The court ordered dump of Clinton emails from her private insecure server on the last working day of the month happened today - partially.
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
It's the Iowa Caucuses on Monday. TV has been explaining how it works - the Democratic Leader's Guide is over 50 pages.
In essence you meet in a Church Hall, someone's living room or basement, talk politics for a couple of hours or so, then decide who you support.
If you're at a democratic caucus, if you support Sanders stand here, Clinton stand there etc. Then they take a head count, fill out the sheet and call it in.
If you're at a republican caucus you still talk politics as at the dems caucus, but then you have a secret ballot, which is tallied and reported via a smart phone app, developed since the debacle of 4 years ago.
What time will the results be known by ?
I have absolutely no idea. It will be a late night on Monday I suspect.
Just realising I have never seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service before. Lazenby slapping Emma Peel about. Would have remembered that...
It's one of my favourite Bond films.
If you put aside Lazenby's slightly wooden acting, and the awful 40 minutes of dubbing of him as Sir Hilary Bray, it's fantastic.
The guy who played Draco died last month. He was dubbed too.
No end of people were dubbed in Bond films. Ursula Andress for one.
The whole of Das Boot's sound was dubbed, ADR'd and Foley'd in post. The original sound was unusable.
Not a lot of people know that...
I have the dvds of the 6 part TV show. It's a great show even with reworked sound.
Don't most movies these days have some degree of ADR and Foley work?
Yes they do, and more than you think: it's like CGI in that it's prevalent and unnoticed. However Das Boot was unusual because *all* the sound was recreated
The court ordered dump of Clinton emails from her private insecure server on the last working day of the month happened today - partially.
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
BBC are repeating Team Clinton spinning that when they were sent they weren't classified. Maybe you can fill us in on what exactly is the spin, as this claim sounds like total BS. I am presuming the spin is something like no emails are classified on sending.
"But these rows are showing no signs of stopping. They are a potent mix of identity politics, social media lobbying and consumer power."
No BBC...It is social media bullying. And of course they can't help themselves on the impartiality front...It is quite clear which side the journo is on with this last paragraph.
"She argued in her inaugural speech that university needed to be intellectually stretching and meant students "engaging with ideas they find objectionable". And statues too?"
"But these rows are showing no signs of stopping. They are a potent mix of identity politics, social media lobbying and consumer power."
No BBC...It is social media bullying. And of course they can't help themselves on the impartiality front...It is quite clear which side the journo is on with this last paragraph.
"She argued in her inaugural speech that university needed to be intellectually stretching and meant students "engaging with ideas they find objectionable". And statues too?"
The court ordered dump of Clinton emails from her private insecure server on the last working day of the month happened today - partially.
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
BBC are repeating Team Clinton spinning that when they were sent they weren't classified. Maybe you can fill us in on what exactly is the spin, as this claim sounds like total BS. I am presuming the spin is something like no emails are classified on sending.
Clinton's own words these days is that she did nothing that was prohibited. That she sent no classified emails and that none of the emails on her server were classified at the time.
There is one email from her, asking an aide who is having trouble sending something over classified comms to "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." There is no proof that the aide did.
So the suspicion to those on the outside of the investigation who are not prone to believe every word out of Team Clinton is that there was a practice of reformatting data so that it could be sent without classification. That would also explain why other agencies are now having to classify stuff from the server that was unmarked - if information (that should have remained classified) from their documents had been reformatted by Clinton aides into unclassified talking points or aide memoires, then they are correcting the (unauthorized) declassification.
The court ordered dump of Clinton emails from her private insecure server on the last working day of the month happened today - partially.
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
BBC are repeating Team Clinton spinning that when they were sent they weren't classified. Maybe you can fill us in on what exactly is the spin, as this claim sounds like total BS. I am presuming the spin is something like no emails are classified on sending.
Clinton's own words these days is that she did nothing that was prohibited. That she sent no classified emails and that none of the emails on her server were classified at the time.
There is one email from her, asking an aide who is having trouble sending something over classified comms to "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." There is no proof that the aide did.
So the suspicion to those on the outside of the investigation who are not prone to believe every word out of Team Clinton is that there was a practice of reformatting data so that it could be sent without classification. That would also explain why other agencies are now having to classify stuff from the server that was unmarked - if information (that should have remained classified) from their documents had been reformatted by Clinton aides into unclassified talking points or aide memoires, then they are correcting the (unauthorized) declassification.
I see. I knew there had to be something not quite right about it. It just sounds like total BS that emails are sent then somebody months / years later goes oh oh wait thats classified.
It took it that it was either "clever" speak, whereby the log of classification of emails is updated after the email is sent and they were playing fast and loose with what they mean by "when sent". But your theory / explanation makes perfect sense.
Serious question. What sort of phone numbers do the Polling companies use? If it is any of the 0800 type numbers then there are swathes of people who will not answer them. Back when phones did not display numbers - as is still the case with many home phones - this would not have been an issue but every mobile now displays the number calling and personally I automatically ignore and then block any 0800 type numbers. I have no idea if this would make any difference one way or another bur here will certainly be a large portion of the population who are not being reached by phone polling if this us the case.
I ignore most numbers I - or my phone - don't recognize. If it's important from someone I don't know, they'll leave a message.
The court ordered dump of Clinton emails from her private insecure server on the last working day of the month happened today - partially.
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
BBC are repeating Team Clinton spinning that when they were sent they weren't classified. Maybe you can fill us in on what exactly is the spin, as this claim sounds like total BS. I am presuming the spin is something like no emails are classified on sending.
Clinton's own words these days is that she did nothing that was prohibited. That she sent no classified emails and that none of the emails on her server were classified at the time.
There is one email from her, asking an aide who is having trouble sending something over classified comms to "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." There is no proof that the aide did.
So the suspicion to those on the outside of the investigation who are not prone to believe every word out of Team Clinton is that there was a practice of reformatting data so that it could be sent without classification. That would also explain why other agencies are now having to classify stuff from the server that was unmarked - if information (that should have remained classified) from their documents had been reformatted by Clinton aides into unclassified talking points or aide memoires, then they are correcting the (unauthorized) declassification.
The instruction to the aide is the most damning, she's asking him to 'find a way' of sending the classified document through the unclassified system by removing markings etc. Any other Tom, Dick or David Patreus would be in real trouble for that alone.
The fact that they now find emails referring to things that were so secret they can't even release them redacted suggests that she is the proverbial cooked bread. But this is election year, and she's the favourite.
Serious question. What sort of phone numbers do the Polling companies use? If it is any of the 0800 type numbers then there are swathes of people who will not answer them. Back when phones did not display numbers - as is still the case with many home phones - this would not have been an issue but every mobile now displays the number calling and personally I automatically ignore and then block any 0800 type numbers. I have no idea if this would make any difference one way or another bur here will certainly be a large portion of the population who are not being reached by phone polling if this us the case.
I ignore most numbers I - or my phone - don't recognize. If it's important from someone I don't know, they'll leave a message.
Quite. Many of my (senior citizen) friends do the same. I sometimes answer an “unknown” number if I’m bored and fancy an argument, but not often. The last time I answered someone like that it was a firm advertsing will-writing services, and I don’t even fancy arguing about that!
The court ordered dump of Clinton emails from her private insecure server on the last working day of the month happened today - partially.
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
BBC are repeating Team Clinton spinning that when they were sent they weren't classified. Maybe you can fill us in on what exactly is the spin, as this claim sounds like total BS. I am presuming the spin is something like no emails are classified on sending.
Best guess is that the emails contained summaries/pieces of classified information. Therefore they had never formally been classified themselves. However, this is still mis handling classified information - re typing isn't a declassification get-out-of-jail card. Clinton would still be in the organic fertiliser.
So the statement that they weren't classified would be formally true. They just contained classified information.
It's worth noting that the Clintons, like Blair, have a long record of using legally-correct-but-not-actually-meaningful statements as defenses. Probably the legal background.
Serious question. What sort of phone numbers do the Polling companies use? If it is any of the 0800 type numbers then there are swathes of people who will not answer them. Back when phones did not display numbers - as is still the case with many home phones - this would not have been an issue but every mobile now displays the number calling and personally I automatically ignore and then block any 0800 type numbers. I have no idea if this would make any difference one way or another bur here will certainly be a large portion of the population who are not being reached by phone polling if this us the case.
I ignore most numbers I - or my phone - don't recognize. If it's important from someone I don't know, they'll leave a message.
Quite. Many of my (senior citizen) friends do the same. I sometimes answer an “unknown” number if I’m bored and fancy an argument, but not often. The last time I answered someone like that it was a firm advertsing will-writing services, and I don’t even fancy arguing about that!
Hospital phones tend to come up as number witheld for confidentiality reasons. It is sometimes a problem getting through to people as a result. We cannot leave messages very often either.
It's worth noting that the Clintons, like Blair, have a long record of using legally-correct-but-not-actually-meaningful statements as defenses. Probably the legal background.
I think that's a slight exaggeration. The Clinton career seems more to be focussed on evading answers on what can be proved, and flat denials of what can't be. This would certainly seem to fit that paradigm. Nobody is denying this business with the server now, but still insisting that what was on it wasn't important.
The question is does this resemble Whitewater, where their behaviour was unethical rather than illegal, or Monicagate, where Clinton was clearly guilty of repeatedly lying to the public (unless having your penis sucked does not count as 'sexual relations'). My instinct is that Hilary is probably just OK unless something dramatic happens, but even if she is, she's already gifted about a million attack lines to the Republicans.
My instinct is that Hilary is probably just OK unless something dramatic happens, but even if she is, she's already gifted about a million attack lines to the Republicans.
It seems to me that the only reason she hasn't been ditched by the Democrats is that they've put all their eggs in her basket. As you say, this is an open goal for whoever the Republican candidate is.
No politicians have attracted as much scrutiny as the clintons. Remarkable really.
Only because they have survived more scandals than other politicians. But many politicians have suffered the same intensity of scrutiny - and fallen as a result.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
If politicians want to encourage more tension between migrants and the existing population, then they should look the other way or make excuses when migrants commit crime.
My instinct is that Hilary is probably just OK unless something dramatic happens, but even if she is, she's already gifted about a million attack lines to the Republicans.
It seems to me that the only reason she hasn't been ditched by the Democrats is that they've put all their eggs in her basket. As you say, this is an open goal for whoever the Republican candidate is.
I suggested before that the Republicans should produce a poster for the new House of Cards, with the Clintons' heads replacing Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright.*
If Hilary is the Democrat candidate then the election will be incredibly nasty and personal. especially so if it's between her and Trump, both 'Marmite' candidates. Trump will try and portray her as completely corrupt and unfit for office at every turn.
My instinct is that Hilary is probably just OK unless something dramatic happens, but even if she is, she's already gifted about a million attack lines to the Republicans.
It seems to me that the only reason she hasn't been ditched by the Democrats is that they've put all their eggs in her basket. As you say, this is an open goal for whoever the Republican candidate is.
I think if there were a plausible middle-aged Democratic candidate, she would never have got this far in the first place anyway. The really alarming thing about this race is it shows how barren the field has become in politics. The Democrats are perhaps the worst - Clinton is younger than either Biden or Sanders, and she's nearly 70. But the mere fact that a 69-year-old who has never worked in politics and has gone bankrupt three times is dominating the Republicans suggests all is not well there either.
These people have at best 3-4 years of political activity at a high level - then what happens?
Cruz shifts negative ads from Trump to Rubio in Iowa
'Senator Ted Cruz, scrambling to put down a growing threat in Iowa from Senator Marco Rubio, is shifting nearly all of his negative advertising from Donald J. Trump to Mr. Rubio for the final three days of the caucuses. Mr. Cruz intends to direct his firepower at his Senate colleague after days of seeing Mr. Rubio inch up both in public polling and his own private surveys, according to two advisers to Mr. Cruz who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After leading in the polls in Iowa for much of the last month, Mr. Cruz has slipped into second behind Mr. Trump in most public surveys.' http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/29/ted-cruzs-negative-ads-go-after-marco-rubio-rather-than-donald-trump/?_r=0
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
No politicians have attracted as much scrutiny as the clintons. Remarkable really.
Only because they have survived more scandals than other politicians. But many politicians have suffered the same intensity of scrutiny - and fallen as a result.
Well that's my point, they've been under the most intense spotlight for over 20 years. And thus far they win. Hilary even managed to turn the Obama defeat into a victory. Remarkable people.
No politicians have attracted as much scrutiny as the clintons. Remarkable really.
Only because they have survived more scandals than other politicians. But many politicians have suffered the same intensity of scrutiny - and fallen as a result.
Well that's my point, they've been under the most intense spotlight for over 20 years. And thus far they win. Hilary even managed to turn the Obama defeat into a victory. Remarkable people.
Cruz shifts negative ads from Trump to Rubio in Iowa
'Senator Ted Cruz, scrambling to put down a growing threat in Iowa from Senator Marco Rubio, is shifting nearly all of his negative advertising from Donald J. Trump to Mr. Rubio for the final three days of the caucuses. Mr. Cruz intends to direct his firepower at his Senate colleague after days of seeing Mr. Rubio inch up both in public polling and his own private surveys, according to two advisers to Mr. Cruz who spoke on the condition of anonymity. After leading in the polls in Iowa for much of the last month, Mr. Cruz has slipped into second behind Mr. Trump in most public surveys.' http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/29/ted-cruzs-negative-ads-go-after-marco-rubio-rather-than-donald-trump/?_r=0
Do the rest all *want* Trump to win?
Feels like people are angling for VP.
Which actually, given his age and penchant for scandal and incompetence, might well be a plausible route to the Presidency within 18 months or so. I wonder if any of them have made that calculation? Or am I crediting Rubio and Cruz with too much intelligence there?
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Very well said.
It's amazing that those hardcore feminists are completely ambivalent about sexual assault of women, because of the perps being migrants. It's "Rotherham" all over again, but on steroids.
No politicians have attracted as much scrutiny as the clintons. Remarkable really.
Only because they have survived more scandals than other politicians. But many politicians have suffered the same intensity of scrutiny - and fallen as a result.
Well that's my point, they've been under the most intense spotlight for over 20 years. And thus far they win. Hilary even managed to turn the Obama defeat into a victory. Remarkable people.
A bit like Lloyd George in this country. He was a sex maniac who made £1 million from the sale of honours, but became Liberal leader in 1926, leading them to their best election result between 1923 and 2005, was mooted for a cabinet recall as foreign secretary in 1935 and as late as 1940 was offered a place in Churchill's war cabinet despite being rumoured to be a Nazi sympathiser.
His sheer talent and magnetic personality got him through everything that would have felled lesser mortals. Bill Clinton is a bit like that too, I think. I have to admit I don't think Hilary is in the same class as her husband, but that being said she's clearly not stupid and has a remarkable talent for survival. This is one reason I think she'll survive this scandal - but I can easily see it giving us President Trump.
No politicians have attracted as much scrutiny as the clintons. Remarkable really.
Only because they have survived more scandals than other politicians. But many politicians have suffered the same intensity of scrutiny - and fallen as a result.
Well that's my point, they've been under the most intense spotlight for over 20 years. And thus far they win. Hilary even managed to turn the Obama defeat into a victory. Remarkable people.
Remarkable indeed. Not the same as admirable.
Bills record is pretty good. And resilience is admirable. Compare it to the UK, Labour would have benefited from some of its New Labour leaders showing equal grit.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Very well said.
It's amazing that those hardcore feminists are completely ambivalent about sexual assault of women, because of the perps being migrants. It's "Rotherham" all over again, but on steroids.
Spinners would rather spin than admit they were wrong, that's why no one ever does anything about immigration... Doesn't affect them and they don't want to lose face
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Very well said.
It's amazing that those hardcore feminists are completely ambivalent about sexual assault of women, because of the perps being migrants. It's "Rotherham" all over again, but on steroids.
Spinners would rather spin than admit they were wrong, that's why no one ever does anything about immigration... Doesn't affect them and they don't want to lose face
Yes, we see the same in Calais, where certain groups think that somehow people in France are Britain's problem.
Also in the EU negotiations, where it's as if other leaders want to punish Cameron in his negotiations for being the one leader to call the problem correctly and propose what's now clearly the most obvious and effective solution. I still have half a feeling, maybe just wishful, that the EU leaders are going to try and call Cameron's bluff on the referendum, and he will go all in holding aces and recommend we leave.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Very well said.
It's amazing that those hardcore feminists are completely ambivalent about sexual assault of women, because of the perps being migrants. It's "Rotherham" all over again, but on steroids.
Spinners would rather spin than admit they were wrong, that's why no one ever does anything about immigration... Doesn't affect them and they don't want to lose face
Yes, we see the same in Calais, where certain groups think that somehow people in France are Britain's problem.
Also in the EU negotiations, where it's as if other leaders want to punish Cameron in his negotiations for being the one leader to call the problem correctly and propose what's now clearly the most obvious and effective solution. I still have half a feeling, maybe just wishful, that the EU leaders are going to try and call Cameron's bluff on the referendum, and he will go all in holding aces and recommend we leave.
I would love that scenario Mr Sandpit but its never going to happen.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Very well said.
It's amazing that those hardcore feminists are completely ambivalent about sexual assault of women, because of the perps being migrants. It's "Rotherham" all over again, but on steroids.
Spinners would rather spin than admit they were wrong, that's why no one ever does anything about immigration... Doesn't affect them and they don't want to lose face
Yes, we see the same in Calais, where certain groups think that somehow people in France are Britain's problem.
Also in the EU negotiations, where it's as if other leaders want to punish Cameron in his negotiations for being the one leader to call the problem correctly and propose what's now clearly the most obvious and effective solution. I still have half a feeling, maybe just wishful, that the EU leaders are going to try and call Cameron's bluff on the referendum, and he will go all in holding aces and recommend we leave.
I would love that scenario Mr Sandpit but its never going to happen.
Cast-iron Dave strikes again.... no ifs, no buts...
David Cameron yesterday retreated over a vow to stop migrants sending child benefit back home. The Prime Minister had pledged to prevent the practice in his election manifesto last year. But last night he signalled he would accept a renegotiation deal under which EU workers would still get the handout but at a lower rate.
bb63..Dave can say what he likes..first he must put the case and then we decide..
To you and I Mr Dodd but not the tribalists, they don't decide they follow.
Unless they are "undecided" of course
Oh yes, I wonder when they will finally decide.
Officially... a day or two before the referendum, before that would be "prejudging the renegotiation", even if the renegotiation is effectively over some excuse will be found to imply there is still a glimmer of hope that something better will be achieved if we wait another week or two. Its transparent tactic to trying and stop people having firm views on the referendum, unless they want to vote Remain, in which case that's fine of course
No, not really. What the two polls have in common isn't what has changed but what hasn't. For all the huffing and puffing from both sides and all parties, essentially nothing has changed.
The parties are basically where they were last May within MoE and the phone polls continue to show REMAIN with a convincing lead.
So, what changes these dynamics ? The launch of the EU Referendum campaign itself or some other event or series of events which will drastically alter perceptions and opinions in a way which, for example, the migrant crisis hasn't so far.
Fascinating refers to the mahoosive gap between the phone polls and the online polls.
Phone polls have it as an easy win for Remain, the online polls, neck and neck/Leave occasionally ahead.
People not wanting to sound like Kippers on the phone, but happy to say Leave if online?
Comres poll outcomes say Corbyn has Labour closer to the Tories than Miliband did.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
And not much influenza or norovirus about at the moment. yet again the real problem is not the hours worked by the junior doctors but the complete lack of beds caused by the government's running down of social care.
Comres poll outcomes say Corbyn has Labour closer to the Tories than Miliband did.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
Ok, I've checked and I was completely wrong. In the comparable poll in 2011, Labour led by 43-34. So they are approximately 13 points down on their performance under Miliband.
It is my considered opinion that they are totally ****ed. Even if they ditch Corbyn, how on earth is any leader going to turn around such an awesome gap?
Comres poll outcomes say Corbyn has Labour closer to the Tories than Miliband did.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
You're making the double counting mistake - ComRes have adjusted their weightings to reflect the turnout differentiation which seems to have led to over-rating Labour in the last Parliament (which is also why the raw sample isn't significant because it's before adjusting for sample bias - that's why it's called raw). You're comparing with pre-correction polling and then applying the adjustment again.
The real Labour problem is a different one. Miliband was - whether consciously or not - following the 35% strategy, essentially taking the Labour core vote and hoping to add a bit by this and that initiative. He largely failed, and even the core vote wasn't very impressed and didn't all turn out. Corbyn has enthused part of the core vote to the point that the assumptions of low turnout among younger voters in particular may have over-corrected. But he's not winning over many others apart from Greens.
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour's over 30%, as nearly all the polls show and local by-election results on the whole suggest. Getting another 5-10% is difficult, though.
Comres poll outcomes say Corbyn has Labour closer to the Tories than Miliband did.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
You're making the double counting mistake - ComRes have adjusted their weightings to reflect the turnout differentiation which seems to have led to over-rating Labour in the last Parliament (which is also why the raw sample isn't significant because it's before adjusting for sample bias - that's why it's called raw). You're comparing with pre-correction polling and then applying the adjustment again.
The real Labour problem is a different one. Miliband was - whether consciously or not - following the 35% strategy, essentially taking the Labour core vote and hoping to add a bit by this and that initiative. He largely failed, and even the core vote wasn't very impressed and didn't all turn out. Corbyn has enthused part of the core vote to the point that the assumptions of low turnout among younger voters in particular may have over-corrected. But he's not winning over many others apart from Greens.
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour's over 30%, as nearly all the polls show and local by-election results on the whole suggest. Getting another 5-10% is difficult, though.
A not wholly unreasonable point. But I would still have said that when the best case scenario you can posit on the data is that Labour are standing still after nine months of weak and controversial government following your worst election result in 32 years it is still by any standard an absolutely pathetic performance.
According to the Times the EU is drawing up legislation to prosecute tourists if they help migrants entering Greece.
PB would go into faux outrage meltdown if Farage had called for the arrest of the bloke carrying that toddler up the beach.
Oh well, Dave says Remain so lets all do as we're told.
I wouldn't - sounds like a good idea wherever it's come from. Might be a basis to prosecute Merkel.
Now we're talking, if we were to prosecute politicians the courts would be full. There are 1000s of them in the UK, I defy anybody to name a handful of good ones outside of the party they vote for.
The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep.
Oh come on, there's no suggestion it because she's black, the nerd just couldn't believe his luck at pulling.
I think any attraction might have been deeper than looks: they were both believers. Kindred spirits in the struggle.
Some of the comments on this thread, whilst funny, have been somewhat shallow. People can fall for looks, intellect, money : attraction comes in many forms.
I, of course, married a woman with beauty, intellect, and a healthy income.
"The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep."
It looks like you're allowing your own prejudices to show. No one has suggested he invited his friends back because she was black. Really suprised that one of the sites best posters could believes such a ludicrous story let alone find someone 'odious' on the strength of it.
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
I take the view that the poll's findings are pretty improbable in their entirety, and that extends to the EU outcomes in this thread.
The phone polls seem, somehow, to find dramatically oversized Labour samples, and this will feed in to EU outcomes as well as the VI outcomes.
Looking at the raw:
Labour lose a third of their claimed 2015 vote under Corbyn - three million votes.
The Tories gain off UKIP in a 2:1 ratio compared to Labour Labour gain off the smaller Lib Dem bloc in a 2:1 ratio compared to the Tories.
That isn't consistent with a smaller gap than May in my view. It's a much bigger one, most likely ten percentage points.
Comres poll outcomes say Corbyn has Labour closer to the Tories than Miliband did.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
You're making the double counting mistake - ComRes have adjusted their weightings to reflect the turnout differentiation which seems to have led to over-rating Labour in the last Parliament (which is also why the raw sample isn't significant because it's before adjusting for sample bias - that's why it's called raw). You're comparing with pre-correction polling and then applying the adjustment again.
The real Labour problem is a different one. Miliband was - whether consciously or not - following the 35% strategy, essentially taking the Labour core vote and hoping to add a bit by this and that initiative. He largely failed, and even the core vote wasn't very impressed and didn't all turn out. Corbyn has enthused part of the core vote to the point that the assumptions of low turnout among younger voters in particular may have over-corrected. But he's not winning over many others apart from Greens.
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour's over 30%, as nearly all the polls show and local by-election results on the whole suggest. Getting another 5-10% is difficult, though.
Plausible.. maybe, but likely, I doubt it.. I still doubt the polls, Labour must be sub 30 with a leader like Corbyn. More like 25%. Go and talk to a few voters, then you'll find out the real truth.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
I think it's just a case of people on the Centre and Right having a different world outlook to people on the Left. To many of the latter, the world is divided into Oppressor groups and Oppressed groups, and that's it.
I do hope "remain" wins. I must admit that Cameron is playing the "be tough on the swarm/bunch" card well. It's good acting, but I can't take seriously anything he promises. It's crafty play-acting and lots do seem to fall for it, every time.
Comres poll outcomes say Corbyn has Labour closer to the Tories than Miliband did.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
I think, however, if we compare the polling Miliband had at this stage of the last Parliament Labour are about 9 points down. *
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
You're making the double counting mistake - ComRes have adjusted their weightings to reflect the turnout differentiation which seems to have led to over-rating Labour in the last Parliament (which is also why the raw sample isn't significant because it's before adjusting for sample bias - that's why it's called raw). You're comparing with pre-correction polling and then applying the adjustment again.
The real Labour problem is a different one. Miliband was - whether consciously or not - following the 35% strategy, essentially taking the Labour core vote and hoping to add a bit by this and that initiative. He largely failed, and even the core vote wasn't very impressed and didn't all turn out. Corbyn has enthused part of the core vote to the point that the assumptions of low turnout among younger voters in particular may have over-corrected. But he's not winning over many others apart from Greens.
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour's over 30%, as nearly all the polls show and local by-election results on the whole suggest. Getting another 5-10% is difficult, though.
A not wholly unreasonable point. But I would still have said that when the best case scenario you can posit on the data is that Labour are standing still after nine months of weak and controversial government following your worst election result in 32 years it is still by any standard an absolutely pathetic performance.
Nick is right that they have abandoned the 35% strategy. The problem is they've replaced it with a 25% strategy.
The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep.
Oh come on, there's no suggestion it because she's black, the nerd just couldn't believe his luck at pulling.
To be fair Jezza is on his 3rd wife, all of them lookers as well as intelligent, as well as Miss Abbott. His charms may be lost on pb, but work on the ladies it seems!
Nick is right that they have abandoned the 35% strategy. The problem is they've replaced it with a 25% strategy.
Another three years of this and we'll be talking about a 5% strategy - saving as many deposits as possible to have money to use as a bargaining tool in their eventual merger with the Greens.
'Disastrous' doesn't even begin to describe what's happened.
With that, I have work to do. Have a good weekend everyone.
What emerges is that the mindsets driving state policy in Iran and Iraq today, or the actions of sub-state actors, including Islamic State, are largely rooted in the instincts that propelled the war in the 1980s. The war wasn’t simply a conflict between two states but a clash between two cultural traditions, political philosophies and nations – all intertwined – that transcended state borders: Arab v. Persian, Sunni v. Shia, secular v. theocratic.
The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep.
Oh come on, there's no suggestion it because she's black, the nerd just couldn't believe his luck at pulling.
To be fair Jezza is on his 3rd wife, all of them lookers as well as intelligent, as well as Miss Abbott. His charms may be lost on pb, but work on the ladies it seems!
The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep.
Oh come on, there's no suggestion it because she's black, the nerd just couldn't believe his luck at pulling.
I think any attraction might have been deeper than looks: they were both believers. Kindred spirits in the struggle.
Some of the comments on this thread, whilst funny, have been somewhat shallow. People can fall for looks, intellect, money : attraction comes in many forms.
I, of course, married a woman with beauty, intellect, and a healthy income.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Have you ever visited any of these misogynistic cultures and could you share with us your experiences?
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Have you ever visited any of these misogynistic cultures and could you share with us your experiences?
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
"Mr Juncker has never hidden his view that the compromises and deals being worked out in EU meetings or leaders or ministers need be protected from public scrutiny, by lies if necessary. "When it becomes serious, you have to lie," he said. In May 2011, he told a meeting of the federalist European Movement that he often “had to lie” and that eurozone monetary policy should be discussed in “secret, dark debates”.
Yep, fair play to him. Makes those poking fun at him showing off Abbott look even more stupid, while they're taking the mick he's shagging his way round London.
It's worth noting that the Clintons, like Blair, have a long record of using legally-correct-but-not-actually-meaningful statements as defenses. Probably the legal background.
I think that's a slight exaggeration. The Clinton career seems more to be focussed on evading answers on what can be proved, and flat denials of what can't be. This would certainly seem to fit that paradigm. Nobody is denying this business with the server now, but still insisting that what was on it wasn't important.
The question is does this resemble Whitewater, where their behaviour was unethical rather than illegal, or Monicagate, where Clinton was clearly guilty of repeatedly lying to the public (unless having your penis sucked does not count as 'sexual relations'). My instinct is that Hilary is probably just OK unless something dramatic happens, but even if she is, she's already gifted about a million attack lines to the Republicans.
The standard Clinton defenses is a statement that sounds flat and final. But which turns out to be true, but misleading. Classic lawyer speak.
Hillary broke the rules - special compartmented stuff floating about the place etc. People have lost jobs, security clearances and gone to prison for this. Note that Clinton supporters are selling the line that this is old news, she was just trying to do her job and we should all move along.
The problem is the emails exist - can't be wished away
Digging into Corbyn's romantic past seems not only unnecessary but pointless; no-one seems in any dispute that on a personal level he can be quite engaging and, I suspect, charming, and the rest is easily dismissed as hearsay and partisan spin. It reminds me of that bizarre splash page on Ed M's lovelife: "Look at these accomplished, intelligent and attractive women Ed M has been involved with - what a weirdo he is though, right?" was how it came across given the general focus on him.
The problem is the emails exist - can't be wished away
I'd assumed if she was ever charged she would step down or be handily defeated by a late entrant, and some of what has come out has made it sound like she should be charged with something, but now I'm not sure. It's so late in the day now I fear if there was a charge her supporters might just be powerful enough to claim it was all political - the timing would look it, truthfully or not - and she'd take her chances. As I say, I presumed that would never happen, but although she's not a strong candidate it seems, her supporters seem entirely unconcerned.
"Mr Juncker has never hidden his view that the compromises and deals being worked out in EU meetings or leaders or ministers need be protected from public scrutiny, by lies if necessary. "When it becomes serious, you have to lie," he said. In May 2011, he told a meeting of the federalist European Movement that he often “had to lie” and that eurozone monetary policy should be discussed in “secret, dark debates”.
That says all we need to know. The EU elites don't think they should be accountable.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Have you ever visited any of these misogynistic cultures and could you share with us your experiences?
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
No doubt your ticket is booked for the Caliphate as we speak.
Cast-iron Dave strikes again.... no ifs, no buts...
David Cameron yesterday retreated over a vow to stop migrants sending child benefit back home. The Prime Minister had pledged to prevent the practice in his election manifesto last year. But last night he signalled he would accept a renegotiation deal under which EU workers would still get the handout but at a lower rate.
How much lower... and for how long before the ECJ overturns it and tells him to pay the full amount.
It doesn't matter how much lower - child benefit is quite clearly to benefit the next generation of Britons, not just to wire into your foreign bank account because you've popped a few sprogs in foreign climbs. A Prime Minister who accepts this has lost it, and a country that accepts a Prime Minister who accepts it has lost it.
We've had one thread full of comments on Jeremy and Diane's love life and appearance several decades ago. Could we maybe now leave that aspect of politics to the Mail?
You mean that you don't want an open discussion on the Labour leaders male dominated and chauvinistic exploitation of vulnerable women and ethnic minorities for his own personal self gratification and dominance having then spent all his life shouting at others for doing anything remotely similar?
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Have you ever visited any of these misogynistic cultures and could you share with us your experiences?
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
I was in Egypt in about 2005 and the big topic of conversation was whether or not a sentence of death on five teenagers who had raped two girls was fair. It was explaned to me that rape was so rare and the death penalty was so infrequently used that it was considered a serious issue.
The idea that Egyptians who I know to be a hugely cultured people with years of civilization behind them should have a greater proclivity to rape than the alcohol fuelled English is just ignorant prejudice.
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Have you ever visited any of these misogynistic cultures and could you share with us your experiences?
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
I was in Egypt in about 2005 and the big topic of conversation was whether or not a sentence of death on five teenagers who had raped two girls was fair. It was explaned to me that rape was so rare and the death penalty was so infrequently used that it was considered a serious issue.
The idea that Egyptians who I know to be a hugely cultured people with years of civilization behind them should have a greater proclivity to rape than the alcohol fuelled English is just ignorant prejudice.
You say 'ignorant' prejudice, but you say the misogynistic culture claim is ridiculous, others who have been to those places, and thus not ignorant, say it is not ridiculous - who am I, as someone who has not been to those cultures, to believe?
Jess Philips thinks the same things take place in Birmingham.
It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
Have you ever visited any of these misogynistic cultures and could you share with us your experiences?
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
I was in Egypt in about 2005 and the big topic of conversation was whether or not a sentence of death on five teenagers who had raped two girls was fair. It was explaned to me that rape was so rare and the death penalty was so infrequently used that it was considered a serious issue.
The idea that Egyptians who I know to be a hugely cultured people with years of civilization behind them should have a greater proclivity to rape than the alcohol fuelled English is just ignorant prejudice.
The world has moved on since 2005, and you haven't kept up.
Besides, how many of the migrants hotfooting it to northern Europe are Egyptians? Very few I'd imagine. Most are likely to be aggressive young men with poor educations, from countries such as Afghanistan and Syria where violence is now the norm, and the accepted behavioural standards towards women can be completely different.
Comments
Not a lot of people know that...
The US Intel Community insisted that 22 emails cannot be made public at all, even in a redacted form. They contain info on SAPs (Special Access Programs), a classification higher than Top Secret, and one email classified "HCS-O" containing info from or about human spies on the ground. The latter can get agents on the ground identified or killed.
For the first time, the White House admitted that these emails contained classified info.
Over the past week, the news networks have been saying they get the sense that the FBI investigation is snowballing - gathering in intensity. Then today's revelations.
The FBI is furious at Josh Earnest's comments today about the investigation not looking like it's moving towards an indictment. They insist the WH has not been briefed about progress in the investigation.
We are getting perilously close to political interference from the White House in an active FBI investigation.
Don't most movies these days have some degree of ADR and Foley work?
In Harvard, the term "house master" for those running college houses has been ditched, because of connotations with slavery and "human subjugation".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35441074
Also....
"But these rows are showing no signs of stopping. They are a potent mix of identity politics, social media lobbying and consumer power."
No BBC...It is social media bullying. And of course they can't help themselves on the impartiality front...It is quite clear which side the journo is on with this last paragraph.
"She argued in her inaugural speech that university needed to be intellectually stretching and meant students "engaging with ideas they find objectionable". And statues too?"
Even though he was never really seen...
Body was of thin Anthony Dawson, voice was of fat Erich Pohlmann.
There is one email from her, asking an aide who is having trouble sending something over classified comms to "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." There is no proof that the aide did.
So the suspicion to those on the outside of the investigation who are not prone to believe every word out of Team Clinton is that there was a practice of reformatting data so that it could be sent without classification. That would also explain why other agencies are now having to classify stuff from the server that was unmarked - if information (that should have remained classified) from their documents had been reformatted by Clinton aides into unclassified talking points or aide memoires, then they are correcting the (unauthorized) declassification.
It took it that it was either "clever" speak, whereby the log of classification of emails is updated after the email is sent and they were playing fast and loose with what they mean by "when sent". But your theory / explanation makes perfect sense.
The fact that they now find emails referring to things that were so secret they can't even release them redacted suggests that she is the proverbial cooked bread. But this is election year, and she's the favourite.
So the statement that they weren't classified would be formally true. They just contained classified information.
It's worth noting that the Clintons, like Blair, have a long record of using legally-correct-but-not-actually-meaningful statements as defenses. Probably the legal background.
Panic - not to mention denial - in Brussels: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12130843/EU-leaders-No-link-between-Cologne-sex-attacks-and-migrant-crisis.html
The question is does this resemble Whitewater, where their behaviour was unethical rather than illegal, or Monicagate, where Clinton was clearly guilty of repeatedly lying to the public (unless having your penis sucked does not count as 'sexual relations'). My instinct is that Hilary is probably just OK unless something dramatic happens, but even if she is, she's already gifted about a million attack lines to the Republicans.
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/pcs_comment.cfm/mass-passport-office-closure-announced
Excellent that the public sector is being reduced further - I just hope the March budget has more surprises.
If Hilary is the Democrat candidate then the election will be incredibly nasty and personal. especially so if it's between her and Trump, both 'Marmite' candidates. Trump will try and portray her as completely corrupt and unfit for office at every turn.
* I want a royalty for that idea!
These people have at best 3-4 years of political activity at a high level - then what happens?
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive.
I don't know why this is such a story, Abbott is an idiot but she's not unattractive and at the time was in her 20s, fair play to Corbyn.
It's amazing that those hardcore feminists are completely ambivalent about sexual assault of women, because of the perps being migrants. It's "Rotherham" all over again, but on steroids.
His sheer talent and magnetic personality got him through everything that would have felled lesser mortals. Bill Clinton is a bit like that too, I think. I have to admit I don't think Hilary is in the same class as her husband, but that being said she's clearly not stupid and has a remarkable talent for survival. This is one reason I think she'll survive this scandal - but I can easily see it giving us President Trump.
PB would go into faux outrage meltdown if Farage had called for the arrest of the bloke carrying that toddler up the beach.
Oh well, Dave says Remain so lets all do as we're told.
Also in the EU negotiations, where it's as if other leaders want to punish Cameron in his negotiations for being the one leader to call the problem correctly and propose what's now clearly the most obvious and effective solution. I still have half a feeling, maybe just wishful, that the EU leaders are going to try and call Cameron's bluff on the referendum, and he will go all in holding aces and recommend we leave.
It's findings should be judged on whether that is believable. What do the leader ratings imply?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12129134/The-EU-referendum-is-going-to-be-a-massive-disappointment.html
How much lower... and for how long before the ECJ overturns it and tells him to pay the full amount.
2015 Con vote: 261
2015 Lab vote: 275
If THAT were to be repeated at a general election, which surely it wouldn't be, Labour would be running the real risk of coming third in the popular vote for the first time in a normal election since December 1910.
*edit - I don't have the figures to hand, so I could be wrong. If anyone has time to look them up I'd be interested to see them.
You wouldn't be able to afford the ticket anyway based on what I understand of your Trump position...
It is my considered opinion that they are totally ****ed. Even if they ditch Corbyn, how on earth is any leader going to turn around such an awesome gap?
The real Labour problem is a different one. Miliband was - whether consciously or not - following the 35% strategy, essentially taking the Labour core vote and hoping to add a bit by this and that initiative. He largely failed, and even the core vote wasn't very impressed and didn't all turn out. Corbyn has enthused part of the core vote to the point that the assumptions of low turnout among younger voters in particular may have over-corrected. But he's not winning over many others apart from Greens.
So it's perfectly plausible that Labour's over 30%, as nearly all the polls show and local by-election results on the whole suggest. Getting another 5-10% is difficult, though.
Some of the comments on this thread, whilst funny, have been somewhat shallow. People can fall for looks, intellect, money : attraction comes in many forms.
I, of course, married a woman with beauty, intellect, and a healthy income.
"The man brings his pals around to show off his naked girlfriend in his bed because she is black and that demonstrates how cool he is?
What an odious little creep."
It looks like you're allowing your own prejudices to show. No one has suggested he invited his friends back because she was black. Really suprised that one of the sites best posters could believes such a ludicrous story let alone find someone 'odious' on the strength of it.
The phone polls seem, somehow, to find dramatically oversized Labour samples, and this will feed in to EU outcomes as well as the VI outcomes.
Looking at the raw:
Labour lose a third of their claimed 2015 vote under Corbyn - three million votes.
The Tories gain off UKIP in a 2:1 ratio compared to Labour
Labour gain off the smaller Lib Dem bloc in a 2:1 ratio compared to the Tories.
That isn't consistent with a smaller gap than May in my view. It's a much bigger one, most likely ten percentage points.
We are in 1983.
Edit: Great minds, Mr @SquareRoot
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/693359151439831040
'Disastrous' doesn't even begin to describe what's happened.
With that, I have work to do. Have a good weekend everyone.
An interesting and thought-provoking article in the LRB about the Iran-Iraq war, and its repercussions for the Syrian conflict today.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n03/joost-hiltermann/chemical-wonders
Because so many on here agree with you doesn't make your brand of prejudice less repulsive. It just shows the level of poster these days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taharrush_gamea
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10874230/Jean-Claude-Juncker-profile-When-it-becomes-serious-you-have-to-lie.html
"Mr Juncker has never hidden his view that the compromises and deals being worked out in EU meetings or leaders or ministers need be protected from public scrutiny, by lies if necessary.
"When it becomes serious, you have to lie," he said.
In May 2011, he told a meeting of the federalist European Movement that he often “had to lie” and that eurozone monetary policy should be discussed in “secret, dark debates”.
Hillary broke the rules - special compartmented stuff floating about the place etc. People have lost jobs, security clearances and gone to prison for this. Note that Clinton supporters are selling the line that this is old news, she was just trying to do her job and we should all move along.
The problem is the emails exist - can't be wished away
How much lower... and for how long before the ECJ overturns it and tells him to pay the full amount.
It doesn't matter how much lower - child benefit is quite clearly to benefit the next generation of Britons, not just to wire into your foreign bank account because you've popped a few sprogs in foreign climbs. A Prime Minister who accepts this has lost it, and a country that accepts a Prime Minister who accepts it has lost it.
Ok .....
The idea that Egyptians who I know to be a hugely cultured people with years of civilization behind them should have a greater proclivity to rape than the alcohol fuelled English is just ignorant prejudice.
Besides, how many of the migrants hotfooting it to northern Europe are Egyptians? Very few I'd imagine. Most are likely to be aggressive young men with poor educations, from countries such as Afghanistan and Syria where violence is now the norm, and the accepted behavioural standards towards women can be completely different.