Matt Dathan - @matt_dathan: And now Jeremy Corbyn demands to see " incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the Skripal attack. He'll be accused of playing into the Kremlin's hands again.... @MarrShow
It's odd, as he has stated before, a month ago, that evidence pointed to it being highly likely to be Russia. Why is he seemingly going down the route of demanding unrealistically incontrovertible proof now, and undermining his previous statement? Nothing about sonething so clandestine could be proven incontrovertibly.
We all know he is safe as houses, but he seems to be undercutting his previous acceptance of the probable position if these quotes are correct.
Id almost go conspiracy theory and say he wants a row focused on him again for some reason. The action in Syria is not very popular, so he wants more hocus on him so people catch his stance on that?
And this is after he has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about.
Their pack of lies .........LOL
You entirely discount all information from our intelligence apparatus?
More pressingly, Corbyn already said evidence showed it was highly likely to be Russia, so he is not discounting their information, in which case what has changed in the last month to make him doubt his position?
"He has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about."
He's seen the evidence and it isn't as convincing as we've been led to believe?
What did Theresa May have to fear from the British parliament?
Shece.
I think we can be pretty sure the whips told her she might well lose a vote.
I think not.
May is risk averse when in comes to high profile political drama. She dodged the general election debates and doesn't perform well under public scrutiny. In such circumstances she's stiff and lacks political empathy.
In my view she felt the window for House of Commons scrutiny was narrow enough for her to dodge the parliamentary bullet. The government would have comfortably won a vote with a substantial number of Labour MP's voting with the government or abstaining.
Totally agree.If she can by pass parliament as with Brexit she will.Can not blame her.However it is upto parliament to take back some control if it wants to However I will not be holding my breath.
Politically avoiding HoC scrutiny it is mistake on different levels :
1. The voters disapprove significantly of sidelining parliament and it provides one of the few sticks that Jezza has to attack her.
2. The PM would be able to expose the Jezzbollah weakness at a moment of maximum scrutiny.
3. It is a failure of leadership to be unwilling to defend a military intervention when servicemen (albeit only a small number) are in action.
1. Perhaps, but the voters don't seem to give leaders a pass when parliament does authorise action, so I am skeptical of that. Yes it gives Corbyn a stick to hit her with. But negligible public benefit
2. Would she though? We know for a fact that the exact same debate could happen, he could sit there looking angry and pouty as a member of his own party advocates a different policy to him...and there would be no long term impact whatsoever. Both sides would grandstand, and there would be no political gain.
3. Maybe it would have been a good idea, maybe. But it is not a requirement to do it, so I simply cannot agree it was a failure of leadership. Nor does it show an unwillingness to defend the intervention, only an unwillingness to hold a parliamentary debate beforehand which is not necessary in procedure or law. She has defended it, and will defend it in parliament no doubt. The question is whether she could or should have done so in advance. As I say, possibly, but if it was a failure to not do so beforehand, why was it ever permitted and still permitted to not do so?
The biggest issue is whether this action will achieve anything, not the constitutional procedure used. If it achieves nothing, frankly does it matter about the procedure. I fear it will achieve nothing.
Matt Dathan - @matt_dathan: And now Jeremy Corbyn demands to see " incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the Skripal attack. He'll be accused of playing into the Kremlin's hands again.... @MarrShow
It's odd, as he has stated before, a month ago, that evidence pointed to it being highly likely to be Russia. Why is he seemingly going down the route of demanding unrealistically incontrovertible proof now, and undermining his previous statement? Nothing about sonething so clandestine could be proven incontrovertibly.
We all know he is safe as houses, but he seems to be undercutting his previous acceptance of the probable position if these quotes are correct.
Id almost go conspiracy theory and say he wants a row focused on him again for some reason. The action in Syria is not very popular, so he wants more hocus on him so people catch his stance on that?
And this is after he has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about.
Their pack of lies .........LOL
You entirely discount all information from our intelligence apparatus?
More pressingly, Corbyn already said evidence showed it was highly likely to be Russia, so he is not discounting their information, in which case what has changed in the last month to make him doubt his position?
"He has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about."
He's seen the evidence and it isn't as convincing as we've been led to believe?
Then why did he say a month ago the evidence showed it was highly likely to be Russia?
He is seemingly changing his position, he needs to justify that change in position, as any politician needs to when they alter their stance. Are we to believe Corbyn, super cautious Corbyn, decided the very early evidence was compelling enough to state likely Russian culpability, but that is no longer the case.
In that case the question is why did he not wait to declare Russian culpability a month ago.
What did Theresa May have to fear from the British parliament?
She might have lost. Even if she didn't it would have been nothing but grandstanding. And the public don't forgive leaders for military escapades even if they get parliamentary approval. So she had nothing to gain by consulting them, if she felt action was the right choice.
I think we can be pretty sure the whips told her she might well lose a vote.
I think not.
May is risk averse when in comes to high profile political drama. She dodged the general election debates and doesn't perform well under public scrutiny. In such circumstances she's stiff and lacks political empathy.
In my view she felt the window for House of Commons scrutiny was narrow enough for her to dodge the parliamentary bullet. The government would have comfortably won a vote with a substantial number of Labour MP's voting with the government or abstaining.
Totally agree.If she can by pass parliament as with Brexit she will.Can not blame her.However it is upto parliament to take back some control if it wants to However I will not be holding my breath.
Politically avoiding HoC scrutiny it is mistake on different levels :
1. The voters disapprove significantly of sidelining parliament and it provides one of the few sticks that Jezza has to attack her.
2. The PM would be able to expose the Jezzbollah weakness at a moment of maximum scrutiny.
3. It is a failure of leadership to be unwilling to defend a military intervention when servicemen (albeit only a small number) are in action.
Jack very good points well made.In my opinion it was one of the reasons the voters did not give her a large majority at the last election, as there was a fear she would have abused it.
I said a few months back , I think the voters in my lifetime , as a whole , at General Elections have some how got the correct result.Even if I personally did not agree with it.
He's seen the evidence and it isn't as convincing as we've been led to believe?
It seems to have convinced a lot of other governments.
What do we know?
1. It was a Russian developed nerve agent. 2. The OPCW confirms that. 3. The attack was targetting a Russian "defector". 4. It was delivered by a means that Russia developed and practices. 5. There seems to be some relevant signals intelligence about delivery. 6. Russia has not come up with a logical alternative explanation, but instead several dozen fanciful explanations.
You have to jump through a whole series of hoops to come up with an explanation that doesn't involve Russia.
Corbyn's viewpoint requires him to discount everything our goverment has said as being wrong/lies, AND to believe Russia even though they are the most probable culprit and have a history of similar attacks.
There's nothing logical about what Corbyn is doing. He is choosing to believe Russia because Russia shares Corbyn's long held anti-Western views.
Frankly Corbyn is a fucking nutcase, as well as a danger to this country and its people.
Matt Dathan - @matt_dathan: And now Jeremy Corbyn demands to see " incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the Skripal attack. He'll be accused of playing into the Kremlin's hands again.... @MarrShow
We all know he is safe as houses, but he seems to be undercutting his previous acceptance of the probable position if these quotes are correct.
Id almost go conspiracy theory and say he wants a row focused on him again for some reason. The action in Syria is not very popular, so he wants more hocus on him so people catch his stance on that?
And this is after he has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about.
Their pack of lies .........LOL
You entirely discount all information from our intelligence apparatus?
More pressingly, Corbyn already said evidence showed it was highly likely to be Russia, so he is not discounting their information, in which case what has changed in the last month to make him doubt his position?
"He has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about."
He's seen the evidence and it isn't as convincing as we've been led to believe?
Then why did he say a month ago the evidence showed it was highly likely to be Russia?
He is seemingly changing his position, he needs to justify that change in position, as any politician needs to when they alter their stance. Are we to believe Corbyn, super cautious Corbyn, decided the very early evidence was compelling enough to state likely Russian culpability, but that is no longer the case.
In that case the question is why did he not wait to declare Russian culpability a month ago.
This isn't a case of someone being skeptical all along the way. He said he accepted the evidence, now he does not apparently.
I've gone from 99.9% "certainty" that it was the Russian State to a 90% "highly likely" position because of new information about availability and other motives. Perhaps Corbyn has made the same journey.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
A ludicrous position to take. You'd never blame anybody, for anything, ever on that basis.
I've gone from 99.9% "certainty" that it was the Russian State to a 90% "highly likely" position because of new information about availability and other motives. Perhaps Corbyn has made the same journey.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
What 'new information' about availability and other motives?
Are you sure you're not just swallowing the Russian line? Remember, people made right idiots of themselves by swallowing the Russian lines over MH17, yet few outside the hardcore conspiracy theorists believe any of those lines now.
Corbyn is effectively the agent of a foreign power. If he wins an election, our whole foreign policy, military and intelligence apparatus will be subject to the veto of a dictatorship that tramples over human rights at home and is happy to make wars of annexation abroad.
Matt Dathan - @matt_dathan: And now Jeremy Corbyn demands to see " incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the Skripal attack. He'll be accused of playing into the Kremlin's hands again.... @MarrShow
It's odd, as he has stated before, a month ago, that evidence pointed to it being highly likely to be Russia. Why is he seemingly going down the route of demanding unrealistically incontrovertible proof now, and undermining his previous statement? Nothing about sonething so clandestine could be proven incontrovertibly.
We all know he is safe as houses, but he seems to be undercutting his previous acceptance of the probable position if these quotes are correct.
Id almost go conspiracy theory and say he wants a row focused on him again for some reason. The action in Syria is not very popular, so he wants more hocus on him so people catch his stance on that?
And this is after he has had the top secret security briefings where the spooks will lay out even more evidence that us plebs aren’t allowed to know about.
Their pack of lies .........LOL
Mg our spooks are beyond repute.
Paragons of virtue
Much like distinguished Ayrshire turnip oligarchs ....
Do you use chemical agents on yours crops. I think the nation should be told ....
Organic Jack , none of your chemical muck for my turnips
I've gone from 99.9% "certainty" that it was the Russian State to a 90% "highly likely" position because of new information about availability and other motives. Perhaps Corbyn has made the same journey.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
But surely we must accept clandestine matters like this can never be proven with 'incontrovertible' evidence? It's an unreasonable standard.
Let's say someone was found, a known agent of Russia, who we caught putting Novichok on Mr Skripal's front door - Russia would, presumably, claim that the man had gone rogue and they had nothing to do with it. That would be preposterous, but it's technically a possibility, and would we be able to prove he hadn't gone rogue 'incontrovertibly'?
Element of doubt I get, but Corbyn is a professional politician, and he's been leader long enough to know decision making involves making judgement calls, and that you simply cannot prove things 100% all of the time, in fact you cannot do it most of the time.
It's reasonable for lowly mortals to be less definitive, since we are not provided with all he is (even if he is not shown all there is), but at some point I think Corbyn has to make judgement calls and not demand total proof which cannot be forthcoming - in a complex investigation, what standard of proof is reasonable here?
Foxy would defend Corbyn previously by saying his position was the same as the government's, give or take, but clearly that is not the case any longer, and that does lead to the question of what is reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How much can these things be proven, and even if it is only 90% likely, is it reasonable to equivocate based on that 10% doubt?
I struggle to see that it is, personally, and I feel like I have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
A ludicrous position to take. You'd never blame anybody, for anything, ever on that basis.
They could show him Putin being covertly recorded giving the instruction to the agent to go and take out the Skripals and the CCTV of them laying the nerve agent and Jezza would still claim the translation might not be 100% correct and that the FSB agent was only going to check if somebody had laid a trap for them....
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
A ludicrous position to take. You'd never blame anybody, for anything, ever on that basis.
Good point. We'd have never got the First World War even started with that approach. And things like the War of Jenkins Ear would be history.
I've gone from 99.9% "certainty" that it was the Russian State to a 90% "highly likely" position because of new information about availability and other motives. Perhaps Corbyn has made the same journey.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
But surely we must accept clandestine matters like this can never be proven with 'incontrovertible' evidence? It's an unreasonable standard.
Let's say someone was found, a known agent of Russia, who we caught putting Novichok on Mr Skripal's front door - Russia would, presumably, claim that the man had gone rogue and they had nothing to do with it. That would be preposterous, but it's technically a possibility, and would we be able to prove he hadn't gone rogue 'incontrovertibly'?
Element of doubt I get, but Corbyn is a professional politician, and he's been leader long enough to know decision making involves making judgement calls, and that you simply cannot prove things 100% all of the time, in fact you cannot do it most of the time.
It's reasonable for lowly mortals to be less definitive, since we are not provided with all he is (even if he is not shown all there is), but at some point I think Corbyn has to make judgement calls and not demand total proof which cannot be forthcoming - in a complex investigation, what standard of proof is reasonable here?
Foxy would defend Corbyn previously by saying his position was the same as the government's, give or take, but clearly that is not the case any longer, and that does lead to the question of what is reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How much can these things be proven, and even if it is only 90% likely, is it reasonable to equivocate based on that 10% doubt?
I struggle to see that it is, personally, and I feel like I have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
They have already released evidence of Russian state targeting them, testing out the nerve agent delivery method etc,
And this is what they will release to the public. Given Boris was absolutely explicit that it was Putin who ordered it and nobody from the PM office countered that in anyway, I am going to guess they have a lot more proof.
Yes Boris can be a plonker and say stuff he shouldn't, but the PM spokespeople are then all over it to say Boris being Boris, not our position. That isn't what they did in this case.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
A ludicrous position to take. You'd never blame anybody, for anything, ever on that basis.
Good point. We'd have never got the First World War even started with that approach. And things like the War of Jenkins Ear would be history.
There comes a time when there are two choices: to fight, or to surrender. It does not matter how much diplomacy you undertake, how much you try to do the right thing: sometimes you are faced with an evil that you will have to fight or be subsumed.
If World War One had not started when it had, it would have started later: perhaps a year, perhaps two or three. There was just too much greed and too little understanding between the major powers. This was made worse by an utter lack of understanding of the modern weapons they had developed over the previous couple of decades.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I joined the Conservatives the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015. It’s difficult to see for how much longer a large group of moderate Labour MPs are prepared to stand behind someone who cares nothing for Britain and will support anyone who opposes us.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I'm not the biggest monarchist in the world, but it seems to me that there's little reason to disestablish the link between the British monarchy and the Commonwealth. There's no hard power there, it's a symbolic link. If you keep removing the links bit by bit, the whole thing looks even more like an anachronism. Not good for us in the post-Brexit landscape.
On topic, not sure if this was written before the 3 opinion polls last night which all showed a dead heat. If there was a Tory lead it seems to have evaporated so any swing in their favour is going to be miniscule.
In fact, I think it is going to be negative for the reasons shown by Alastair's rather excellent map. The Tories may or may not be ahead nationally but if they are it is because they are doing better (on the whole) in the areas that are not voting this time out. The areas where voting is taking place is where Labour has outperformed their national average. So we have seen London, for example, become ever more Labour even as Labour lost ground in the midlands and parts of the north.
If these trends continue I would expect these results to show a modest net swing to Labour in these areas compared to 2014, simply because these are the areas that they have made the most progress since then. The Tories might do better in some regions, especially where UKIP did well in 2014, but overall these results are in Corbyn central.
I expect a net Tory to Labour swing of 2-3% and Labour net gains of between 100 and 150, mainly in London. Which, to be honest, would not be the worst result for a government enduring a sticky patch more than a year after the election.
Outside London, it seems to me that there a lot of places that swung to the Conservatives between 2014 and 2017; eg South Yorkshire, Tyneside, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell, Solihull, Rochdale, Oldham. Labour is defending a lot more seats than the Tories, which should enable them to gain ground outside London.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I joined the Conservatives the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015. It’s difficult to see for how much longer a large group of moderate Labour MPs are prepared to stand behind someone who cares nothing for Britain and will support anyone who opposes us.
To be honest , there is nothing wrong with suggesting that after the Queen, the Commenwealth pick their own head.Why you are getting upset over this , I do not know.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun ...which reminds me of this.
A prominent US lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in a New York park in a protest against climate change.
The remains of David Buckel, 60, were found in Prospect Park in Brooklyn.
In a suicide note found nearby, Mr Buckel wrote that he had immolated himself using fossil fuel to symbolise what he said was the damage human beings were doing to the Earth.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
A prominent US lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in a New York park in a protest against climate change.
The remains of David Buckel, 60, were found in Prospect Park in Brooklyn.
In a suicide note found nearby, Mr Buckel wrote that he had immolated himself using fossil fuel to symbolise what he said was the damage human beings were doing to the Earth.
I support his cause but it's kind-of an advert for fossil fuels there as it's hard to immolate yourself with solar power due to its low energy density. I guess you could do it in theory but the problem would be where you'd find a big enough magnifying glass.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
A prominent US lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in a New York park in a protest against climate change.
The remains of David Buckel, 60, were found in Prospect Park in Brooklyn.
In a suicide note found nearby, Mr Buckel wrote that he had immolated himself using fossil fuel to symbolise what he said was the damage human beings were doing to the Earth.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I joined the Conservatives the day Corbyn was elected Labour leader in 2015. It’s difficult to see for how much longer a large group of moderate Labour MPs are prepared to stand behind someone who cares nothing for Britain and will support anyone who opposes us.
To be honest , there is nothing wrong with suggesting that after the Queen, the Commenwealth pick their own head.Why you are getting upset over this , I do not know.
If they had any sense they would dump all remaining vestiges of the subjugation they suffered at the hands of the British.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Oh FFS. I’m waiting for the apology from the Italians for 43AD, the French for 1066 ( or were they Norwegians?), and everyone in England, all 55 million of them can piss off because it’s all stolen from Wales.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
What is modern day Russia, if not a (somewhat reduced) empire ?
I’m still waiting for Jezza to call for an apology for the Holodomor....
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Oh FFS. I’m waiting for the apology from the Italians for 43AD, the French for 1066 ( or were they Norwegians?), and everyone in England, all 55 million of them can piss off because it’s all stolen from Wales.
As I said, I am not too fussed about it, just puzzled why the 52 would want to join an organization to celebrate the relationship by holding games even more boring than the Olympics every however many years it is. Stockholm syndrome?
Corbyn is effectively the agent of a foreign power. If he wins an election, our whole foreign policy, military and intelligence apparatus will be subject to the veto of a dictatorship that tramples over human rights at home and is happy to make wars of annexation abroad.
Decent people should do all they can to stop him.
I do find it somewhat bizarre that the same people bemoaning our lack of influence in the world from implementing Brexit are happy to push for Prime Minister Corbyn - a man whose unquestioning acceptance of the infallibity of Russia will leave us as Billy No-mates on the international stage.
During Gulf War II, the UK and US tried to get a new resolution to impose a deadline on resolution 1441. That would have by extension authorised armed action against Iraq for noncompliance. France said it would veto that new resolution and so no vote was taken on it. That action is one of the reasons why France is (inaccurately IMHO) regarded as insufficiently martial in the Anglosphere. It is also the reason why Gulf War II is referred to (again, inaccurately IMHO) as an illegal war, as no UN resolution was passed in support.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
I've gone from 99.9% "certainty" that it was the Russian State to a 90% "highly likely" position because of new information about availability and other motives. Perhaps Corbyn has made the same journey.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
But surely we must accept clandestine matters like this can never be proven with 'incontrovertible' evidence? It's an unreasonable standard.
Let's say someone was found, a known agent of Russia, who we caught putting Novichok on Mr Skripal's front door - Russia would, presumably, claim that the man had gone rogue and they had nothing to do with it. That would be preposterous, but it's technically a possibility, and would we be able to prove he hadn't gone rogue 'incontrovertibly'?
Element of doubt I get, but Corbyn is a professional politician, and he's been leader long enough to know decision making involves making judgement calls, and that you simply cannot prove things 100% all of the time, in fact you cannot do it most of the time.
It's reasonable for lowly mortals to be less definitive, since we are not provided with all he is (even if he is not shown all there is), but at some point I think Corbyn has to make judgement calls and not demand total proof which cannot be forthcoming - in a complex investigation, what standard of proof is reasonable here?
Foxy would defend Corbyn previously by saying his position was the same as the government's, give or take, but clearly that is not the case any longer, and that does lead to the question of what is reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How much can these things be proven, and even if it is only 90% likely, is it reasonable to equivocate based on that 10% doubt?
I struggle to see that it is, personally, and I feel like I have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Indeed. Demanding incontrovertible proof is just encouraging others to commit immoral actions and then muddy the waters. Politicians should evaluate the evidence, but requiring perfect proof is naive.
I'd say it is up to the Commonwealth to decide who should be its next head.
I think constant apologising for past misdeeds is where you end up if you start going down that route, but stats have made formal apologies before, though I think it is of dubious usefulness. You cannot apologise for slavery for instance. You cannot even really make up for it, even if everyone was at it at one stage or another. All you can do is stop it and take steps to stop others doing it, being an example moving forward. I'm not sure apologising helps that one way or another when it comes to colonialism.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
A ludicrous position to take. You'd never blame anybody, for anything, ever on that basis.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Oh FFS. I’m waiting for the apology from the Italians for 43AD, the French for 1066 ( or were they Norwegians?), and everyone in England, all 55 million of them can piss off because it’s all stolen from Wales.
As I said, I am not too fussed about it, just puzzled why the 52 would want to join an organization to celebrate the relationship by holding games even more boring than the Olympics every however many years it is. Stockholm syndrome?
I agree about the Commonwealth games. Bit pointless really.
Indeed. Demanding incontrovertible proof is just encouraging others to commit immoral actions and then muddy the waters. Politicians should evaluate the evidence, but requiring perfect proof is naive.
The standard of proof necessary should also lessen when the same party has been repeatedly found guilty of the exact same offence over the last 5 years. Four times specifically proven by the UN/OPCW mission. A dozen times in the last year according to French intelligence. Dozens and dozens more since 2013, when Syria committed to totally destroying all stocks.
This has been festering away for years now because Russian involvement essentially gave Syria a free pass - Russia was supposed to confirm the destruction of Syria's CWs, and now we know they've been a totally dishonest broker the whole time.
Indeed. Demanding incontrovertible proof is just encouraging others to commit immoral actions and then muddy the waters. Politicians should evaluate the evidence, but requiring perfect proof is naive.
The standard of proof necessary should also lessen when the same party has been repeatedly found guilty of the exact same offence over the last 5 years. Four times specifically proven by the UN/OPCW mission. A dozen times in the last year according to French intelligence. Dozens and dozens more since 2013, when Syria committed to totally destroying all stocks.
This has been festering away for years now because Russian involvement essentially gave Syria a free pass - Russia was supposed to confirm the destruction of Syria's CWs, and now we know they've been a totally dishonest broker the whole time.
That's a "round up the usual suspects" policy which I can't endorse. The fact is, we have enough evidence without relying on it
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Oh FFS. I’m waiting for the apology from the Italians for 43AD, the French for 1066 ( or were they Norwegians?), and everyone in England, all 55 million of them can piss off because it’s all stolen from Wales.
As I said, I am not too fussed about it, just puzzled why the 52 would want to join an organization to celebrate the relationship by holding games even more boring than the Olympics every however many years it is. Stockholm syndrome?
I agree about the Commonwealth games. Bit pointless really.
I don't understand the issue some have with the games. I don't entirely get why all the members still exist in the Commonwealth, sure, but while it does, the games are just an excuse for another tournament and some medals, and gets at least some more coverage than world championships and the like. I don't think there's a need to have much excuse to hold sporting events.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
Not watched it, just assumed it was about that dolt that wants The Simpsons to drop Apu.
It is about more than that, I thought it was quite a funny take on some of the more nonsensical historical blaming.
Indeed, very perceptive. Maher is very good at telling his audience to grow up where it’s necessary.
Not really on point though. He is on about taking people to task for commiting pretendy offences like cultural appropriation and transphobia before the offences were invented, whereas stuff like theft, murder and enslavement were pretty generally deprecated at the time we were commiting them in the spirit of empire building.
I'd say it is up to the Commonwealth to decide who should be its next head.
I think constant apologising for past misdeeds is where you end up if you start going down that route, but stats have made formal apologies before, though I think it is of dubious usefulness. You cannot apologise for slavery for instance. You cannot even really make up for it, even if everyone was at it at one stage or another. All you can do is stop it and take steps to stop others doing it, being an example moving forward. I'm not sure apologising helps that one way or another when it comes to colonialism.
You can accept Corbyn's conclusion without his reasoning. It would immensely strengthen the Commonwealth to have strong leadership elsewhere.
Nahh, they were French. Unless you think Cumbria was Scottish in the same year.
(There's a longstanding conceit that England has existed in the same borders since English unification in the 900's. But Cumberland didn't break away from Scotland until 1092).
I'd say it is up to the Commonwealth to decide who should be its next head.
I think constant apologising for past misdeeds is where you end up if you start going down that route, but stats have made formal apologies before, though I think it is of dubious usefulness. You cannot apologise for slavery for instance. You cannot even really make up for it, even if everyone was at it at one stage or another. All you can do is stop it and take steps to stop others doing it, being an example moving forward. I'm not sure apologising helps that one way or another when it comes to colonialism.
You can accept Corbyn's conclusion without his reasoning. It would immensely strengthen the Commonwealth to have strong leadership elsewhere.
Maybe. I don't feel strongly about who is its head one way or another, and if they want to rotate it, or have a single person for a term or whatever, I don't mind. If it wants to disband, I don't mind. If they decide, after what I am sure will be British diplomatic efforts, for Charles to be the head, that's up to them, as is any alternative.
I've gone from 99.9% "certainty" that it was the Russian State to a 90% "highly likely" position because of new information about availability and other motives. Perhaps Corbyn has made the same journey.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
But surely we must accept clandestine matters like this can never be proven with 'incontrovertible' evidence? It's an unreasonable standard.
Let's say someone was found, a known agent of Russia, who we caught putting Novichok on Mr Skripal's front door - Russia would, presumably, claim that the man had gone rogue and they had nothing to do with it. That would be preposterous, but it's technically a possibility, and would we be able to prove he hadn't gone rogue 'incontrovertibly'?
Element of doubt I get, but Corbyn is a professional politician, and he's been leader long enough to know decision making involves making judgement calls, and that you simply cannot prove things 100% all of the time, in fact you cannot do it most of the time.
It's reasonable for lowly mortals to be less definitive, since we are not provided with all he is (even if he is not shown all there is), but at some point I think Corbyn has to make judgement calls and not demand total proof which cannot be forthcoming - in a complex investigation, what standard of proof is reasonable here?
Foxy would defend Corbyn previously by saying his position was the same as the government's, give or take, but clearly that is not the case any longer, and that does lead to the question of what is reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How much can these things be proven, and even if it is only 90% likely, is it reasonable to equivocate based on that 10% doubt?
I struggle to see that it is, personally, and I feel like I have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Indeed. Demanding incontrovertible proof is just encouraging others to commit immoral actions and then muddy the waters. Politicians should evaluate the evidence, but requiring perfect proof is naive.
This is true, OTOH if you genuinely suspect a false flag (I haven't looked into this enough to have any idea whether Corbyn does or should) then a response on insufficient evidence is really, really bad, because you're rewarding and motivating the attacker.
This is one of the worrying things about the situation in Syria now: Trump is uninterested in evidence, easily swayed by what he sees on TV, and highly adverse to loss of face. Assad's opponents are losing, and really need to get America to escalate. They'll now be highly motivated to stage a chemical weapons attack and blame it on Assad, even if Assad was responsible for everything to date.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Oh FFS. I’m waiting for the apology from the Italians for 43AD, the French for 1066 ( or were they Norwegians?), and everyone in England, all 55 million of them can piss off because it’s all stolen from Wales.
As I said, I am not too fussed about it, just puzzled why the 52 would want to join an organization to celebrate the relationship by holding games even more boring than the Olympics every however many years it is. Stockholm syndrome?
I agree about the Commonwealth games. Bit pointless really.
I don't understand the issue some have with the games. I don't entirely get why all the members still exist in the Commonwealth, sure, but while it does, the games are just an excuse for another tournament and some medals, and gets at least some more coverage than world championships and the like. I don't think there's a need to have much excuse to hold sporting events.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.
While I quite like Last Week Tonight, John Oliver is totally predictable in his views / the shows take on issues and it always remains comfortably inside the soft progressive bubble.
I like Bill Maher because he isn't afraid to stand up and say to "his own side", this is utter horse shit, look how ridiculous / dangerous / hypocritical it is.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.
While I quite like Last Week Tonight, John Oliver is totally predictable in his views / the shows take on issues and it always remains comfortably inside the soft progressive bubble.
I like Bill Maher because he isn't afraid to stand up and say to "his own side", this is utter horse shit, look how ridiculous / dangerous / hypocritical it is.
In my eyes dissing John Oliver is like admitting you like pineapple on pizza.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.
I like the commonwealth games,it was a chance before lottery funding for our British competitors to win some medals ;-)
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Oh FFS. I’m waiting for the apology from the Italians for 43AD, the French for 1066 ( or were they Norwegians?), and everyone in England, all 55 million of them can piss off because it’s all stolen from Wales.
As I said, I am not too fussed about it, just puzzled why the 52 would want to join an organization to celebrate the relationship by holding games even more boring than the Olympics every however many years it is. Stockholm syndrome?
It is a bit strange. It’s like a rapist having all his past victims round for board games.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.
While I quite like Last Week Tonight, John Oliver is totally predictable in his views / the shows take on issues and is always remains comfortably inside the soft progressive bubble.
I like Bill Maher because he isn't afraid to stand up and say to "his own side", this is utter horse shit, look how ridiculous / dangerous / hypocritical it is.
He can go indepth and challenging on some oft ignored topics, but while I'm as socially liberal as any, it is very noticable that when he moves on to election topics in particular that he does not apply the same rigour as on other topics. He did a piece on the Italian elections only looking superficially at Berlusconi's awfulness, focusing on the Northern League's horribleness, but didn't even get into what the situation was with Renzi and why people were not going for him, simply describing him as a centrist. I don;'t know much about Italian politics, it would have been good to know why they were contemplating, and did, vote for some leaders who are the not the sort I would like. On another occasion he did a brief bit on the Lord Sewell scandal, and offhandidly talked about how the HoL does nothing, and should be gotten rid of. A reasonable position to hold, but since when does it do nothing, and why would the failings of a single member prove anything about it at all, But since it is a topic I doubt the american audience care about, he can just state it.
It's a shame, as I find him very very funny, and I certainly don't like Trump so him being obsessed about the man is not a bother, and his having a stance is not a problem, but he can be lazy sometimes.
I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.
Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.
While I quite like Last Week Tonight, John Oliver is totally predictable in his views / the shows take on issues and it always remains comfortably inside the soft progressive bubble.
I like Bill Maher because he isn't afraid to stand up and say to "his own side", this is utter horse shit, look how ridiculous / dangerous / hypocritical it is.
In my eyes dissing John Oliver is like admitting you like pineapple on pizza.
I don't do either - he's flawed, but very funny. But the flaws can be serious sometimes.
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
I agree with Jez, make someone like Prince Harry or the Duke of Cambridge the head of the Commonwealth.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
He doesn't want Harry or another Royal though. He wants us to apologize for everything under the sun done...which reminds me of this.
To be fair we did deprive quite a lot of people of their own countries by force and/or fraud, murdering or enslaving millions in the process. I can't say I lose too much sleep over this, but I am not sure that Jez's position is untenable. I would certainly be pretty peeved if I came from one of the 52 victim nations rather than the single aggressor.
Does Corbyn think one of the 37(?) Commonwealth countries where homosexuality is illegal should get a turn?
Comments
He's seen the evidence and it isn't as convincing as we've been led to believe?
2. Would she though? We know for a fact that the exact same debate could happen, he could sit there looking angry and pouty as a member of his own party advocates a different policy to him...and there would be no long term impact whatsoever. Both sides would grandstand, and there would be no political gain.
3. Maybe it would have been a good idea, maybe. But it is not a requirement to do it, so I simply cannot agree it was a failure of leadership. Nor does it show an unwillingness to defend the intervention, only an unwillingness to hold a parliamentary debate beforehand which is not necessary in procedure or law. She has defended it, and will defend it in parliament no doubt. The question is whether she could or should have done so in advance. As I say, possibly, but if it was a failure to not do so beforehand, why was it ever permitted and still permitted to not do so?
The biggest issue is whether this action will achieve anything, not the constitutional procedure used. If it achieves nothing, frankly does it matter about the procedure. I fear it will achieve nothing.
He is seemingly changing his position, he needs to justify that change in position, as any politician needs to when they alter their stance. Are we to believe Corbyn, super cautious Corbyn, decided the very early evidence was compelling enough to state likely Russian culpability, but that is no longer the case.
In that case the question is why did he not wait to declare Russian culpability a month ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43414185
This isn't a case of someone being skeptical all along the way. He said he accepted the evidence, now he does not apparently.
I said a few months back , I think the voters in my lifetime , as a whole , at General Elections have some how got the correct result.Even if I personally did not agree with it.
So SC will do nothing during Corbyn's term.
What do we know?
1. It was a Russian developed nerve agent.
2. The OPCW confirms that.
3. The attack was targetting a Russian "defector".
4. It was delivered by a means that Russia developed and practices.
5. There seems to be some relevant signals intelligence about delivery.
6. Russia has not come up with a logical alternative explanation, but instead several dozen fanciful explanations.
You have to jump through a whole series of hoops to come up with an explanation that doesn't involve Russia.
Corbyn's viewpoint requires him to discount everything our goverment has said as being wrong/lies, AND to believe Russia even though they are the most probable culprit and have a history of similar attacks.
There's nothing logical about what Corbyn is doing. He is choosing to believe Russia because Russia shares Corbyn's long held anti-Western views.
Frankly Corbyn is a fucking nutcase, as well as a danger to this country and its people.
His position seems to be that he won't categorically blame Russia (even if he continues to think it is "highly likely" ) without incontrovertible evidence.
Are you sure you're not just swallowing the Russian line? Remember, people made right idiots of themselves by swallowing the Russian lines over MH17, yet few outside the hardcore conspiracy theorists believe any of those lines now.
Beware of going on a similar journey.
Corbyn is effectively the agent of a foreign power. If he wins an election, our whole foreign policy, military and intelligence apparatus will be subject to the veto of a dictatorship that tramples over human rights at home and is happy to make wars of annexation abroad.
Decent people should do all they can to stop him.
Let's say someone was found, a known agent of Russia, who we caught putting Novichok on Mr Skripal's front door - Russia would, presumably, claim that the man had gone rogue and they had nothing to do with it. That would be preposterous, but it's technically a possibility, and would we be able to prove he hadn't gone rogue 'incontrovertibly'?
Element of doubt I get, but Corbyn is a professional politician, and he's been leader long enough to know decision making involves making judgement calls, and that you simply cannot prove things 100% all of the time, in fact you cannot do it most of the time.
It's reasonable for lowly mortals to be less definitive, since we are not provided with all he is (even if he is not shown all there is), but at some point I think Corbyn has to make judgement calls and not demand total proof which cannot be forthcoming - in a complex investigation, what standard of proof is reasonable here?
Foxy would defend Corbyn previously by saying his position was the same as the government's, give or take, but clearly that is not the case any longer, and that does lead to the question of what is reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How much can these things be proven, and even if it is only 90% likely, is it reasonable to equivocate based on that 10% doubt?
I struggle to see that it is, personally, and I feel like I have been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43755789
And this is what they will release to the public. Given Boris was absolutely explicit that it was Putin who ordered it and nobody from the PM office countered that in anyway, I am going to guess they have a lot more proof.
Yes Boris can be a plonker and say stuff he shouldn't, but the PM spokespeople are then all over it to say Boris being Boris, not our position. That isn't what they did in this case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5617701/Prince-Charles-NOT-head-Commonwealth-insists-Corbyn.html
The more Jezza open his mouth the more certain I am I made the right decision to vote for the baby eaters for the first last year and will do so again next time around.
If World War One had not started when it had, it would have started later: perhaps a year, perhaps two or three. There was just too much greed and too little understanding between the major powers. This was made worse by an utter lack of understanding of the modern weapons they had developed over the previous couple of decades.
Harry in particular will only enhance the popularity of the Commonwealth.
Way too many people are confusing popularity/support for the Queen for support for the Commonwealth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugLbotr1RuQ
The remains of David Buckel, 60, were found in Prospect Park in Brooklyn.
In a suicide note found nearby, Mr Buckel wrote that he had immolated himself using fossil fuel to symbolise what he said was the damage human beings were doing to the Earth.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43773650
https://www.axios.com/russian-bots-increase-2195bf68-567c-4466-a705-17e69d4b6cad.html
Trump seems to have lost a lot of his supporters too. Strange that.
I’m still waiting for Jezza to call for an apology for the Holodomor....
During Gulf War II, the UK and US tried to get a new resolution to impose a deadline on resolution 1441. That would have by extension authorised armed action against Iraq for noncompliance. France said it would veto that new resolution and so no vote was taken on it. That action is one of the reasons why France is (inaccurately IMHO) regarded as insufficiently martial in the Anglosphere. It is also the reason why Gulf War II is referred to (again, inaccurately IMHO) as an illegal war, as no UN resolution was passed in support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/2812811.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
It maybe a controversial thread.
I think constant apologising for past misdeeds is where you end up if you start going down that route, but stats have made formal apologies before, though I think it is of dubious usefulness. You cannot apologise for slavery for instance. You cannot even really make up for it, even if everyone was at it at one stage or another. All you can do is stop it and take steps to stop others doing it, being an example moving forward. I'm not sure apologising helps that one way or another when it comes to colonialism.
This has been festering away for years now because Russian involvement essentially gave Syria a free pass - Russia was supposed to confirm the destruction of Syria's CWs, and now we know they've been a totally dishonest broker the whole time.
(There's a longstanding conceit that England has existed in the same borders since English unification in the 900's. But Cumberland didn't break away from Scotland until 1092).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria#History
This is one of the worrying things about the situation in Syria now: Trump is uninterested in evidence, easily swayed by what he sees on TV, and highly adverse to loss of face. Assad's opponents are losing, and really need to get America to escalate. They'll now be highly motivated to stage a chemical weapons attack and blame it on Assad, even if Assad was responsible for everything to date.
I like Bill Maher because he isn't afraid to stand up and say to "his own side", this is utter horse shit, look how ridiculous / dangerous / hypocritical it is.
Well done Australia on a great games.
It's a shame, as I find him very very funny, and I certainly don't like Trump so him being obsessed about the man is not a bother, and his having a stance is not a problem, but he can be lazy sometimes.
NEW THREAD