friends, and our countrymen, should we fall into the trap of believing My Country, Right or Wrong.
If McAlpine had died that would have been the icing on the cake if my little theory is correct:
'Innocent man hounded to an early grave by fantasists and rumourmongers' stories would make it harder to pursue other investigations.
(Ironically, I think the real reason why Blair supported USA in Iraq (whatever his personal views) was because he was afraid that they WOULD act unilaterally, and the consequences would have been far worse. All the arguments he used publicly were just a cover for this basic purpose. He took the view early on that USA would take action and we couldn't stop them. So it was better to go along. Whether they would have done (act unilaterally) or not is a great unknown.
I fear that's one conspiracy theory too far.
I'm not denying there are paedophiles in politics: there are bound to be. Firstly because there are paedophiles in the general population, and secondly because politics attracts people who like power, and many sexual abusers also like power.
But I think you're stretching things a little too far.
1. The CDU/CSU taking a firm line with Greece
2. The AfD has essentially split, electing a FN style leader, and losing all its ex-FDP, pro business members.
Hence it has gone from 6% in the polls to 3.5% or so.
You sir, are a sage. My sister in law was told today that her elbow surgery has been delayed until 'at least' September 9. The reason given was 'uncertainty of supplies'.
Meantime she is stuck at home with her entire arm in plaster and a large amount of pain killers.
What utter incompetence.
Yes I did and we had a conversation on one of the threads here,we will see how long the patience of the German people last with record numbers of migrants coming.
Did you see this on the news or saw it in the newspapers.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/europes-migrant-crisis-arson-attack-230404825.html?.tsrc=yahoo#QQtnnh3
I have a sneaking suspicion though that without the Western propaganda "support", similar to that we gave the Syrian Arab Springers, they might just have kept their heads down and got on with life as they had for decades past, and waited.
How can you have opposition? How can you repeal laws coming from God? How can someone who is not of the religion be compelled to comply with such laws?
Credal states are not democratic states. This may be an unpalatable fact for us as far as the Middle East is concerned. But it is a fact we should be taking much more account of when considering interference in the Middle East. There are secular states but they have rarely been democracies either.
And this also means that the opposition to the various bastards that have been in charge are far more likely to come from those who dislike the secularism rather than from those who want democracy. As we have been seeing.
The biggest delusion that the West has about the Middle East is that the opponents of authoritarian vicious leaders are necessarily liberal democrats. Why should that be? There is no history of liberalism in the region and very little earth in which the seeds of liberalism could grow. Democracy and liberalism are states of mind before they are institutions. They took a long time to get established in the West and, even now, do not have as strong roots as we would like. Why on earth did all those Middle Eastern experts in the FO and elsewhere think that there was fertile soil for such ideas given the very different history and culture of the place?
Tony Blair was a Tory leader's worst nightmare. I wish I'd had Jeremy Corbyn instead
http://bit.ly/1fTH9lU
She's mad.
As I said if it wasn't for PtP and RCS I wouldn't have thought there was anything to the Westminster paedophile story.
Now I've learnt to always keep an open mind and ask questions.
After the various abuse scandals, the various corruption scandals, the various hospital scandals and the various banking scandals I think that's sensible.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-01/two-actors-killed-as-fake-gun-explodes-during-live-performance/
I hope it was a tragic accident rather than murder. Sad news for all concerned.
Like you did when it said that there was nothing happening in Rotherham.
That said not every ruler in the Middle East is either a bastard or unpopular with his own people. HM Sultan Qaboos of Oman being the obvious example of a popular monarch who has moved his people and country a very long way forward without compromising those matters that are important to them or falling into the Islamist medieval mindset. Mind you what happens after he snuffs it is anyones guess (HM being one of nature's bachelors).
How times change...
As an aside, I was going through the PB archives the other day, there are some corkers when Louise Casey asked for an extension into her report.
Stuff along the lines, it'll be a whitewash, establishment cover up, it's being kicked into the long grass etc.
Blair is, I think, an example of a politician whose analysis was good but whose policies following his analysis turned out to be disastrous.
Anti-immigrant protests claim to want to preserve Judeo-Christian culture as critics accuse it of harbouring neo-Nazi elements
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11281103/Germans-take-to-the-streets-to-protest-against-Islamisation.html
Oh dear,hope the mad woman knows what the future holds.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-09-01/violin-teacher-facing-extradition-over-abuse-allegations-found-dead/
When Celia was learning on the spinet to play, her tutor stood by her to show her the way...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pnYcyZAoZM …
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot.
How much that is caused by the endless line of scandals that have arisen. the effects of too much PB or reading SeanT's torture thrillers I'm not sure.
O/T- I tell you Florence and its fireworks. Every night I have to endure fireworks, and poor old Trotsky is petrified.
Bahrain being a good example. Slight dissension and the Saudi armoured vehicles roll in. Al-Sisi murders 600 people in one night and the FCO stays schtum !
Corbyn on 7/7. All our fault, apparently.
She has seen off the SDP, not because they are useless (unlike our Lab party here), but because she is just so damned brilliant.
Cameron isn't fit to lick the underside of her soiled boot
I think she might have something in common with you,she might think her cities are to white.
Or maybe not,she wouldn't have any feelings for immigrants who think other immigrants should go to another country because they hanging on street corners frightening the old people.
any people will be better off for being governed by good people who are motivated and seek to govern for the good of those for whom they are responsible. The problem with much of the discussion about the promotion of democracy is that it often holds up democracy as an end in itself, when really it should be seen as the best (least imperfect) means of ensuring the basic aim of having a Govt pursuing the interests of its people. But democratic systems can easily be designed that don't do this effectively. And non-democracies sometimes can. Enlightened despotism is not a theoretically bad model. Just has the flaw of how you get the right person in the post!
However, If I were not an Englishman then I would want to be Irish, Welsh or Scottish. That way, I could still be British.
Even if Corbyn repudiated all his comments, you know what still lies in his head.
With Osborne, and his Bullingdon Club and Young Tories and Hang Mandela- when he talks about compassion today he is sort of (very sort of ish...) believable. You kind of give him the benefit of the doubt, even though you probably still think that he is pretty evil inside still.
Corbyn you know is, always was, and always will be an unreconstructed throwback to a Trotskyite 70's lefty. ffs he's 66- he's someone whose never grown up. That is why all the youngies love him.
I love the fact every German I have spoken to, have spoken better English than most Brits.
In some regards, I regret learning German.
I won the lottery of life when I was born in this country.
I am impressed you have time to go through old PB archives - that's real commitment to the job.
BTW have I missed anything of interest during the last three months - interesting PBers either new or returnees, new acroynms, SeanT flounces etc ?
As to Casey its hardly surprising that people (was I one of the sceptics or were you referring generally ?) suspected a whitewash etc, that tends to be the standard with government enquiries. Chilcot for instance. Fortunately Pickles chose someone both honest and purposeful - its a pity we haven't had a similar enquiry into the SYP.
And I wonder if you'd like to post a thread based on that old Sion Simon article - remember the 'Pushkin Princes' - given the dismal efforts of Cooper and Burnham over the summer it should be worth a talking point.
You can't be a German if you don't understand the subjunctive.
UK gives 0.72% of GDP as foreign aid, while Germany only gives 0.38% of GDP so it probably all balances out in the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid