The Citizens are Orange Book LDs in UK terms, certainly very close to Clegg's LDs
If that. Cs are the Danny Alexanders of Spanish politics, basically Thatcherites who've fallen into centrist politics through circumstance (in this case, appealing to the Catalonian electorate). I think even Clegg would find them too right-wing. They have very little in common with today's LibDems apart from ALDE membership.
If memory serves the BBC piece on the upcoming election referring to them as right wing, when I am sure they were always called centrist in such reports previously, so either they've shifted a bit or the analysis of them has caught up to your thinking on them.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
That remains to be seen. Last week and before there was talk the dishonestname vote crowd were basically giving up, but speculation as to it being a way out seems to be cropping up again, from Mr Herdson and others.
May will have passed a deal through commons by then.
People have actually gone on record saying they have changed their minds and will back it now, have they? Or is this just more speculation that of course people will do so if x happens, because otherwise it would be crazy? That is, the same talk that has gone on for the better part of a year with no evidence it has ever been true?
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
Civil war is terrible. In order to save yourself, and those you care about, you have to side with despicable people. Franco's soldiers committed revolting crimes, that went far beyond the needs of war.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
Tax avoidance is a consequence of Brexit?
It soon will be...
So you yourself are saying it’s nothing to do with Brexit?
One of the consequences of Brexit will be a reduction in tax take as industries relocate to Europe. The obvious place to recoup that is the very wealthy. Their tax advisors would be negligent not to advise them to get their money abroad.
Then, they can safely opine on how Brexit is a "Good Thing" ™ from the safety of their foreign domiciles
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
It would, and should leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth. The only way you can rationalise it is that the alternative would probably have been worse. It's pretty easy to take the moral high ground when your side loses a civil war because you can put in place any counterfactual you want. I've always wondered whether we would view the volunteers in the Spanish Civil War quite so generously had their side won.
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
You'd have been left with a sour taste in your moth no matter which side you picked, I think.
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
France didn't do to badly ignoring the Treaty of Troyes.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
You'd have been left with a sour taste in your moth no matter which side you picked, I think.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
It would, and should leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth. The only way you can rationalise it is that the alternative would probably have been worse. It's pretty easy to take the moral high ground when your side loses a civil war because you can put in place any counterfactual you want. I've always wondered whether we would view the volunteers in the Spanish Civil War quite so generously had their side won.
If the Republicans had won, they would have been just as brutal.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
Tax avoidance is a consequence of Brexit?
It soon will be...
So you yourself are saying it’s nothing to do with Brexit?
One of the consequences of Brexit will be a reduction in tax take as industries relocate to Europe. The obvious place to recoup that is the very wealthy. Their tax advisors would be negligent not to advise them to get their money abroad.
Then, they can safely opine on how Brexit is a "Good Thing" ™ from the safety of their foreign domiciles
Such advice wasn't given before Brexit?
Brexit warnings could not have been given before Brexit existed.
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
Isn't part of their argument already that we've exceeded the treaty in terms of the land built on or something? Otherwise they'd literally have no case to ask for it back at all (since I doubt they want to rely on us not adhering to the provisions on letter Jews and Moors reside there)
Regardless, your question seems very strange. Escape clauses are seemingly being proposed. Whether what might constitute such a clause would be reasonable I don't know, but your question seems like it assumes that such a clause consists of just allowing one side to pull out and that's that.
Love the chain of thought that decides, after the Fascists rebel against the democratically elected government the the Facists were in the right due to the chaos cause by their traitorous actions potentially generating a larger threat.
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
I am only providing the background to Geoffrey Cox's involvement next week at the highest level
I know you do not want a resolution as that would end remain which you have so desperately fought for
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
Isn't part of their argument already that we've exceeded the treaty in terms of the land built on or something? Otherwise they'd literally have no case to ask for it back at all (since I doubt they want to rely on us not adhering to the provisions on letter Jews and Moors reside there)
Regardless, your question seems very strange. Escape clauses are seemingly being proposed. Whether what might constitute such a clause would be reasonable I don't know, but your question seems like it assumes that such a clause consists of just allowing one side to pull out and that's that.
I'm afraid we do allow Jews and people of colour to reside in Gibraltar.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the 1970s Chile had inflation of up to 140% per year under Allende which was also pursuing price controls and nationalisation without compensation. Pinochet ultimately liberalised the economy, privatized state owned industries and stabilised inflation
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
Isn't part of their argument already that we've exceeded the treaty in terms of the land built on or something? Otherwise they'd literally have no case to ask for it back at all (since I doubt they want to rely on us not adhering to the provisions on letter Jews and Moors reside there)
Regardless, your question seems very strange. Escape clauses are seemingly being proposed. Whether what might constitute such a clause would be reasonable I don't know, but your question seems like it assumes that such a clause consists of just allowing one side to pull out and that's that.
I'm afraid we do allow Jews and people of colour to reside in Gibraltar.
So, we are in breach of the treaty.
Yes, but I cannot say I would expect them to argue a breach on that basis, no matter how true.
Next week could be pivotal in this mess. Macron has conceded no International treaty is valid without escape clauses and he and the EU are going to discuss this at the highest levels and involve Attorney General Cox
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
Hmm, so should Spain be able to pull out of the Treaty of Utrecht and take back Gibraltar?
Isn't part of their argument already that we've exceeded the treaty in terms of the land built on or something? Otherwise they'd literally have no case to ask for it back at all (since I doubt they want to rely on us not adhering to the provisions on letter Jews and Moors reside there)
Regardless, your question seems very strange. Escape clauses are seemingly being proposed. Whether what might constitute such a clause would be reasonable I don't know, but your question seems like it assumes that such a clause consists of just allowing one side to pull out and that's that.
I'm afraid we do allow Jews and people of colour to reside in Gibraltar.
So, we are in breach of the treaty.
Yes, but I cannot say I would expect them to argue a breach on that basis, no matter how true.
I would not be surprised if they took a very literal interpretation of it.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the 1970s Chile had inflation of up to 140% per year under Allende which was also pursuing price controls and nationalisation without compensation. Pinochet ultimately liberalised the economy, privatized state owned industries and stabilised inflation
I am afraid that is no response. It doesn't matter what he did with regard to the economy. It is no excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents. There is no point liberalising an economy if you de-liberalise the Government at the same time. Pinochet was a dictator and no amount of economic reform can compensate for that.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the 1970s Chile had inflation of up to 140% per year under Allende which was also pursuing price controls and nationalisation without compensation. Pinochet ultimately liberalised the economy, privatized state owned industries and stabilised inflation
I am afraid that is no response. It doesn't matter what he did with regard to the economy. It is no excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents. There is no point liberalising an economy if you de-liberalise the Government at the same time. Pinochet was a dictator and no amount of economic reform can compensate for that.
I never said it was an excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents but the fact remains Chile was heading for the status of an economic basket case until Pinochet took over
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
A small bunch of leaders - Vote Leave, ERG, Farage, Dyson, JRM etc
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the 1970s Chile had inflation of up to 140% per year under Allende which was also pursuing price controls and nationalisation without compensation. Pinochet ultimately liberalised the economy, privatized state owned industries and stabilised inflation
Allende was not the best leader. However, he was democratically elected, was not personally corrupt, and was implementing the manifesto he freely and fairly won on. He gave his life too. Pinochet, by contrast, engaged in a violent coup, which overturned decades of democratic rule. Enriched himself, his cronies and acolytes, murdered tens of thousands, after torturing them brutally, and sent millions into exile. Never stood for, let alone won an election. But that's OK cos he privatised stuff and brought inflation down. The ends justify the means.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
A small bunch of leaders - Vote Leave, ERG, Farage, Dyson, JRM etc
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
Fuck this
Good night!
I agree with you Beverly. We are in this mess because a handful of well heeled asshholes decided to have a bit of fun and made millions in the process, and will keep making millions while the rest of us suffer, if this Brexit nonsense continues.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
If one was a middle class or Catholic Spaniard, in 1936, there was not much choice, but to support the Nationalists. That's the logic of civil war. You pick the side that won't kill you.
Though it'd leave a pretty sour taste in the mouth that the side that you'd picked executed hundreds of thousands of your fellow countryman, or it should anyway.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
You'd have been left with a sour taste in your moth no matter which side you picked, I think.
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the 1970s Chile had inflation of up to 140% per year under Allende which was also pursuing price controls and nationalisation without compensation. Pinochet ultimately liberalised the economy, privatized state owned industries and stabilised inflation
I am afraid that is no response. It doesn't matter what he did with regard to the economy. It is no excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents. There is no point liberalising an economy if you de-liberalise the Government at the same time. Pinochet was a dictator and no amount of economic reform can compensate for that.
I never said it was an excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents but the fact remains Chile was heading for the status of an economic basket case until Pinochet took over
I kind of view that statement in the same vein as 'Hitler made the Trains run on time'. Okay the scales are hugely different but in the end it still comes down to excusing murder. Once we have established that he was indeed a murderous dictator any other positive things he might have done become moot.
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
A small bunch of leaders - Vote Leave, ERG, Farage, Dyson, JRM etc
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the 1970s Chile had inflation of up to 140% per year under Allende which was also pursuing price controls and nationalisation without compensation. Pinochet ultimately liberalised the economy, privatized state owned industries and stabilised inflation
Allende was not the best leader. However, he was democratically elected, was not personally corrupt, and was implementing the manifesto he freely and fairly won on. He gave his life too. Pinochet, by contrast, engaged in a violent coup, which overturned decades of democratic rule. Enriched himself, his cronies and acolytes, murdered tens of thousands, after torturing them brutally, and sent millions into exile. Never stood for, let alone won an election. But that's OK cos he privatised stuff and brought inflation down. The ends justify the means.
Allende was a Marxist who was actually elected by the Chilean Congress as in a run-off as no candidate won the first round. He took his own life.
Pinochet's regime could be brutal admittedly but he helped reverse the damaging economic policies of Allende and ultimately enabled a more prosperous Chile and of course his rule was endorsed by 2/3 of voters in a 1980 referendum and he stood down for a democratically elected President in 1990
Vox, for those who think that Franco was a bit of a hand-wringing liberal.
I'm oddly fond of Franco. Yes, he was a brutal, nasty, narcissistic, bigoted, murderous wanker, but he managed to keep Spain out of World War Two, he saved Spain from Stalinist communism (which was what they were looking at, not liberal democracy, as Orwell belatedly realised) and then he voluntarily turned Spain over to monarchy, which turned into liberal democracy.
He is very reminiscent of Pinochet. A tyrant in himself, who in the end was better for his country than the alternative.
e.g. Ask Chileans about Pinochet now, and you see the dissonance. They know he was a ruthless c*nt, but they also accept he is one very big reason Chile is, without doubt, the richest, most successful nation in South America, almost uniquely free of the terrible crime, drug wars, etc
Brazilians also hope Bolsonaro will do for them what Pinochet did for Chile and free them from heavy crime and the corruption of the leftist Workers' Party which ruled for over a decade
Chile did not have crime or corruption to any great extent before Pinochet. It always was the liberal, stable democracy of Latin America. Indeed, Pinochet is the only break in its history of democracy. By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
In the on
I am afraid that is no response. It doesn't matter what he did with regard to the economy. It is no excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents. There is no point liberalising an economy if you de-liberalise the Government at the same time. Pinochet was a dictator and no amount of economic reform can compensate for that.
I never said it was an excuse for murdering and imprisoning political opponents but the fact remains Chile was heading for the status of an economic basket case until Pinochet took over
I kind of view that statement in the same vein as 'Hitler made the Trains run on time'. Okay the scales are hugely different but in the end it still comes down to excusing murder. Once we have established that he was indeed a murderous dictator any other positive things he might have done become moot.
Hitler was a corporatist at best not an economic liberal and whatever atrocities Pinochet did commit they were nowhere near the scale of the Holocaust. Even Churchill took a tough line with dissenters from time to time
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
A small bunch of leaders - Vote Leave, ERG, Farage, Dyson, JRM etc
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
Fuck this
Good night!
I agree with you Beverly. We are in this mess because a handful of well heeled asshholes decided to have a bit of fun and made millions in the process, and will keep making millions while the rest of us suffer, if this Brexit nonsense continues.
Remainers have an inexhaustible supply of people to blame for Brexit. It never seems to get round to them, failing to put in the hard yards to win the argument.
Allende was a Marxist who was actually elected by the Chilean Congress as in a run-off as no candidate won the first round. He took his own life.
Pinochet's regime could be brutal admittedly but he helped reverse the damaging economic policies of Allende and ultimately enabled a more prosperous Chile and of course his rule was endorsed by 2/3 of voters in a 1980 referendum and he stood down for a democratically elected President in 1990
So. You concede my point. He was democratically elected by the terms of the constitution. He also topped the poll for President, although well short of 50%. Whether he was or wasn't a Marxist is irrelevant. The problems of the Chilean economy preceded him, or he never would have won, although he didn't admittedly help. Neither did CIA funded transport lockouts and strikes or over reliance on a rapidly falling copper price. If you believe the 1980 referendum was free and fair then that is your choice. The Pinochet regime say he took his own life. He died in the Presidential Palace with a gun in his hand. That much is true. Not in a millionaires retirement home. Interestingly, Chile is a frightening example of how a stable, longstanding democracy can fall into turmoil very quickly and brutally.
Allende was a Marxist who was actually elected by the Chilean Congress as in a run-off as no candidate won the first round. He took his own life.
Pinochet's regime could be brutal admittedly but he helped reverse the damaging economic policies of Allende and ultimately enabled a more prosperous Chile and of course his rule was endorsed by 2/3 of voters in a 1980 referendum and he stood down for a democratically elected President in 1990
So. You concede my point. He was democratically elected by the terms of the constitution. He also topped the poll for President, although well short of 50%. Whether he was or wasn't a Marxist is irrelevant. The problems of the Chilean economy preceded him, or he never would have won, although he didn't admittedly help. Neither did CIA funded transport lockouts and strikes or over reliance on a rapidly falling copper price. If you believe the 1980 referendum was free and fair then that is your choice. The Pinochet regime say he took his own life. He died in the Presidential Palace with a gun in his hand. That much is true. Not in a millionaires retirement home. Interestingly, Chile is a frightening example of how a stable, longstanding democracy can fall into turmoil very quickly and brutally.
Of course whether he was a Marxist was relevant as his economic policies were so abysmal they were leading to soaring inflation at huge cost to the majority of Chileans and especially the elderly and leading it to become a basketcase economy. Chile under Allende was no means prosperous and stable
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
A small bunch of leaders - Vote Leave, ERG, Farage, Dyson, JRM etc
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
Fuck this
Good night!
I agree with you Beverly. We are in this mess because a handful of well heeled asshholes decided to have a bit of fun and made millions in the process, and will keep making millions while the rest of us suffer, if this Brexit nonsense continues.
Remainers have an inexhaustible supply of people to blame for Brexit. It never seems to get round to them, failing to put in the hard yards to win the argument.
It's a fair point, but I have to say that if you were looking for somebody to blame for Britons voting Leave, then "Britons who voted Leave" would be a good place to start...
My God, the mainstream Left is pathetic. They can't even put up a decent fight against someone evangelising the virtues of Franco and Pinochet.
They have lost all moral fibre. This is why they are being thrashed by the insane Trots surrounding Corbyn. The best of them lack all conviction....
The point is that politics has become so extreme that bigging up the likes of Franco seems pretty irrelevant.
I hate Brexit, I hate Trump and I hate Corbyn and his cronies. I'll just keep it at that.
Hey, tyson. Good to see you. Seriously. Hope you flourish, despite it all.
As a quasi-Italian (with an Italian wife??) how do you see the new Italian govt of Five Star and the Northern League? From the outside they appear genuinely popular. The argument with France is extraordinary. What do ordinary Italians think? Genuine question.
As someone who visits Italy a lot, I am surprised by their success. There must be a lot of VERY hacked off Italians that I have never met.
I've noticed many of my Italian friends become suspiciously quiet when anything associated to politics comes up. Salvini is a guilty (and secretive) indulgence to many Italians who were fed up with the migrant crisis and the general state of Italy. Of course it will end up in tears...it always does.
And Seant...this site is always that much more colourful and interesting when you are around posting....
So. Essentially, if a democratically elected government fails some arbitrary @HYUFD test of competence. The only fitting and proper response is torture, executions and dictatorship. Glad to know where we stand. And therefore,The Left is totally morally disarmed. I repent, and throw in the towel. Good night.
Remind us of the friends Jeremy Corbyn had and has
You own it Labour
Maduro, Mao, Castro all admired by and supported by Corbynistas.
Mao of course the biggest mass murderer in human history despite which McDonnell is a great fan of his 'little red book'
Was it not our very own Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, who said Chairman Mao was "on balance" a force for good - despite his being directly responsible for maybe 60 million dead people.
This is why the British Left is now morally disarmed, and increasingly incapable of taking on more extreme right wing opinions. They have allowed their entire movement to be captured by a disgusting, extremist cult, so as soon as they complain about anyone else, they look ludicrous.
Sad.
Yes, especially when you try and take the moral high ground by calling Brexiteers Fascist and Tories austerity imposing killers of the disabled and poor while proclaiming that Mao and Stalin were alright really
Its like they say one thing and do another. Like employing your family...well doing a job swaps with your mates, so your kids go and work for them.
Jesus Christ. Corbyn really is an unending and unjustified year-long Christmas present for idiot Tories. Just when you hate the inept Tories so much you think of abstaining or even defecting, along comes another example of howling Corbynite hypocrisy, fraud and cant, and then you mutter, sullenly, and vote Tory again.
Yes and no....people either won't hear a bad word against the messiah, its all a smear yadda yadda yadda, or (and even more of a problem for the Tories) people want change and Kim Jong May will never even be able to sell anything as change. Not only that, her instinct is always no change.
That is why despite the terrorist sympathising, the antisemitism, not stopping Brexit, Labour are still neck and neck in the polls.
Its like they say one thing and do another. Like employing your family...well doing a job swaps with your mates, so your kids go and work for them.
Nearly half a million is quite a discount. That must help you get on the London property ladder.
Why are the kids of politicians invariably embarrassingly detached from the values of their parents?
Personally, I blame the parents.
Nah he isn't, he is just doing what so many of these "leading" hard lefties have done. I am sure I am right in thinking that a number of the members of a family work for Corbyn, and their parents are multi-millionaire communist party members who part fund their employment.
And obviously Johnny Lansmann, with his massive property empire and the way Maomentum is actually a data collection company.
And we keep finding so many of these hard left campaigners happy to cause massive disruption like breaking into airports are called buxton-symthe and went to posho schools, and then daddy bought them a flat in London.
All those hoping for the authorities to be tough on ISIS members,
A British jihadi bride allowed to return to the UK after joining Islamic State (IS) has escaped prosecution – despite being told by a judge she is too dangerous to raise her daughter.
Described in court documents seen by The Mail on Sunday as an extremist who lied about her views, the woman spent two years living with her husband at the heart of the terror group’s so-called caliphate in Syria.
But this newspaper can reveal she is now at large in East London where it is understood she has been given a council flat at taxpayers’ expense.
She remains at liberty because anti-terror police failed to find enough evidence for a prosecution. Yet during a High Court custody battle, the woman was told she posed a serious threat to her child, who is now living with her grandmother.
So. Essentially, if a democratically elected government fails some arbitrary @HYUFD test of competence. The only fitting and proper response is torture, executions and dictatorship. Glad to know where we stand. And therefore,The Left is totally morally disarmed. I repent, and throw in the towel. Good night.
No, I am not advocating a dictatorship and do not dispute Pinochet committed human rights abuses, I am just saying he saved the Chilean economy from becoming a basketcase
Yet another immensely wealthy Brexit patriot doing all he can to ensure ordinary Brits get no benefit from money he could never hope to spend himself.
The ship is sinking, so the rats are leaving.
The "Useful Idiots" will be along in a minute to tell us that it is nothing to do with Brexit ...
You correctly observed the other day that the tone of this place is deteriorating. Why not buck the trend by not calling other posters idiots for saying something they haven't even said yet?
Perhaps you are unaware of the origin of the term "Useful Idiots"? It was attributed to Lenin as describing those who blindly supported a cause with little understanding of how its dire consequences would ruin their lives.
Could you reword that post to make it sound more patronising and irrelevant, please? Is snidey point - scoring acceptable in the special case where it employs a phrase misattributed to Lenin?
No.
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
Brexit managed to find 17.4m ex-pats and well-off millionaires. Who knew?
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
A small bunch of leaders - Vote Leave, ERG, Farage, Dyson, JRM etc
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
All those hoping for the authorities to be tough on ISIS members,
A British jihadi bride allowed to return to the UK after joining Islamic State (IS) has escaped prosecution – despite being told by a judge she is too dangerous to raise her daughter.
Described in court documents seen by The Mail on Sunday as an extremist who lied about her views, the woman spent two years living with her husband at the heart of the terror group’s so-called caliphate in Syria.
But this newspaper can reveal she is now at large in East London where it is understood she has been given a council flat at taxpayers’ expense.
She remains at liberty because anti-terror police failed to find enough evidence for a prosecution. Yet during a High Court custody battle, the woman was told she posed a serious threat to her child, who is now living with her grandmother.
Hmm. "police failed to find enough evidence for a prosecution". My understanding of the law is that if there's not enough evidence to bring a case, then you should be considered innocent. Or are we sneaking in a "not proven" category, because we don't like her opinions or her choice of husband?
I do think we need to be careful about anyone returning from the ex-caliphate: suspicion, interrogation and monitoring are all perfectly reasonable. But the rule of law in Britain is important to defend from our own worst instincts as well as from ISIS. The law is not only there to protect people like us who read mainstream broadsheets and debate degrees of moderation on PB. It's also there to protect people with unpleasant sympathies (right, left or simply bonkers) who apparently have not actually committed any crimes.
All those hoping for the authorities to be tough on ISIS members,
A British jihadi bride allowed to return to the UK after joining Islamic State (IS) has escaped prosecution – despite being told by a judge she is too dangerous to raise her daughter.
Described in court documents seen by The Mail on Sunday as an extremist who lied about her views, the woman spent two years living with her husband at the heart of the terror group’s so-called caliphate in Syria.
But this newspaper can reveal she is now at large in East London where it is understood she has been given a council flat at taxpayers’ expense.
She remains at liberty because anti-terror police failed to find enough evidence for a prosecution. Yet during a High Court custody battle, the woman was told she posed a serious threat to her child, who is now living with her grandmother.
Hmm. "police failed to find enough evidence for a prosecution". My understanding of the law is that if there's not enough evidence to bring a case, then you should be considered innocent. Or are we sneaking in a "not proven" category, because we don't like her opinions or her choice of husband?
I do think we need to be careful about anyone returning from the ex-caliphate: suspicion, interrogation and monitoring are all perfectly reasonable. But the rule of law in Britain is important to defend from our own worst instincts as well as from ISIS. The law is not only there to protect people like us who read mainstream broadsheets and debate degrees of moderation on PB. It's also there to protect people with unpleasant sympathies (right, left or simply bonkers) who apparently have not actually committed any crimes.
We have discussed this before, it is virtually impossible to have the evidence for prosecution, because you can hardly ring up the ISIS religious police and say could you tell us what this person did for you. And info from the Syrian side, I would imagine any decent lawyer would immediately say it will clearly be unreliable because ....
So unless they are on video doing something murderous, the authorities appear not to even be attempting to prosecute people for being a member of ISIS etc (1 in 10 only have even been charged).
Lets be real here, they didn't just wander into the "caliphate" or just happened to be there on holiday when it all kicked off. They choose to travel to join a terrorist organisation.
What isn't talked about much, the French and Russians have spent the past 2 years sending in special forces with hit lists of those they believe are too dangerous to let them try to travel back to Europe. They have been busy neutralizing their own citizens before they get chance to turn on the waterworks, claim it was a mistake and make their way back.
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
I know who he is, he is the guy who wrote THIS in 1848:
“there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
So, yeah, he is a bit different to "Adam Smith", unless Smith wrote secret tracts advocating mass murder. Did he? I can also see why Marx's pompous, lofty grave might annoy quite a few people, quite a lot, though I really wish they hadn't indulged in this stupid, pointless vandalism, which serves no purpose.
He proposed ten actions among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank. Many of them are orthodoxy today - "we're all Marxists now".
He was naive about human nature, His philosophy, which was progressive and humane, was totally perverted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all the rest. You can't assign the blame for all their deaths to Marx. It's like assigning the deaths of the Inquisition to Jesus Christ.
A political philosopher who is naive about human nature is one who is not really worth listening to.
It is hardly surprising that his followers ended up killing so many when they started from the premise that people needed to be forced to fit a theory rather than that any theory about human societies should start with human beings - with the crooked timber of humanity.
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing is ever made” - Kant.
Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Mao nor Stalin nor Hitler nor any of their many disciples ever understood this. No wonder their hands are steeped in blood.
Its like they say one thing and do another. Like employing your family...well doing a job swaps with your mates, so your kids go and work for them.
I can't quite figure out if this article is pro Labour policy or pro what Corbyn's son is doing.
It looks like an excellent promotion of why Labour policy should be in place, that doesn't seem likely for the Mail. So I assume they are gushing with praise for Corbyn's son business sense whilst complaining that he is hypocritical for supporting a party which wants to end such aspirational opportunities.
So in summary is what Corbyn's son is doing a good thing, whilst hypocritical because it is against Labour policies? or are the Labour policies in this area the right thing and his use of the system a blatant rip off?
Questions that is for our right wingers.
As for the hypocrisy charge itself it reminds me of complaints about Diane sending her kid to private school. Whilst some on the left criticise her for this my take on it is the system exists as it does, you don't have to live against the system whilst trying to change it. You may in fact even hold back your cause by trying to work completely outside of the things you want to change. If you live in a society where private schooling exists and is superior to free schooling then should you actively hold your children back by not sending them to private schooling, when you have the means to do so because you believe in a more equal schooling system?
This is several orders of difference worse, I was going to compare it to a tax cut when you believe in more government spending but it is a bit different to that as it involves actively going out and gaming the system somewhat.
Although as this is all based on a Mail article it is a hypothetical discussion!
TBH I think some people are slightly confused about who Karl Marx is...
A political philosopher who is naive about human nature is one who is not really worth listening to.
It is hardly surprising that his followers ended up killing so many when they started from the premise that people needed to be forced to fit a theory rather than that any theory about human societies should start with human beings - with the crooked timber of humanity.
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing is ever made” - Kant.
Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Mao nor Stalin nor Hitler nor any of their many disciples ever understood this. No wonder their hands are steeped in blood.
You can stick Adam Smith in there with his warped capitalist view and the bloodstained continents it created.
'By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.'
'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.'
A little less self interest, thought of advantages and a bit more benevolence and humanity would have gone a long way on the continents the Europeans ravaged.
Comments
By contrast, Brazil has always been crime ridden and corrupt, whoever has ruled it.
I used to visit Granada quite a bit, the story of Lorca's end always struck me. He was being given shelter by a prominent Falangist artist (who was also almost shot for helping him) in the city when he was rounded up by the Nationalist militia. Civil war is certainly complicated.
May will have passed a deal through commons by then.
People’s vote, the ship that sank in dry dock without going anywhere
It has always seemed strange that an international treaty could bind parties for infinity
I am sitting here watching the country being dragged to the cliff-edge by a bunch of exPats and well-off millionaires who are egged on by enthusiastic followers who will be the ones that get it in the neck when the sh*t hits the fan.
To say I am hugely irritated by the whole idiotic spectacle would be an understatement.
**Rolls_eyes**
Regardless, your question seems very strange. Escape clauses are seemingly being proposed. Whether what might constitute such a clause would be reasonable I don't know, but your question seems like it assumes that such a clause consists of just allowing one side to pull out and that's that.
I know you do not want a resolution as that would end remain which you have so desperately fought for
So, we are in breach of the treaty.
Make your fucking mind up. Last week they were the pig-shit thick poor. So who is it?
Night comrades.
¡No pasarán!
Enthusiatic followers - 17.4m of them.
Is that really so hard to understand? Does it really fucking need your fucking foul fucking language and fucking vitriol?
Fuck this
Good night!
Pinochet, by contrast, engaged in a violent coup, which overturned decades of democratic rule. Enriched himself, his cronies and acolytes, murdered tens of thousands, after torturing them brutally, and sent millions into exile. Never stood for, let alone won an election.
But that's OK cos he privatised stuff and brought inflation down.
The ends justify the means.
You own it, Tories.
Good night again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6712899/Jeremy-Corbyns-secret-link-tormentor-pregnant-Jewish-MP-Luciana-Berger.html
Pinochet's regime could be brutal admittedly but he helped reverse the damaging economic policies of Allende and ultimately enabled a more prosperous Chile and of course his rule was endorsed by 2/3 of voters in a 1980 referendum and he stood down for a democratically elected President in 1990
Not very edifying tonight
Have a good nights rest folks
Good night
I learn something new every day.
You own it Labour
Mao of course the biggest mass murderer in human history despite which McDonnell is a great fan of his 'little red book'
I hate Brexit, I hate Trump and I hate Corbyn and his cronies. I'll just keep it at that.
Allende was a Marxist who was actually elected by the Chilean Congress as in a run-off as no candidate won the first round. He took his own life.
Pinochet's regime could be brutal admittedly but he helped reverse the damaging economic policies of Allende and ultimately enabled a more prosperous Chile and of course his rule was endorsed by 2/3 of voters in a 1980 referendum and he stood down for a democratically elected President in 1990
@dixiedean:
So. You concede my point. He was democratically elected by the terms of the constitution. He also topped the poll for President, although well short of 50%. Whether he was or wasn't a Marxist is irrelevant. The problems of the Chilean economy preceded him, or he never would have won, although he didn't admittedly help. Neither did CIA funded transport lockouts and strikes or over reliance on a rapidly falling copper price.
If you believe the 1980 referendum was free and fair then that is your choice.
The Pinochet regime say he took his own life. He died in the Presidential Palace with a gun in his hand. That much is true. Not in a millionaires retirement home.
Interestingly, Chile is a frightening example of how a stable, longstanding democracy can fall into turmoil very quickly and brutally.
So. You concede my point. He was democratically elected by the terms of the constitution. He also topped the poll for President, although well short of 50%. Whether he was or wasn't a Marxist is irrelevant. The problems of the Chilean economy preceded him, or he never would have won, although he didn't admittedly help. Neither did CIA funded transport lockouts and strikes or over reliance on a rapidly falling copper price.
If you believe the 1980 referendum was free and fair then that is your choice.
The Pinochet regime say he took his own life. He died in the Presidential Palace with a gun in his hand. That much is true. Not in a millionaires retirement home.
Interestingly, Chile is a frightening example of how a stable, longstanding democracy can fall into turmoil very quickly and brutally.
Of course whether he was a Marxist was relevant as his economic policies were so abysmal they were leading to soaring inflation at huge cost to the majority of Chileans and especially the elderly and leading it to become a basketcase economy. Chile under Allende was no means prosperous and stable
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713033/Thats-rich-Corbyns-son-Sebastian-rents-ex-council-flat-Airbnb-fat-profit.html
Its like they say one thing and do another. Like employing your family...well doing a job swaps with your mates, so your kids go and work for them.
And Seant...this site is always that much more colourful and interesting when you are around posting....
Glad to know where we stand.
And therefore,The Left is totally morally disarmed. I repent, and throw in the towel.
Good night.
That is why despite the terrorist sympathising, the antisemitism, not stopping Brexit, Labour are still neck and neck in the polls.
Why are the kids of politicians invariably embarrassingly detached from the values of their folks?
Personally, I blame the parents.
And obviously Johnny Lansmann, with his massive property empire and the way Maomentum is actually a data collection company.
And we keep finding so many of these hard left campaigners happy to cause massive disruption like breaking into airports are called buxton-symthe and went to posho schools, and then daddy bought them a flat in London.
A British jihadi bride allowed to return to the UK after joining Islamic State (IS) has escaped prosecution – despite being told by a judge she is too dangerous to raise her daughter.
Described in court documents seen by The Mail on Sunday as an extremist who lied about her views, the woman spent two years living with her husband at the heart of the terror group’s so-called caliphate in Syria.
But this newspaper can reveal she is now at large in East London where it is understood she has been given a council flat at taxpayers’ expense.
She remains at liberty because anti-terror police failed to find enough evidence for a prosecution. Yet during a High Court custody battle, the woman was told she posed a serious threat to her child, who is now living with her grandmother.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713011/Jihadi-bride-let-Britain-dangerous-daughter-faces-no-terror-charges.html
Just another night on PB then?
I do think we need to be careful about anyone returning from the ex-caliphate: suspicion, interrogation and monitoring are all perfectly reasonable. But the rule of law in Britain is important to defend from our own worst instincts as well as from ISIS. The law is not only there to protect people like us who read mainstream broadsheets and debate degrees of moderation on PB. It's also there to protect people with unpleasant sympathies (right, left or simply bonkers) who apparently have not actually committed any crimes.
So unless they are on video doing something murderous, the authorities appear not to even be attempting to prosecute people for being a member of ISIS etc (1 in 10 only have even been charged).
Lets be real here, they didn't just wander into the "caliphate" or just happened to be there on holiday when it all kicked off. They choose to travel to join a terrorist organisation.
It is hardly surprising that his followers ended up killing so many when they started from the premise that people needed to be forced to fit a theory rather than that any theory about human societies should start with human beings - with the crooked timber of humanity.
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing is ever made” - Kant.
Neither Marx nor Lenin nor Mao nor Stalin nor Hitler nor any of their many disciples ever understood this. No wonder their hands are steeped in blood.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/16/800-jihadists-wreak-havoc-britain-does-not-take-back-fighters/
It looks like an excellent promotion of why Labour policy should be in place, that doesn't seem likely for the Mail. So I assume they are gushing with praise for Corbyn's son business sense whilst complaining that he is hypocritical for supporting a party which wants to end such aspirational opportunities.
So in summary is what Corbyn's son is doing a good thing, whilst hypocritical because it is against Labour policies? or are the Labour policies in this area the right thing and his use of the system a blatant rip off?
Questions that is for our right wingers.
As for the hypocrisy charge itself it reminds me of complaints about Diane sending her kid to private school. Whilst some on the left criticise her for this my take on it is the system exists as it does, you don't have to live against the system whilst trying to change it. You may in fact even hold back your cause by trying to work completely outside of the things you want to change. If you live in a society where private schooling exists and is superior to free schooling then should you actively hold your children back by not sending them to private schooling, when you have the means to do so because you believe in a more equal schooling system?
This is several orders of difference worse, I was going to compare it to a tax cut when you believe in more government spending but it is a bit different to that as it involves actively going out and gaming the system somewhat.
Although as this is all based on a Mail article it is a hypothetical discussion!
'By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.'
'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.'
A little less self interest, thought of advantages and a bit more benevolence and humanity would have gone a long way on the continents the Europeans ravaged.
Where will Labour be without such a classy bloke?! Good riddance.