PlatoSaid said:

Electoral Commission
We have published details of around £4.5 million in donations and loans to
registered campaigners at the EU Ref: https://t.co/cvdFTAYbov

Muslims for GB- Leave £10,000.

Interesting. Never heard of them.

Best line of the day so far goes to Mark Durkin, SDLP, "this is not a day for soundbites, but doesn't the Prime Minister think that today the hand of history should be feeling somebody's collar?"

Indigo said:

SouthamObserver said:

https://twitter.com/thenickleeson/status/750392429807796224

Possibly Leason could point us to the referendum that authorised his losing that 862m

Leeson and Tony Blair were remainers? Wonderful endorsements.

nunu said:

PlatoSaid said:

Electoral Commission
We have published details of around £4.5 million in donations and loans to
registered campaigners at the EU Ref: https://t.co/cvdFTAYbov

Muslims for GB- Leave £10,000.

Interesting. Never heard of them.

ConservativesIn- only £84,000.

MarqueeMark said:

SouthamObserver said:

I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.

Fair point. The Falklands had arguably lost Labour power in the previous decade. It was still a raw wound.

But that just makes Blair's actions all the worse - acting for naked party advantage.

I think it was more personal than that. Recall who was Labour's candidate in the Beaconsfield bye election in May 1982....

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Jobabob said:

You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.

Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite

Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.

Indeed but Eagle could be Howard to Umunna's Cameron, Labour needs an experienced hand to get an honourable defeat at the next election they have no chance for victory until the election after next due to the Corbyn shambles

Ed Miliband would be good for that role. Except he was monstered by the Murdoch press and not sure Labour want to step back to him. I rate him ALOT higher than his brother, mind.

Ed Miliband was trounced in 2015, I don't think Labour going backing to the electorate and asking them to reconsider him would be met with anything other than a repeat result, it would be like Hague rather than Howard leading the Tories again in 2005

In an alternate universe, Hague aged 44 in 2005 would have been a good choice for Tory leader, in the way that Hague aged 36 in 1997 certainly wasn't.

The British public have given their opinion of Ed Miliband once, asking them again will give only an amplified version of the same result.

But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.

I remember thinking at the time, Blair has a strong hand here. Britain was America's only friend in 2003, and if we'd walked away they would have been in very serious do-do.

And yet when Blair saw the Whitehouse, he just melted.

Stark_Dawning said:

SouthamObserver said:

I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.

Good point. I remember Tone sounding chuffed to blazes when he spoke about his relationship with George W, and he could barely stop himself gloating about how jealous it made the Tories.

Up to a point. What people tend to forget is that by then we'd already had half a dozen or so military interventions, most of which were successful on their own terms. Sierra Leone springs to mind. These must have played a part in the Prime Minister's thinking.

DavidL said:

PlatoSaid said:

Brutal from RNC

https://youtu.be/O0vHZqVn-io

Ouch. That really should hurt. She is very fortunate not to have been charged.

If she weren't facing Trump, she'd be struggling to get 100 EC votes. Damning doesn't begin to cover it.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

BannedInParis said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Jobabob said:

You'd have to think that Chuka might now be a decent outside bet for the leadership. He was only 25 years of age when the Iraq War kicked off in 2003, and did not come to Parliament until 2010.

Agreed, Chuka opposed the Iraq War at the time but otherwise is basically a Blairite

Not the best - but A FAR FAR better choice than Angela Eagle.

Except for the dog in a man suit business.

I hope Chuka is able to move beyond his personal issues and (re)gain the composure needed to challenge for the leadership effectively.

What are these "issues" that people mention??

Sandpit said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

DavidL said:

PlatoSaid said:

Brutal from RNC

https://youtu.be/O0vHZqVn-io

Ouch. That really should hurt. She is very fortunate not to have been charged.

Careless Hillary!

That's not the word I'd use. It's not going to be the word Republicans use for the next four months either.

Just using the word the FBI used.

Blair live now ....

SouthamObserver said:

I can't help thinking that part of Blair's enthusiasm for war was that he saw it as another step in the rebranding of the Labour party. Talking and acting tough in foreign policy was seen as a way of dispelling any doubts that voters may have had about the party's stomach for a fight. After years of unilateralism and accusations of being soft on Europe, Iraq was - on one level - seen as an opportunity. And to do it with a Republican president was even better. This was supposed to be about Labour being willing to move out of a traditional comfort zone.

I don't think the tail wagged the dog in that particular respect, though I'm sure it was one more plus point for Blair.

I read the dossier in full at the time and, far from being sexed up, I remember feeling the technical detail on Iraq's known capabilities by the point was so generic that you might equally well have accused Aston University of having weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, I felt from the start that the true reason for going to war was hidden but, as a mere voter, I reserved judgement and gave the benefit of the doubt as to the real reasons and did not actively oppose the action. I hope I would have followed up some more on the detail has I been in any way involved in a position of responsibility.

My pet theories at the time were twofold - that the government had been so spooked by the Fuel Price Protests in 2000, and the possibility the UK could be brought to a standstill, that more active management of oil supply plus toppling Saddam (and doing it well) was irresistible; or that the UK had some idea that Uday or Qusay's ideas were so much more pro-actively anti-Western that succession could not be contemplated. No evidence ever came to light for the second, but I'm sure the first was a factor.

SeanT said:

PlatoSaid said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeanT said:

SirBenjamin said:

John_N4 said:

snip

Am I the only person that actually really liked the Millennium Dome?

For years I accepted the received wisdom that it would be/was crap and didn't really think much about it,

Then on 30 December 2000 I had a chance to finally visit the place on a free ticket... and I thought it was great! A whole raft of thought-provoking concepts made accessible through good
The great folly of the Dome was putting a time restriction on it. It should've been left as a monument, a living
What do we have now? The most soulless indoor arena in the world? (And the demolition of the far nicer London Arena at its expense).

Long live the Dome!

The inned to a wall, describing different religions. One of them went like this: "Jesus Christ was the son of a carpenter, who died tragically young".

Shame the Tories didn't get to do it.

They should have simply made it a huge auditorium from the start, done an 'Edinburgh Royal Military Tattoo' in there for a couple of months - helicoptors, brass bands, pyrotechnics, acrobatics - sold a shitload of tickets, then sold it on as the arena it is now for a huge sum.

That Dome was a huge warning about how craptacular New Labour really were.

One of my BFFs was on the Dome delivery team for BT - one of the big sponsors. His reports from the frontline were just soul destroying. All PC nonsense, decision by committee, no organisation, dancing round big issues - like zip content, precious ministers who'd no idea what the point was, bugger all planning or realistic forecasts on ticket sales.

We all felt sorry for him having to endure it. That it was crap was no surprise at all. The best thing was the fire sale of assets at the end. My hubby bought still boxed PCs, TV screens and other assets for a total song.

To be fair I think people learned from the gross mistakes of the Dome. e.g. don't have big projects designed by effete committees. If you want something persuasive, you have to hand it over to one moody genius, and trust they come up with the goods


Which is what they did with Danny Boyle, at the Olympics - and it worked.

I remember Stephen Bayley saying exactly this when he resigned the board of the Millennium Dome in 1998 - that they should just hand it over to one artist. No one listened to him.

I've been to the Dome three times in its new guise as the O2 Arena:

Twice to see Depeche Mode play (2009 and 2013)
Once to see the ATP Tennis Tour finals (2014).

I think it's been rather successful as an arena/concert venue.

wasd said:

John_M said:

Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.

Or buy a machine.

Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.

You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

taffys said:

''Good point. I remember Tone sounding chuffed to blazes when he spoke about his relationship with George W, and he could barely stop himself gloating about how jealous it made the Tories. ''

I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.

A complete hoe for power.

But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.

What a disaster he was, in all respects.

Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.

A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.

HOUSE OF CHADS!

Blair's close to tears.

Same as he was the other Friday.

Blair intones "my decisions" several times

Cabinet government was indeed dead.

PlatoSaid said:

Jim Pickard
A reminder of where the 9/11 terrorists came from:

Saudi Arabia: 15
UAE: 2
Egypt: 1
Lebanon:1
Iraq: 0

:+1

Sunil_Prasannan said:

PlatoSaid said:

Poor penguins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/07/06/penguins-on-worlds-smelliest-island-in-danger-as-volcano-erupts/

"Zavodovski Island is the most northerly of the South Sandwich Islands, a remote uninhabited archipelago of islands in the Sub Antarctic.

The island is known as the smelliest place on earth because of the sulphuric air which emanates from the volcano. It has features including Stench Point, Acrid Point, Pungent Point, Reek Point and Noxious Bluff."

Noxious Bluff - highly apposite for the central character in today's report?

I wonder if Mount Curry was named by a former Prime Minister?

Why did Ian Austin heckle Corbyn when he was delivering his Chilcot speech ? Of all the times...

The Conservatives can and will do anything for the sake of power.
The Parliamentary Labour party can and will do anything for the sake of pointless grandstanding.

SeanT said:

This is extremely painful viewing. He's squirming, and choking.

Body language is awful too. Would you buy a used car off this man.

MaxPB said:

I think Blair will have to stay in the UK for a while in case some other country gets any ideas about prosecution for war crimes.

He's not going to be seen doing his peace envoy bit or well-remunerated speeches in this part of the world for a while, that's for sure.

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

The European story that isn't going away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

That's a really disgraceful article by the telegraph.

Why is it disgraceful?

SeanT said:

JackW said:

Blair intones "my decisions" several times

Cabinet government was indeed dead.

Has any British prime minister been publicly humiliated like this??

He's fighting for everything here: looks like a man who knows he might go to jail.

Not since Eden over Suez.

Blair's jail will not be one with iron bars at the Hague but the lifetime imprisonment of the contempt of a nation.

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

Blair's close to tears.

Same as he was the other Friday.

Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.

It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.

Pong said:

John_M said:

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

The European story that isn't going away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

That's a really disgraceful article by the telegraph.

Why is it disgraceful?

Seriously?

Seriously. You should know I'm not here to score cheap points.

Federer two sets down against Cilic.

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.

Or buy a machine.

Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.

You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.

Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.

Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.

Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.

Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.

Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.

Is Blair going for Gove's long speech award?

HurstLlama said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.

Or buy a machine.

Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.

You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.

Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.

Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.

Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.

Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.

Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.

The UK is run by accountants Mr L who fail to understand the effects of robotics are cumulative.

The dont go on strike, they produce consistent quality , they can work 24/7, they dont ask for annual pay rises. Over time the 2-3% they give you each year begins to mount up, but FDs looking for 3 year returns prefer cheap labour.

John_M said:

Pong said:

John_M said:

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

The European story that isn't going away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

That's a really disgraceful article by the telegraph.

Why is it disgraceful?

Seriously?

Seriously. You should know I'm not here to score cheap points.

She's a rape victim.

You don't see the problem with the way that article (and particularly the headline) is written?

G - "Blair criticises the modern “addiction” to believing the worst of everyone."


When it came to Blair, they had been right all along.

Alanbrooke said:

HurstLlama said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.

Or buy a machine.

Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.

You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.

Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.

Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.

Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.

Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.

Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.

The UK is run by accountants Mr L who fail to understand the effects of robotics are cumulative.

The dont go on strike, they produce consistent quality , they can work 24/7, they dont ask for annual pay rises. Over time the 2-3% they give you each year begins to mount up, but FDs looking for 3 year returns prefer cheap labour.

They also prefer not to be lynched in the press for job losses.

Sandpit said:

Is Blair going for Gove's long speech award?

It's a plea of mitigation after the court of public opinion has found Blair guilty of conspiring to support the idiot Bush.

HurstLlama said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.

Or buy a machine.

Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.

You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.

Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.

Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.

Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.

Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.

Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.

There was a good example of this discussed here last week. Car washes.

The UK decided some 30 years ago that automated car washes were cheaper and more efficient than hand car washes, yet in the last five years that trend has reversed - purely due to cheap immigrant labour.

SeanT said:

Carolus_Rex said:

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

Blair's close to tears.

Same as he was the other Friday.

Blair could always seem close to tears, whenever he wanted to. He was always a con-man, snake-oil salesman, a charlatan. He would have made a superb actor. The tragedy is he went into politics instead.

It's not as if the report could have surprised him. He's had a draft of it for months and had all that time to prepare for today. So he's doing it on purpose.

Hmm. He looks sincere to me. He's not that good an actor. This is genuine fear and anxiety - and shame.

Don't be such a big girl's blouse, Mr. T., as has already been pointed out he has had advance copies of the report for a long time. A con-man of his skill will have been preparing his response for months. Just showmanship, that is taking you in.

If ever you think about feeling sorry for this man, just remember that for political reasons he stopped the MoD buying the kit that was needed for troops in the invasion. He didn't care that people would die or be maimed because of that decision, only the politics mattered.

HurstLlama said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

wasd said:

John_M said:

Back in the olden days, if you couldn't fill vacancies, you had to make your offer more attractive. Now, you can simply import someone, Grapes of Wrath style.

Or buy a machine.

Post-brexit, if there's no real long term improvement for some I do wonder if we're going to start seeing ludd-sympathising populations in certain areas.

You may be right. You can see why businesses love Freedom of Movement though. They've found a cheap and simple way to bypass the law of supply and demand. The Haves benefited from lower priced...everything, pretty much.

Certainly. But if I were to write a a northern-ukip pitch then going hard at the overseas techno-scabs who designed and built pick-and-place bots (and similar) would be an easy, easy win.

Following up your point. We've spent years fretting about immigration, while all the ingredients for true automation have been accelerating - machine vision, intelligence, mobility and so on. We may have to face a future where we don't need much unskilled or even semi-skilled labour at all.

Enfield have just deployed the first customer services bot (Amelia from IpSoft). Interesting and slightly concerning at the same time.

Mr. M., in recent months I have read numerous articles about the advances being made in robotics (not to mention having my son bend my ear about it every time we talk). There have also been articles about how far behind the likes of Korea the UK is in this field.

Perhaps the availability of dirt cheap workers, whose wages are topped up by the taxpayer, may have something to do with the fact why companies are not investing in robotics. The end result is that the really wealthy get even richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class gets squeezed out of existence.

Robotics sounds like the worst kind of dystopian Sci-Fi to me. Imagine a world in which humans are just couch potatoes, devoid of strength, virtue, or intelligence, because robots are doing everything. Why would the robots want to keep such drones alive?

Pong said:

John_M said:

Pong said:

John_M said:

Pong said:

Sandpit said:

The European story that isn't going away.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/german-politician-admits-lying-about-ethnicity-of-sex-attackers/

That's a really disgraceful article by the telegraph.

Why is it disgraceful?

Seriously?

Seriously. You should know I'm not here to score cheap points.

She's a rape victim.

You don't see the problem with the way that article (and particularly the headline) is written?

That justifies lying to the Police?

JosiasJessop said:

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

taffys said:

''Good point. I remember Tone sounding chuffed to blazes when he spoke about his relationship with George W, and he could barely stop himself gloating about how jealous it made the Tories. ''

I can remember reading accounts of how even Bush's neo-cons were astonished at how utterly pliant and eager Blair was to please.

A complete hoe for power.

But, ironically, Blair never even had much power. He was just a supplicant, thrown the odd bone by Bush.

What a disaster he was, in all respects.

Remember that sunny May day when he first arrived in Downing Street. Jesus Christ.

A few hundred vote/hanging chads in 2000 changed the course of history.

I'm not sure that's the case. Blair had been talking about Iraq with Democratic president Clinton, and there is no reason to think that Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan to 'get' al Qaeda after 9/11.

As for Iraq? al Gore called for inspectors to return. But that was when he was out of power and could give opposition views. Would the pressures from within the US and from Blair and others have forced his hand?

Interesting questions.

Gore would undoubtedly have invaded Afghanistan, and would have been right to do so. I very much doubt that he'd have gone into Iraq. In so doing, he might have saved two nations: Iraq, for obvious reasons, but also Afghanistan, from which the coalition became fatally distracted in 2003 and which suffered afterwards by association.

The tricky question is whether Gore could have continued to contain Saddam. France and others were putting pressure on to wind down sanctions.

MarkHopkins said:

SeanT said:

Some more cheerful reading

Sterling headed for $1.15 and near-parity with euro

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/06/brace-for-sterling-at-1-15-warns-deutsche-bank/

FT/DE trying to talk it down as much as possible!

Give over.

The Financial Times now to blame for the pound hitting $1.15.

You read it here first, folks.

New non-Chilcot thread

So, in summary, Blair opens by saying "I accept full responsibility, without exception and without excuse", and then spends half an hour (so far) making excuses.