In all the discussion of paedophiles and politicians, I am not sure whether PB has adequately discussed the possible motives for the Mail giving prominence to the Harman et al and NCCL story.
It is not so much reading between the lines of the Mail articles as reading selected lines which yield the best clues.
Yesterday the Mail published an article which began with the following statement:
A Labour MP [revealed later in the article to be Tom Watson] has demanded renewed and wider inquiries into the Paedophile Information Exchange amid fears that government files proving it received taxpayers' cash have been shredded.
The Mail reveals that a former civil servant has "claimed the government gave money to the PIE during the 1970s. But Mail "sources" also claim that:
...everything that the Home Office held on PIE post 1979 appears to have been destroyed, except for the titles. ... The Home Office insists 'their destruction was consistent with applicable record retention policies'.
As a result, Theresa May has asked Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, to investigate after details of the claims were passed on by Labour MP Tom Watson
In the background is speculation as to the intent of Tom Watson MP. The Mail states:
Tom Watson ... last night welcomed the probe but also demanded a wider-ranging police inquiriy into the PIE.
The Mail goes on to quote Watson directly:
"I was contacted by a former Home Office civil servant who told me that he saw a document that suggests the Paedophile Information Exchange got public money".
"The document was recommending approval for funding during the Thatcher government . My source who does not wish to talk to the media, said it appeared to be a re-application for funds."
All this should be viewed in context of claims widely circulated in the media that 'a paedophile ring existed during the 1980s and 90s which had links to No 10 and the then government'.
Taking all the above into account, a key motive of the Mail in publishing the NCCL story now may be to pre-empt and defuse a future revelation, following Sedwill's report, that the Thatcher government contributed public money to PIE. The Mail has stated that they believe the initial funding arrangement was first authorised under the Callaghan government and that any subsequent provision of funds under Thatcher would have been a continuation of this existing arrangement.
Given the wider, and seemingly unconnected rumours of links between paedophile activity and politiicians, the Mail's motives may also have been to ensure that later revelations were not seen by the general public to have been a problem which affected only the Conservative Party and 1979-97 governments.
compouter should be better informed, if not wiser, from reading this post.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Sorry, I almost forgot right wingers treat all Number 10 denials and spin as the word of god. FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal
Oh dear....someone can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources?
Oh dear, a Falkirk shrieker is reminded that you were very late in the day when the story broke. Nor does your acumen when it comes to knowing which of the press is more trustworthy inspire much confidence for obvious reasons. The Herald went front page on that just as they did with Falkirk on several occassions. That means they were sure of their sources whereas all you have is number 10 spin from an incompetent CCHQ. As usual.
The Herald are not the primary source. Do you even know what that means?
I think he's comprehensively demonstrated he hasn't......
I do think it is quite funny that a certain poster on here resorts to calling me a left wing idiot, fool, thickie etc and the fact I won't rise to and laugh it off, seems to get it more upset, so much so it has ended up to be sent to the naughty corner twice. I do wonder if it shakes it's fist at the screen when posting.
Just to keep the PB Hodges happy, I will be allocating you all a marginal seat each for the election (allocation to be made near the time) so when it comes to election night when the seat turns from blue or orange to red we can all celebrate together. Links to each Labour candidate will be posted for each PB Hodge allocated to read up so they can feel even closer to the winning candidate when their seat appears on the ticker at the bottom of their TV screens. I know you all cannot wait.
@Socrates - I agree that the shock of the cynical behaviour of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell over Iraq has shaken trust in government. It was certainly a huge shock to me to discover that a British Prime Minister was misleading MPs and the country quite so blatantly over such a serious matter in a formal statement to parliament.
However, it doesn't follow that, because New Labour were disingenuous over Iraq, that therefore every other politician is lying. Even less does it follow that there is zero danger or that the intelligence services don't need some surveillance powers to protect us.
It was not just Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell. It was intelligence establishment that backed them up, and the other parties that voted for them. And I have never said that I wanted no surveillance powers, and when you have accused me of that before, I have dispelled it a number of times. Why do you continue to misrepresent my position?
As for the 'small number of people who die from terrorism each year', how many would persuade you?
Well it would depend on the precise surveillance power suggested. Certainly I don't think government employees capturing millions of personal communications and photos for a cause of death that's 0.1% of that of heart disease.
And, in any case, how many more would it be without intelligence services doing what they do? You have no idea at all. Nor do I: in this matter, we have little choice but to trust politicians. I'm inclined to do so partly because I don't think for a moment that David Cameron, William Hague, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and so on are careless about civil liberties. To believe that they all are, you have to make an awfully big conspiracy theory. Furthermore we also have oversight by the Select Committee and an independent commissioner, as well as (when relevant) judges.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just acceptance that most politicians, when in power, care more about covering their political asses then they do about higher principles. Whether or not a terrorist attack could have been stopped by this stuff, if one happened the politicians don't want to be in a position where someone can say "we asked for this power and they said no!" We also have plenty of evidence from non-classified issues that show they are not particularly concerned with civil liberties. The health database not allowing people to opt out is a clear example of that. Another one is Cameron dumping the British Bill of Rights he promised. We also have examples of the "terrorism" scare being used to abuse power in other ways, such as continuing arrests of people under the Terrorism Act for things completely unrelated to terrorism, under both this government and the previous one.
You are also completely wrong about not having needed communications surveillance powers in the past. What on earth do you think GCHQ was doing for the second half of the twentieth ccentury? Of course communications have changed, and the amount of traffic is much increased.
For much of the past century, they were able to get by tapping individual phones of suspects and those connected to them. Not huge screenings of bulk data of unconnected individuals. While monitorable communications have certainly increased many times, I don't buy that the total amount of communication, when you consider in-person conversations, has changed by orders of magnitude. Yet somehow terrorism wasn't far worse.
Given your faith in the magnitude and wisdom of our betters in HMG, may I ask what level of intrusion would be too much for you? If David Cameron and Ed Miliband and all the rest of them came out and said "the terrorist threat has suddenly increased for classified reasons we can't say, and as such we need to store a camera in everyone's house", your logic would still hold, because supposedly we just have to belief that, whatever the level of intrusion, if the powers that be said the risk is there, we should accept their wisdom?
As for the 'small number of people who die from terrorism each year', how many would persuade you? And, in any case, how many more would it be without intelligence services doing what they do? You have no idea at all. Nor do I: in this matter, we have little choice but to trust politicians. I'm inclined to do so partly because I don't think for a moment that David Cameron, William Hague, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and so on are careless about civil liberties. To believe that they all are, you have to make an awfully big conspiracy theory. Furthermore we also have oversight by the Select Committee and an independent commissioner, as well as (when relevant) judges.
I think there was a quote somewhere about people who would trade freedom for security - maybe you remember it?
More seriously I think you completely neglect the tendency of politicians to go native when confronted by the civil service - witness the repeated resurrection of ID cards amongst others. The alternative explanation possible is that politicians all lie through their teeth when in opposition and then do what they always wanted to in power, but I'm not that cynical yet.
I have a little sympathy with your comments that communication/technology has changed and so surveillance is necessary, but your argument doesn't really suggest a limit - should we all be watched all the time? Conspiracies and terrorist threats would certainly be easier to find, so we'd all be safer.
We spent 30ish years with a campaign of regular terrorist attacks with a few (?2) days at most detention without trial and no mass surveillance program. I'm not sure why we need to have changed that now.
I suspect GCHQ were, by and large, looking for bad guys and focussing surveillance on them, not doing mass data trawls on everyone.
Your argument also has another major weakness. Even if you believe that David Cameron is possessed of the wisdom of Solomon and will only ever use the powers the government has collected or good, are you so sure about PM Miliband, or whichever numpty Labour select after him? We've already seen that Prime Ministers/the government can't be trusted.
I'd say that events of the last few days concerning on the run suspects and the respect that ministers showed for Parliament tell you all you need to know about how much you should trust the executive on matters of national security.
The Herald are not the primary source. Do you even know what that means?
I clearly know by now you can't read or understand "sure of their sources". Your polyanna approach to how Cammie would behave is sweet but ultimately worthless. British embassies lobbying their host countries on various matters is standard procedure nor is it any secret Cammie want's as much backup for this as possible. He is a very weak PM after all.
I've read that article, twice, and I can't see a single mention of that phrase, "sure of their sources" by the Herald in reference to No. 10 allegedly recruiting Putin. I think it's you that needs to learn how to read. Just admit it bunk and lets move on from this. You made a mistake by trusting a Russian source, it happens. We're all fallible. Just admit you made a mistake. That's all it will take.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
You see that is where I differ. I agree it has a distinct right wing dominance but enjoy reading all your posts knowing the vast majority in my opinion are wrong. Oh, and I cannot wait to see the mass outpouring from the PB Hodges as Ed appears during the night to celebrate his win in May 2015.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
Compy, me old lad, I couldn't agree with you more on that last paragraph. Its the fecking internet, a largely anonymous message board, why the heck people have to get the arse and flounce off, or get so upset is beyond me. Mind you, I bet GCHQ know who we all are. Luckily, I only go on webcam in my gimp mask, so they don't know what I look like.
I am sat hear in a mask of David Cameron just to confuse the hell out of them. In reality, as far as I know I have only met one person, OGH, and unless I go to a PB get together that will remain. Though I doubt I will be able to go to one now with you all knowing that the person sat in the background listening into conversations wearing a Cameron mask, is in fact me. Bugger.....cover blown.
That's a coincidence. Mick Pork and I are both sitting in Conservative Central Office wearing Ed Miliband masks.
Some of us just put a bit of masking tape over the wee camera ...
I do think it is quite funny that a certain poster on here resorts to calling me a left wing idiot, fool, thickie etc and the fact I won't rise to and laugh it off, seems to get it more upset, so much so it has ended up to be sent to the naughty corner twice. I do wonder if it shakes it's fist at the screen when posting.
Just to keep the PB Hodges happy, I will be allocating you all a marginal seat each for the election (allocation to be made near the time) so when it comes to election night when the seat turns from blue or orange to red we can all celebrate together. Links to each Labour candidate will be posted for each PB Hodge allocated to read up so they can feel even closer to the winning candidate when their seat appears on the ticker at the bottom of their TV screens. I know you all cannot wait.
So you take a pop at name calling, and then use the phrase 'PB Hodges'.
Perhaps a reboot of your logic circuits is in order.
The Herald are not the primary source. Do you even know what that means?
I clearly know by now you can't read or understand "sure of their sources". Your polyanna approach to how Cammie would behave is sweet but ultimately worthless. British embassies lobbying their host countries on various matters is standard procedure nor is it any secret Cammie want's as much backup for this as possible. He is a very weak PM after all.
I've read that article, twice, and I can't see a single mention of that phrase, "sure of their sources" by the Herald in reference to No. 10 allegedly recruiting Putin. I think it's you that needs to learn how to read. Just admit it bunk and lets move on from this. You made a mistake by trusting a Russian source, it happens. We're all fallible. Just admit you made a mistake. That's all it will take.
I do think it is quite funny that a certain poster on here resorts to calling me a left wing idiot, fool, thickie etc and the fact I won't rise to and laugh it off, seems to get it more upset, so much so it has ended up to be sent to the naughty corner twice. I do wonder if it shakes it's fist at the screen when posting.
Just to keep the PB Hodges happy, I will be allocating you all a marginal seat each for the election (allocation to be made near the time) so when it comes to election night when the seat turns from blue or orange to red we can all celebrate together. Links to each Labour candidate will be posted for each PB Hodge allocated to read up so they can feel even closer to the winning candidate when their seat appears on the ticker at the bottom of their TV screens. I know you all cannot wait.
So you take a pop at name calling, and then use the phrase 'PB Hodges'.
Perhaps a reboot of your logic circuits is in order.
And you know what such profiling (generalisation) is called don't you?
NO and I'm not going to get involved in the kind of racism witch hunt you are conducting.
Plenty of people of all races come here from Europe, and because they have lived in Europe they are much better at settling in here than some people from Islamic countries.
Plus, as most of Europe is far more prosperous than Pakistan or Somalia, there's far more chance of the whole thing being a two way street at some time in the future.
Ah so let me get this right. Its OK for Europeans to be allowed to enter this country but it isn't for Australians and Americans who have a far closer cultural links and likely higher economic prowess to us than those Europeans. Its also far better for those who cannot speak English brought up in the pre 1990's culture of Cold War eastern Europe to have open access to this country than it is for those who speak English from former Western European colonies.
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal and were so sure of that story they went front page with it?
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you? It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
I do think it is quite funny that a certain poster on here resorts to calling me a left wing idiot, fool, thickie etc and the fact I won't rise to and laugh it off, seems to get it more upset, so much so it has ended up to be sent to the naughty corner twice. I do wonder if it shakes it's fist at the screen when posting.
Just to keep the PB Hodges happy, I will be allocating you all a marginal seat each for the election (allocation to be made near the time) so when it comes to election night when the seat turns from blue or orange to red we can all celebrate together. Links to each Labour candidate will be posted for each PB Hodge allocated to read up so they can feel even closer to the winning candidate when their seat appears on the ticker at the bottom of their TV screens. I know you all cannot wait.
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be misinterpreted), given that the Scots would suffer most if UK time was set to suit southerners. The article did not make it clear that the winter dawns are much later and dusk much earlier in the north - which needs to be explained to a lot of people, who have heard about midwinter dusk etc but think it a Lappland thing (though I am sure PBers are far too intelligent not to realise that). So a southern Tory can be a real problem in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
When I used to work in It in a sober Swiss company we found that a lot more than that (I forget the exact %) of the external internet traffic was vaguely dodgy in one way or another - nudes, dating sites, etc. We tutted a bit over staff wasting their time but in the end decided that the main issue was whether people got thier jobs done, not what they looked at in coffee breaks. I'm not especially libertarian, but unless it's child porn this doesn't seem to be GCHQ's business. Don't they have anything else to do?
My dentist, by contrast, is FORBIDDEN by his NHS practice to use the internet at all, even to look up treatment discussions, check hospitals' current waiting times, etc. The practice manager fears that he might spend time on Facebook. (He's about 40 and one of most respectable people I know.)
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal and went front page with that story so sure were they of it?
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you? It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
But you're not trusting the Herald. You are trusting a Kremlin aligned newspaper. The Herald merely reprinted the allegation without verifying any sources. That they uncovered the Falkirk scandal is completely irrelevant to this since they are not the primary source like they were for Falkirk.
Again, you have no leg to stand on. Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal
How many times did the Herald run the Falkirk story?
How many times did they run the Istvar/Tass story?
I'd be happy for PB Tories to call me names as another left winger. We should all be grown up enough to cope with a few politically based insults.
Anyway, I did so enjoy the news that the Tories are the party of mass migration now. At least when Labour did it there was a (misguided stupid) policy - to end up with mass migration because you are functionally incompetent is just funny, we'll be laughing all the way to the UKIP rally
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be misinterpreted), given that the Scots would suffer most if UK time was set to suit southerners. The article did not make it clear that the winter dawns are much later and dusk much earlier in the north - which needs to be explained to a lot of people, who have heard about midwinter dusk etc but think it a Lappland thing (though I am sure PBers are far too intelligent not to realise that). So a southern Tory can be a real problem in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
In the event of Indy they'll suit themselves all the easier.
I'd be happy for PB Tories to call me names as another left winger. We should all be grown up enough to cope with a few politically based insults.
Anyway, I did so enjoy the news that the Tories are the party of mass migration now. At least when Labour did it there was a (misguided stupid) policy - to end up with mass migration because you are functionally incompetent is just funny, we'll be laughing all the way to the UKIP rally
RP - I do like original insults better. The "Thickie leftie " ones are just poor form. We need a bit more imagination with the insulting on here.
It was not just Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell. It was intelligence establishment that backed them up, and the other parties that voted for them.
Actually the Hutton Inquiry (leaving aside Hutton's bonkers conclusion) showed that the intelligence establishment was suitably cautious, and that it was the Blair government which exaggerated both the threat and the degree of confidence in the assessment. Other parties voted on the basis of assurances given by the Prime Minister. That was, obviously, a big error in retrospect, but doesn't mean we should assume every politician is a liar.
And I have never said that I wanted no surveillance powers, and when you have accused me of that before, I have dispelled it a number of times. Why do you continue to misrepresent my position?
I'm not trying to misrepresent you - the point I'm making, and I'm glad you agree, is that everyone agrees there should be some surveillance, with suitable safeguards. The question is how much, and what safeguards.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just acceptance that most politicians, when in power, care more about covering their political asses then they do about higher principles. Whether or not a terrorist attack could have been stopped by this stuff, if one happened the politicians don't want to be in a position where someone can say "we asked for this power and they said no!"
There you go again! Why not just accept that these are decent men and women, faced with the difficult task of balancing civil liberty concerns against the undoubtedly real risk of atrocious crimes against British citizens and citizens of other friendly powers? Maybe they don't get the balance right, maybe they accept the assurances of the intelligence services too readily; it's very hard to say from the outside. But saying they are just 'covering their asses' is frankly ridiculous. They are probably more concerned about preventing people getting murdered and maimed.
If David Cameron and Ed Miliband and all the rest of them came out and said "the terrorist threat has suddenly increased for classified reasons we can't say, and as such we need to store a camera in everyone's house", your logic would still hold, because supposedly we just have to belief that, whatever the level of intrusion, if the powers that be said the risk is there, we should accept their wisdom?
That's a silly question, because they are not saying anything so obviously daft. What they are saying is that the intelligence services need bulk access to metadata (which they've always had for phone calls). I know enough about the subject to understand a bit about why the intelligence services are so keen on having that access. The politicians are not, as far as I know, saying that GCHQ are authorised to carry out bulk surveillance of email or phone call contents, or pictures.
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal
How many times did the Herald run the Falkirk story?
How many times did they run the Istvar/Tass story?
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal and went front page with that story so sure were they of it?
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you? It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
But you're not trusting the Herald. You are trusting a Kremlin aligned newspaper. The Herald merely reprinted the allegation without verifying any sources. That they uncovered the Falkirk scandal is completely irrelevant to this since they are not the primary source like they were for Falkirk.
Again, you have no leg to stand on. Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
You do realise the Herald, above all in its political news content, is pretty strongly Unionist? So if you think they are fibbing/incompetent on an independence referendum story ...
The story is also consistent with others - this time based on primary sources it would seem
I'm not especially libertarian, but unless it's child porn this doesn't seem to be GCHQ's business. Don't they have anything else to do?
I think you've misunderstood the article - the problem wasn't that they were tut-tutting (or enjoying!) the porn, it was that it screwed up their algorithms for facial recognition!
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
That's not really an answer to my question: why you guys come here to rant and swear. I do not believe this ridiculous piffle about your needing a "daily reminder of what you are trying to escape".
Coming on here must serve you, and your ludicrous Natty friends, some psychic purpose. My guess is that it allows you to vent your hatred of others, a hatred which becomes evermore obvious by the day.
You are a good example. You used to be quite civilised, and even witty. Now it is just dismal exhalations of sourness and resentment.
Intriguing.
SeanT, may I suggest PMQ's as a comparison for PB conversation?
It's about the battle rather than recruiting.
Yes, possibly. Hmm.
Either way I can feel a blog coming on, centred on the psyche of cyberNats - I shall use some of the crazier examples on here. I have a feeling some of them are really quite old - like Mick Pork - hence the Alzheimery repetitiveness:
"People with Alzheimer's disease often act as if their minds are caught in an endless tape loop. They may ask the same question 20 times in an afternoon, pace a stretch of floor for hours, or hum a tune that never seems to run out of verses."
I mean, that's Mick Pork and malcomg right there, isn't it?
Keep taking the Viagra grandad. You're the embarrassing and balding old codger trying desperately to be 'with it'. Hence your deranged gushing praise of "Lego the Movie".
I will spare everyone the horror of delving into the psyche of an infamous Bangkok sex tourist and torture porn 'author' since there are other even more infamous Bangkok sex tourists they can easily read about for them to draw their own conclusions from.
Write away posh-Sean but just be certain your boss is fine with all you have wrote on here since I vividly recall you shitting yourself when OGH tweeted that you were boasting about an unpublished clickbait piece that would "lose him his job" as you put it.
I'm not especially libertarian, but unless it's child porn this doesn't seem to be GCHQ's business. Don't they have anything else to do?
I think you've misunderstood the article - the problem wasn't that they were tut-tutting (or enjoying!) the porn, it was that it screwed up their algorithms for facial recognition!
One wonders what happened when naked mole rats, and the Rare Breeds Survival Trust prize pig competitions, came on ...
I'm not especially libertarian, but unless it's child porn this doesn't seem to be GCHQ's business. Don't they have anything else to do?
I think you've misunderstood the article - the problem wasn't that they were tut-tutting (or enjoying!) the porn, it was that it screwed up their algorithms for facial recognition!
One wonders what happened when naked mole rats, and the Rare Breeds Survival Trust prize pig competitions, came on ...
Can anyone point me to where/when Cameron promised to cut overall net immigration to sub-100k, rather than non-EU net immigration?
I have a feeling this may become another Lisbon-treaty-partial-quote-"scandal" from the lefties & UKIP.
AFAIK the target always included EU migration. It was the immigration cap that only applied to non-EU. Can you provide a link where he stated it only applied to non-EU immigration?
You do realise the Herald, above all in its political news content, is pretty strongly Unionist? So if you think they are fibbing/incompetent on an independence referendum story ...
The story is also consistent with others - this time based on primary sources it would seem
I absolutely believe that No. 10 approached the Spanish and Rajoy's government. Spain are in the EU and have their own, err, separatist movement. Rajoy is also a declared Atlantiscist and the PP are aligned with the Conservative party.
The issue isn't that No. 10 are looking to their international allies to help them, I am taking issue with Pork continually going on about an alleged No. 10 sponsored intervention by Putin when there are no non-Russian sources to back that up.
The fact that the Herald put their own name to the Spanish intervention and not to the Russian one tells its own story.
Just checked the 2010 CON manifesto: "immigration has enriched our nation over the years and we want to attract the brightest and the best people who can make a real difference to our economic growth. but immigration today is too high and needs to be reduced. We do not need to attract people to do jobs that could be carried out by british citizens, given the right training and support. So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands. " No mention of the limit applying to non EU only.
Can anyone point me to where/when Cameron promised to cut overall net immigration to sub-100k, rather than non-EU net immigration?
I have a feeling this may become another Lisbon-treaty-partial-quote-"scandal" from the lefties & UKIP.
AFAIK the target always included EU migration. It was the immigration cap that only applied to non-EU. Can you provide a link where he stated it only applied to non-EU immigration?
No direct quote, but from Andrew Grice in the Independent in 2010
"The Conservatives pledged to restrict net migration from outside the European Union to tens of thousands each year. It stood at 196,000 last year."
Can anyone point me to where/when Cameron promised to cut overall net immigration to sub-100k, rather than non-EU net immigration?
I have a feeling this may become another Lisbon-treaty-partial-quote-"scandal" from the lefties & UKIP.
AFAIK the target always included EU migration. It was the immigration cap that only applied to non-EU. Can you provide a link where he stated it only applied to non-EU immigration?
No direct quote, but from Andrew Grice in the Independent in 2010
"The Conservatives pledged to restrict net migration from outside the European Union to tens of thousands each year. It stood at 196,000 last year."
The author appears to be confused between the migration target and the cap, which is the subject of the article. The cap was supposed to be the method of getting net migration down overall.
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal
How many times did the Herald run the Falkirk story?
How many times did they run the Istvar/Tass story?
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal and went front page with that story so sure were they of it?
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you? It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
But you're not trusting the Herald. You are trusting a Kremlin aligned newspaper. The Herald merely reprinted the allegation without verifying any sources. That they uncovered the Falkirk scandal is completely irrelevant to this since they are not the primary source like they were for Falkirk.
Again, you have no leg to stand on. Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
You do realise the Herald, above all in its political news content, is pretty strongly Unionist? So if you think they are fibbing/incompetent on an independence referendum story ...
The story is also consistent with others - this time based on primary sources it would seem
There's really no need. I'm enjoying the colossal pomposity of this PB playstation right-winger far too much to even be that bothered that he doesn't have a clue about all the lobbying, timeline and stories that back it up. It's when they start petulantly demanding an apology for something that exists only in their own heads that it moves from amusing to downright comedy gold.
The other problem with your defence of mass surveillance in the name of security is that even if you believe in the intelligence and trustworthiness of the politicians in charge today, tomorrow and forever (I don't) you also have to believe that the security apparatus being given steadily greater power over us will be reliable in all ways, forever. If you think that then I suspect a certain Mr de Menezes might have something to say to you, if he was able. Andrew Mitchell might be another person with a point of view on that, or various Hillsborough relatives etc etc
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be misinterpreted), given that the Scots would suffer most if UK time was set to suit southerners. The article did not make it clear that the winter dawns are much later and dusk much earlier in the north - which needs to be explained to a lot of people, who have heard about midwinter dusk etc but think it a Lappland thing (though I am sure PBers are far too intelligent not to realise that). So a southern Tory can be a real problem in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
Well, who'd have thought that a "southern Tory" might have not thought there were unintended consequences ??
Just thickies these MP's aren't they ?? and southern Tories must just be the worst ever ?!?
All the press are reporting net migration as net. The government is responding by saying it's net migration pledge refers to net. The public thinks net migration is net. That's the problem with net, its all in. Where Cameron went wrong is that he thinks he can stop foreign types coming in from the EU and surprisingly enough he can't.
Apparently people want immigration stopped. Immigration from the EU is immigration as witnessed by the UKIP/Mail panic over Bulgaria and Romania. Any pledge to cut net migration that doesn't include net migration from the countries that people are migrating from would rightly be seen as an utter joke.
Cameron appears to have made a pledge he couldn't possibly deliver. Again. Then wonders why his voter base have gone to UKIP.
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal
How many times did the Herald run the Falkirk story?
How many times did they run the Istvar/Tass story?
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal and went front page with that story so sure were they of it?
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you? It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
But you're not trusting the Herald. You are trusting a Kremlin aligned newspaper. The Herald merely reprinted the allegation without verifying any sources. That they uncovered the Falkirk scandal is completely irrelevant to this since they are not the primary source like they were for Falkirk.
Again, you have no leg to stand on. Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
You do realise the Herald, above all in its political news content, is pretty strongly Unionist? So if you think they are fibbing/incompetent on an independence referendum story ...
The story is also consistent with others - this time based on primary sources it would seem
There's really no need. I'm enjoying the colossal pomposity of this PB playstation right-winger far too much to even be that bothered that he doesn't have a clue about all the lobbying, timeline and stories that back it up. It's when they start petulantly demanding an apology for something that exists only in their own heads that it moves from amusing to downright comedy gold.
You can address me directly Pork. As I said, I have no doubt that No. 10 have approached allied nations to intervene. Spain among them. I'm also not surprised that Barrosso and Rumpy Pumpy both intervened around the same time that the Unionist parties denied a currency union.
However, you have yet to come up with a single trustworthy source to No. 10 approaching the Russians. We have a reprinted story in the Herald citing a Kremlin aligned paper. It is not credible.
The other problem with your defence of mass surveillance in the name of security is that even if you believe in the intelligence and trustworthiness of the politicians in charge today, tomorrow and forever (I don't) you also have to believe that the security apparatus being given steadily greater power over us will be reliable in all ways, forever. If you think that then I suspect a certain Mr de Menezes might have something to say to you, if he was able. Andrew Mitchell might be another person with a point of view on that, or various Hillsborough relatives etc etc
Sure, but so what? Are you saying that, because the police have made wrongful arrests in the past, or have lied, or have shot an innocent man without any good reason, that therefore they should not have powers of arrest, or ever be allowed to used armed force even if (say) a gunman were rampaging around Oxford Street?
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
Cameron idiotically set himself a target based reducing on the difference between two numbers X and Y. He has absolutely no control over Y and can reduce X by a third at best. Hardly surprising he failed.
I'm not especially libertarian, but unless it's child porn this doesn't seem to be GCHQ's business. Don't they have anything else to do?
I think you've misunderstood the article - the problem wasn't that they were tut-tutting (or enjoying!) the porn, it was that it screwed up their algorithms for facial recognition!
One wonders what happened when naked mole rats, and the Rare Breeds Survival Trust prize pig competitions, came on ...
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be misinterpreted), given that the Scots would suffer most if UK time was set to suit southerners. The article did not make it clear that the winter dawns are much later and dusk much earlier in the north - which needs to be explained to a lot of people, who have heard about midwinter dusk etc but think it a Lappland thing (though I am sure PBers are far too intelligent not to realise that). So a southern Tory can be a real problem in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
In the event of Indy they'll suit themselves all the easier.
In the event of a 'no-vote' I think Westminster should devolve 'setting time zone in Scotland' to Holyrood.....no veto....no need to consult.....
You can address me directly Pork. As I said, I have no doubt that No. 10 have approached allied nations to intervene. Spain among them. I'm also not surprised that Barrosso and Rumpy Pumpy both intervened around the same time that the Unionist parties denied a currency union.
I realise you're embarrassed at the fop's Ukraine posturing so what I suggest you do is take your little green biro and write off a stern word in green ink to the Herald then they can properly file your complaint away where it belongs. In the bin. Your assertions are completely worthless. You have no journalistic track record whatsoever. The Herald does. The story sounds credible the language is convincing as is the linkage of another issue and the G8. As does the timeline. As does all the other corroborating evidence around it of Cammie doing the precise same thing with other heads of state.
So take your petulant demands and shove them up JackW's arse if you would be so kind.
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be misinterpreted), given that the Scots would suffer most if UK time was set to suit southerners. The article did not make it clear that the winter dawns are much later and dusk much earlier in the north - which needs to be explained to a lot of people, who have heard about midwinter dusk etc but think it a Lappland thing (though I am sure PBers are far too intelligent not to realise that). So a southern Tory can be a real problem in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
Well, who'd have thought that a "southern Tory" might have not thought there were unintended consequences ??
Just thickies these MP's aren't they ?? and southern Tories must just be the worst ever ?!?
No - just that the article was not well written for its likely audience, given that a lot of people don't realise the difference in latitude and therefore the effect. You try telling people that Penrith is about the geographical centre of the UK and they just won't believe it. For the same reason, a southern Tory (or LD or UKIP) MP pushing for what suits his/her constituents may genuinely not realise the problems. Or may not give a dam' about them: it's not his/her constituents' problem, and it's for other MPs to put forward the contrary view.
I can tell you it can be very frustrating to have to wait till daylight to do something outside if one is working to the normal day! And that is Inverness/Aberdeen sort of latitude.
Sure, but so what? Are you saying that, because the police have made wrongful arrests in the past, or have lied, or have shot an innocent man without any good reason, that therefore they should not have powers of arrest, or ever be allowed to used armed force even if (say) a gunman were rampaging around Oxford Street?
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
You are supporting the state taking new powers over the population to prevent terrorism and saying we should just trust them to do the right thing, they're all honourable people. My point is that at all levels from front line police officers up to PM they cannot be relied upon in this way, as has been shown many times. Their powers should therefore be strictly limited, in a way that you don't seem to recognise. And adding on an ever increasing number of secret mass surveillance programs does not fit the idea of limits. It is may all be legal, but that is just another layer of problem.
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal
How many times did the Herald run the Falkirk story?
How many times did they run the Istvar/Tass story?
What planet are you on when you think I'm going to trust the assertions of some anonymous PB playstation right-winger over a paper which uncovered the Falkirk scandal and went front page with that story so sure were they of it?
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you? It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
But you're not trusting the Herald. You are trusting a Kremlin aligned newspaper. The Herald merely reprinted the allegation without verifying any sources. That they uncovered the Falkirk scandal is completely irrelevant to this since they are not the primary source like they were for Falkirk.
Again, you have no leg to stand on. Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
You do realise the Herald, above all in its political news content, is pretty strongly Unionist? So if you think they are fibbing/incompetent on an independence referendum story ...
The story is also consistent with others - this time based on primary sources it would seem
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be m in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
In the event of Indy they'll suit themselves all the easier.
In the event of a 'no-vote' I think Westminster should devolve 'setting time zone in Scotland' to Holyrood.....no veto....no need to consult.....
You can address me directly Pork. As I said, I have no doubt that No. 10 have approached allied nations to intervene. Spain among them. I'm also not surprised that Barrosso and Rumpy Pumpy both intervened around the same time that the Unionist parties denied a currency union.
So take your petulant demands and shove them up JackW's arse if you would be so kind.
You can address me directly Pork. As I said, I have no doubt that No. 10 have approached allied nations to intervene. Spain among them. I'm also not surprised that Barrosso and Rumpy Pumpy both intervened around the same time that the Unionist parties denied a currency union.
I realise you're embarrassed at the fop's Ukraine posturing so what I suggest you do is take your little green biro and write off a stern word in green ink to the Herald then they can properly file your complaint away where it belongs. In the bin. Your assertions are completely worthless. You have no journalistic track record whatsoever. The Herald does. The story sounds credible as does the timeline and all the other corroborating evidence around it of Cammie doing the precise same thing with other heads of state.
So take your petulant demands and shove them up JackW's arse if you would be so kind.
PlayStation is blue, not green.
It's not about my track record, or the Herald's. They have every right to reprint the allegations. Note that they don't endorse them, only reprint them and mention that they uncovered something similar in Spain. It is you that needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
You need to take your bile and bugger off, you make this website a chore to read. Your constant reposting of bullcrap and "jokes" and numerous posts of Twitter rubbish is tiresome.
You can address me directly Pork. As I said, I have no doubt that No. 10 have approached allied nations to intervene. Spain among them. I'm also not surprised that Barrosso and Rumpy Pumpy both intervened around the same time that the Unionist parties denied a currency union.
I realise you're embarrassed at the fop's Ukraine posturing so what I suggest you do is take your little green biro and write off a stern word in green ink to the Herald then they can properly file your complaint away where it belongs. In the bin. Your assertions are completely worthless. You have no journalistic track record whatsoever. The Herald does. The story sounds credible as does the timeline and all the other corroborating evidence around it of Cammie doing the precise same thing with other heads of state.
So take your petulant demands and shove them up JackW's arse if you would be so kind.
PlayStation is blue, not green.
Green ink is journalistic and media shorthand for nutcases since you don't seem to realise it.
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
Mr McNeil was being perfectly factual (if perhaps unwise to pit in such a way that could be m in a way that a northern one or a Scottish tory* wouldn't.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
In the event of Indy they'll suit themselves all the easier.
In the event of a 'no-vote' I think Westminster should devolve 'setting time zone in Scotland' to Holyrood.....no veto....no need to consult.....
They'd only say they're being bullied.
Certainly they lose their access to the Greenwich Meridian, which goes offshore at around Hull and stays there. If they can't persuade us of the benefit to rUK of a timekeeping union, and the BBC withdraws the time signal, they are going to need a plan B on that.
You can address me directly Pork. As I said, I have no doubt that No. 10 have approached allied nations to intervene. Spain among them. I'm also not surprised that Barrosso and Rumpy Pumpy both intervened around the same time that the Unionist parties denied a currency union.
I realise you're embarrassed at the fop's Ukraine posturing so what I suggest you do is take your little green biro and write off a stern word in green ink to the Herald then they can properly file your complaint away where it belongs. In the bin. Your assertions are completely worthless. You have no journalistic track record whatsoever. The Herald does. The story sounds credible as does the timeline and all the other corroborating evidence around it of Cammie doing the precise same thing with other heads of state.
So take your petulant demands and shove them up JackW's arse if you would be so kind.
PlayStation is blue, not green.
Green ink is journalistic and media shorthand for nutters since you don't seem to realise it.
I did, but I was making light of the numerous (and irrelevant) PlayStation references you made earlier. Clearly you missed it.
Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on. That's all it will take Pork.
Sure, but so what? Are you saying that, because the police have made wrongful arrests in the past, or have lied, or have shot an innocent man without any good reason, that therefore they should not have powers of arrest, or ever be allowed to used armed force even if (say) a gunman were rampaging around Oxford Street?
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
You are supporting the state taking new powers over the population to prevent terrorism and saying we should just trust them to do the right thing, they're all honourable people. My point is that at all levels from front line police officers up to PM they cannot be relied upon in this way, as has been shown many times. Their powers should therefore be strictly limited, in a way that you don't seem to recognise. And adding on an ever increasing number of secret mass surveillance programs does not fit the idea of limits. It is may all be legal, but that is just another layer of problem.
"they're all honourable people"
When you have all the embarassing secrets of everyone in the country plus terabytes of amateur porn no-one's that honourable.
Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on. That's all it will take Pork.
Is there some part of 'get lost' that eludes you? When I see you become a moderator I might take your petulant demands a touch more seriously but until then whine away if it makes you feel any better. But be in no doubt that your whining is utterly pointless.
Things must be bad if the fop's Cast Iron Pledges are in tatters. Well, more of them. We all know gullible tory eurosceptics should be used to it by now.
Harman is one of those classic old-fashioned Marmite politicians. There used to be quite a lot of them (Norman Tebbit and Michael Forsyth spring to mind). I just wonder if she is part of a dying breed of political dynasaur? Which, if true, is probably a good thing.
Of course, the Daily Mail is also a classic old-fashioned Marmite product. They are becoming increasingly rare in the newspaper business (the News of the World is no more, although The Scotsman is still fighting a collapsing rearguard action).
Looks like Blair McDougall is turning himself into the Marmite of the IndyRef campaign. The Betory Together campaign director led the No debating team at the Prestwick Academy referendum debate, and he managed to turn an 11 point No lead before the debate into an 11 point Yes lead after the debate. Not only did the DKs all go Yes, but McDougall even managed to convince a significant chunk of No supporters to change to Yes. He is a real asset to the movement for self-government.
Ho ho. Latest Westminster voting intention in Scotland (+/- change from UK GE 2010):
SNP 38% (+18) Lab 33% (-9) Con 14% (-3) LD 7% (-12) Grn 3% (+2) UKIP 3% (+2) oth 2%
How many of Labour's Clydeside seats would fall to the SNP on these numbers? (Since that's where support for secession from the UK seems to be strongest.)
A lot.
Electoral Calculus:
SNP 29 seats (+23) Lab 26 (-15) Con 2 (+1) LD 2 (-9)
Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on. That's all it will take Pork.
Is there some part of 'get lost' that eludes you? When I see you become a moderator I might take your petulant demands a touch more seriously but until then whine away if it makes you feel any better. But be in no doubt that your whining is utterly pointless.
Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on. That's all it will take Pork.
Is there some part of 'get lost' that eludes you? When I see you become a moderator I might take your petulant demands a touch more seriously but until then whine away if it makes you feel any better.
Just admit you were wrong. That's all it will take. Seriously. It's not hard. You have failed on numerous occasions to find a non-Russian source to back these claims. You made up a line in the Herald article that did not exist to support your claim that they are the primary source of this alleged sponsorship, you have made up this link in your mind that No. 10 approaching allies also means they approached the Russians. Frankly you are deluded.
You need help Pork. Serious help. Anyway, I'm done with this. Since you aren't able to admit mistakes I'll move on. I made a mistake in bothering to correct your stupidity, and I'm sorry to have wasted everyone else's time having to read this back and forth.
Sure, but so what? Are you saying that, because the police have made wrongful arrests in the past, or have lied, or have shot an innocent man without any good reason, that therefore they should not have powers of arrest, or ever be allowed to used armed force even if (say) a gunman were rampaging around Oxford Street?
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
You are supporting the state taking new powers over the population to prevent terrorism and saying we should just trust them to do the right thing, they're all honourable people. My point is that at all levels from front line police officers up to PM they cannot be relied upon in this way, as has been shown many times. Their powers should therefore be strictly limited, in a way that you don't seem to recognise. And adding on an ever increasing number of secret mass surveillance programs does not fit the idea of limits. It is may all be legal, but that is just another layer of problem.
Tories should remember the words of the founder of modern Conservatism Edmund Burke:
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
- "... Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy appears to have been fighting back – not online, but on the Commons floor. Witnesses report that he told the SNP’s Pete Wishart to ‘Fuck off, fuck off, fuck off’ during a division."
Hewitt: 'NCCL "naive and wrong" to accept PIE in the 1970s'
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Sir Roderick
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
"The Wythenshawe outcome seems to be depressing expectations
One thing that I’ve missed in recent weeks has been the growing sentiment on the betting markets that Labour will win most votes and that the task facing UKIP is going to be harder than many predicted. "
It's that and the fact that Farage couldn't capitalise on Cammie's flood shambles as well as the polls simply not going up for the kippers right now. This time last year they were definitely showing the beginnings of the upward swing for last May's local elections.
Well the kippers have just been handed all the ammunition they could wish for thanks to one of the incompetent fop's endless untrustworthy Cast Iron Pledges. There's also the small matter of CCHQ overhyping and overspinning Merkel's 'love in' that most definitely did not give the Eurosceptics all that they crave or even close to it. The tiny scraps Merkel threw to a begging and desperate Cameron will not satisfy those unhappy tory backbenchers who think he's full of it when it comes to EU pledges and promises. Finally Farage had Clegg throw him a lifeline with the debate since that is certain to get big publicity. So unless CCHQ really are staffed by complete incompetents then even they must realise Farage getting loads of free publicity is not what they need for the EU elections. It's the exact opposite of what they need.
So whatever happens now Farage will not have the excuse that it was just bad luck if he fails to have a good showing in May. He and the kippers have a great many of the cards now stacked in their favour.
Hewitt: 'NCCL "naive and wrong" to accept PIE in the 1970s'
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Sir Roderick
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
In Hewitt's defence, to "defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes" would have been difficult politically.
Hewitt: 'NCCL "naive and wrong" to accept PIE in the 1970s'
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Sir Roderick
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
Do you think they would/should have let the National Front be affiliated ? If not then why not?
I'm suggesting the man was incompetent. What are you suggesting? Did Labour ministers signing get out of jail free slips for alleged IRA terrorists make them also IRA terrorists?
Lots of media interest for tomorrows opening of the UKIP Spring Conference.
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver Amount of media in Torquay for #UKIPSpring is phenomenal. A true sign of the party's progress.
Bear in mind most of it will be hostile and looking for dirt they can use to force resignations like Ukip councillors sexually harassing mentally handicapped constituents or something like that.
Lots of media interest for tomorrows opening of the UKIP Spring Conference.
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver Amount of media in Torquay for #UKIPSpring is phenomenal. A true sign of the party's progress.
Bear in mind most of it will be hostile and looking for dirt they can use to force resignations like Ukip councillors sexually harassing mentally handicapped constituents or something like that.
If you think aout it this immigration fiasco is manna from heaven for Ukip. The migration is from the EU which can't be stopped without leaving the UK. Labour and the Yellow pox want to stay in the EU with no referendum, the Tories want to stay in with a referendum. None of the big 3 can address the immigration issue with any credibility or a plan that would actually work.
Lots of media interest for tomorrows opening of the UKIP Spring Conference.
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver Amount of media in Torquay for #UKIPSpring is phenomenal. A true sign of the party's progress.
Bear in mind most of it will be hostile and looking for dirt they can use to force resignations like Ukip councillors sexually harassing mentally handicapped constituents or something like that.
Correct and CCHQ will have been having a word in the ear of some of them. They did not come away disappointed last time either with the Farage Bloom shambles.
But it's hard to see how Farage could miss such a massive open goal as Cammie's immigration Pledge. If you then start getting Eurosceptic tory MPs coming out of the woodwork grumbling about Cammie and Merkel's 'love in' then I find it hard to believe anything other than a long planted 'gotcha' from CCHQ and friends could spoil things for Farage tomorrow. We shall see.
Hewitt: 'NCCL "naive and wrong" to accept PIE in the 1970s'
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Sir Roderick
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
I agree that people should have the right to set up an organisation to campaign for the legalisation of sex between adults and children. And to make that case.
It certainly doesn't follow that any decent or sensible organisation should accept the former as an affiliate.
Very good speech by Chancellor Merkel. Interesting watching the faces of Conservative eurosceptics surrounding me...
The frothing over on conhome suggests that an explosion of fury from Cam's backbenchers is just around the corner.
I don't doubt it. CCHQ overspun this one massively. There's no way Merkel could satisfy his backbench Eurosceptics and it was a measure of desperation to hint that she could even come close. Eurosceptics seeing it writ large for them with her speech will not have improved their mood one bit. Now add Cammie's immigration pledge in tatters on top of that with Farage set to take centre stage tomorrow. Sooner or later something will have to give.
Very good speech by Chancellor Merkel. Interesting watching the faces of Conservative eurosceptics surrounding me...
Bodes well though I somehow doubt Chuka is entirely impartial so we'll have to wait for the first backbench grumblings to begin.
Like the coming of the tides, I doubt we'll have to wait long.
I must say, I really am supportive of backbenchers not being pushovers, but these Tory ones seem like the most unpleasable and miserable bunch ever conceived. It's to the point that when I see 'Tory rebellion' or 'Tory whispers' on something, I'm inclined to think Cameron is doing something sensible simply on reflex, and I know he's not sensible as often as that!
Hewitt: 'NCCL "naive and wrong" to accept PIE in the 1970s'
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Sir Roderick
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
Do you think they would/should have let the National Front be affiliated ? If not then why not?
It would depend on the objects of the charitable/lobby organisation.
I can see that 'extremist' political organisations at both ends of the spectrum may have a need for their rights to be protected and for their aims to be advocated and lobbied.
If the NCCL's aims accommodated such a spread of political positioning I would see no reason to exclude them.
But I suspect this view is merely theoretical given the general positioning of the NCCL towards the left of politics.
Hewitt: 'NCCL "naive and wrong" to accept PIE in the 1970s'
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Sir Roderick
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
In Hewitt's defence, to "defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes" would have been difficult politically.
Yes. Political expedience may have trumped intellectual conviction here.
Sure, but so what? Are you saying that, because the police have made wrongful arrests in the past, or have lied, or have shot an innocent man without any good reason, that therefore they should not have powers of arrest, or ever be allowed to used armed force even if (say) a gunman were rampaging around Oxford Street?
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
You are supporting the state taking new powers over the population to prevent terrorism and saying we should just trust them to do the right thing, they're all honourable people. My point is that at all levels from front line police officers up to PM they cannot be relied upon in this way, as has been shown many times. Their powers should therefore be strictly limited, in a way that you don't seem to recognise. And adding on an ever increasing number of secret mass surveillance programs does not fit the idea of limits. It is may all be legal, but that is just another layer of problem.
Tories should remember the words of the founder of modern Conservatism Edmund Burke:
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
Re. Tottenham Hotspur v Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, interesting paragraph from Wikitravel:
"Be aware that while Dnipropetrovsk is located in Ukraine, like many cities of Eastern Ukraine, it is very rare to hear people speaking the Ukrainian language. Unfortunately, in a business setting, speaking Ukrainian is often met with confusion or contempt. So it's better to stick to Russian or English here."
Very good speech by Chancellor Merkel. Interesting watching the faces of Conservative eurosceptics surrounding me...
Bodes well though I somehow doubt Chuka is entirely impartial so we'll have to wait for the first backbench grumblings to begin.
Like the coming of the tides, I doubt we'll have to wait long.
I must say, I really am supportive of backbenchers not being pushovers, but these Tory ones seem like the most unpleasable and miserable bunch ever conceived.
You don't perhaps think their trust and gullibility has been well and truly tested to destruction many, many times before now? Oh I'm 100% certain there is a small hardcore that would like nothing better than to see Cammie humiliated at every turn but let's be realistic here. It's not just a small hardcore any more nor can all the endless posturing and pledges be easily forgotten. It's a two way street and they have good reason to be miserable if they keep believing the spin. The BOOers will never trust Cammie but we know it's not just them. Syria was not out of the blue. His own backbenchers warned him. Syria was also just the last time since there's plenty of other times. So yes you are quite correct. These tory backbenchers seem like the most unpleasable and miserable bunch ever conceived. But there's a reason they are that way and I'm afraid Cammie and the chumocracy can hardly pretend that reason is nothing to do with them.
Sure, but so what? Are you saying that, because the police have made wrongful arrests in the past, or have lied, or have shot an innocent man without any good reason, that therefore they should not have powers of arrest, or ever be allowed to used armed force even if (say) a gunman were rampaging around Oxford Street?
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
You are supporting the state taking new powers over the population to prevent terrorism and saying we should just trust them to do the right thing, they're all honourable people. My point is that at all levels from front line police officers up to PM they cannot be relied upon in this way, as has been shown many times. Their powers should therefore be strictly limited, in a way that you don't seem to recognise. And adding on an ever increasing number of secret mass surveillance programs does not fit the idea of limits. It is may all be legal, but that is just another layer of problem.
Tories should remember the words of the founder of modern Conservatism Edmund Burke:
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
Poor old gullible tory Eurosceptics, what a shame.
They're really not that gullible, as I thought the whole point was the proper euroskeptics never believed it in the first place.
'Proper' Eurosceptics are BOOers these days. Anything less is usually met with complete scorn by Farage and the kippers. It's the softer 'IN' tory Eurosceptics who keep setting themselves up for a fall that are most gullible and usually most angry since the hardcore never expect anything different from Cammie.
Because I am old and slow and there were other replies ahead of you in the queue. Our posts have though crossed so my reply is below.
2. Chance of litigation
You know what exists 'out there', It is a tinderbox waiting to be ignited. And a year ago you could have asked the same rhetorical question about Lord MacAlpine. We don't know the facts, Nigel (or at least are very unlikely to) so it is much better to err on the side of caution. It is Mike's money and reputation you would be putting at risk However low you might consider that risk to be why subject Mike to it? Most of us know where such names and allegations can be openly discussed. Why not go there?
Comments
JJ
In all the discussion of paedophiles and politicians, I am not sure whether PB has adequately discussed the possible motives for the Mail giving prominence to the Harman et al and NCCL story.
It is not so much reading between the lines of the Mail articles as reading selected lines which yield the best clues.
Yesterday the Mail published an article which began with the following statement:
A Labour MP [revealed later in the article to be Tom Watson] has demanded renewed and wider inquiries into the Paedophile Information Exchange amid fears that government files proving it received taxpayers' cash have been shredded.
The Mail reveals that a former civil servant has "claimed the government gave money to the PIE during the 1970s. But Mail "sources" also claim that:
...everything that the Home Office held on PIE post 1979 appears to have been destroyed, except for the titles. ... The Home Office insists 'their destruction was consistent with applicable record retention policies'.
As a result, Theresa May has asked Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, to investigate after details of the claims were passed on by Labour MP Tom Watson
In the background is speculation as to the intent of Tom Watson MP. The Mail states:
Tom Watson ... last night welcomed the probe but also demanded a wider-ranging police inquiriy into the PIE.
The Mail goes on to quote Watson directly:
"I was contacted by a former Home Office civil servant who told me that he saw a document that suggests the Paedophile Information Exchange got public money".
"The document was recommending approval for funding during the Thatcher government . My source who does not wish to talk to the media, said it appeared to be a re-application for funds."
All this should be viewed in context of claims widely circulated in the media that 'a paedophile ring existed during the 1980s and 90s which had links to No 10 and the then government'.
Taking all the above into account, a key motive of the Mail in publishing the NCCL story now may be to pre-empt and defuse a future revelation, following Sedwill's report, that the Thatcher government contributed public money to PIE. The Mail has stated that they believe the initial funding arrangement was first authorised under the Callaghan government and that any subsequent provision of funds under Thatcher would have been a continuation of this existing arrangement.
Given the wider, and seemingly unconnected rumours of links between paedophile activity and politiicians, the Mail's motives may also have been to ensure that later revelations were not seen by the general public to have been a problem which affected only the Conservative Party and 1979-97 governments.
compouter should be better informed, if not wiser, from reading this post.
Note: All bolding in direct quotes is mine.
Given your faith in the magnitude and wisdom of our betters in HMG, may I ask what level of intrusion would be too much for you? If David Cameron and Ed Miliband and all the rest of them came out and said "the terrorist threat has suddenly increased for classified reasons we can't say, and as such we need to store a camera in everyone's house", your logic would still hold, because supposedly we just have to belief that, whatever the level of intrusion, if the powers that be said the risk is there, we should accept their wisdom?
More seriously I think you completely neglect the tendency of politicians to go native when confronted by the civil service - witness the repeated resurrection of ID cards amongst others. The alternative explanation possible is that politicians all lie through their teeth when in opposition and then do what they always wanted to in power, but I'm not that cynical yet.
I have a little sympathy with your comments that communication/technology has changed and so surveillance is necessary, but your argument doesn't really suggest a limit - should we all be watched all the time? Conspiracies and terrorist threats would certainly be easier to find, so we'd all be safer.
We spent 30ish years with a campaign of regular terrorist attacks with a few (?2) days at most detention without trial and no mass surveillance program. I'm not sure why we need to have changed that now.
I suspect GCHQ were, by and large, looking for bad guys and focussing surveillance on them, not doing mass data trawls on everyone.
Your argument also has another major weakness. Even if you believe that David Cameron is possessed of the wisdom of Solomon and will only ever use the powers the government has collected or good, are you so sure about PM Miliband, or whichever numpty Labour select after him? We've already seen that Prime Ministers/the government can't be trusted.
Tautology alert!
Perhaps a reboot of your logic circuits is in order.
I think I understand your point of view.
*tears of laughter*
You lot really do have a remarkably high opinion of yourselves don't you?
It's that kind of comedy gold that makes it all worthwhile.
*Edit: in terms of physical location, of course.
My dentist, by contrast, is FORBIDDEN by his NHS practice to use the internet at all, even to look up treatment discussions, check hospitals' current waiting times, etc. The practice manager fears that he might spend time on Facebook. (He's about 40 and one of most respectable people I know.)
Again, you have no leg to stand on. Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
How many times did they run the Istvar/Tass story?
I do love Putin's 'useful idiots'
Anyway, I did so enjoy the news that the Tories are the party of mass migration now. At least when Labour did it there was a (misguided stupid) policy - to end up with mass migration because you are functionally incompetent is just funny, we'll be laughing all the way to the UKIP rally
Show me the Hodges......Show me the Hodges!
And I have never said that I wanted no surveillance powers, and when you have accused me of that before, I have dispelled it a number of times. Why do you continue to misrepresent my position?
I'm not trying to misrepresent you - the point I'm making, and I'm glad you agree, is that everyone agrees there should be some surveillance, with suitable safeguards. The question is how much, and what safeguards.
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just acceptance that most politicians, when in power, care more about covering their political asses then they do about higher principles. Whether or not a terrorist attack could have been stopped by this stuff, if one happened the politicians don't want to be in a position where someone can say "we asked for this power and they said no!"
There you go again! Why not just accept that these are decent men and women, faced with the difficult task of balancing civil liberty concerns against the undoubtedly real risk of atrocious crimes against British citizens and citizens of other friendly powers? Maybe they don't get the balance right, maybe they accept the assurances of the intelligence services too readily; it's very hard to say from the outside. But saying they are just 'covering their asses' is frankly ridiculous. They are probably more concerned about preventing people getting murdered and maimed.
If David Cameron and Ed Miliband and all the rest of them came out and said "the terrorist threat has suddenly increased for classified reasons we can't say, and as such we need to store a camera in everyone's house", your logic would still hold, because supposedly we just have to belief that, whatever the level of intrusion, if the powers that be said the risk is there, we should accept their wisdom?
That's a silly question, because they are not saying anything so obviously daft. What they are saying is that the intelligence services need bulk access to metadata (which they've always had for phone calls). I know enough about the subject to understand a bit about why the intelligence services are so keen on having that access. The politicians are not, as far as I know, saying that GCHQ are authorised to carry out bulk surveillance of email or phone call contents, or pictures.
The story is also consistent with others - this time based on primary sources it would seem
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484
I will spare everyone the horror of delving into the psyche of an infamous Bangkok sex tourist and torture porn 'author' since there are other even more infamous Bangkok sex tourists they can easily read about for them to draw their own conclusions from.
Write away posh-Sean but just be certain your boss is fine with all you have wrote on here since I vividly recall you shitting yourself when OGH tweeted that you were boasting about an unpublished clickbait piece that would "lose him his job" as you put it.
I have a feeling this may become another Lisbon-treaty-partial-quote-"scandal" from the lefties & UKIP.
The issue isn't that No. 10 are looking to their international allies to help them, I am taking issue with Pork continually going on about an alleged No. 10 sponsored intervention by Putin when there are no non-Russian sources to back that up.
The fact that the Herald put their own name to the Spanish intervention and not to the Russian one tells its own story.
"
No mention of the limit applying to non EU only.
http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf
"The Conservatives pledged to restrict net migration from outside the European Union to tens of thousands each year. It stood at 196,000 last year."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/camerons-business-backers-lobby-against-immigration-cap-2125680.html
"£8.2bn in anyone's mind is a very big loss," Mr McEwan told Hugh Pym.
"Underneath that loss we've got a very profitable business," he added
[yes I know, underlying trends, exclude exceptional items, blah-de-blah-blah-blah]
Just thickies these MP's aren't they ?? and southern Tories must just be the worst ever ?!?
Apparently people want immigration stopped. Immigration from the EU is immigration as witnessed by the UKIP/Mail panic over Bulgaria and Romania. Any pledge to cut net migration that doesn't include net migration from the countries that people are migrating from would rightly be seen as an utter joke.
Cameron appears to have made a pledge he couldn't possibly deliver. Again. Then wonders why his voter base have gone to UKIP.
However, you have yet to come up with a single trustworthy source to No. 10 approaching the Russians. We have a reprinted story in the Herald citing a Kremlin aligned paper. It is not credible.
Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
No-one is claiming that there should be powers without democratic oversight and without a legal framework, which if necessary can be tested in the courts.
So take your petulant demands and shove them up JackW's arse if you would be so kind.
I can tell you it can be very frustrating to have to wait till daylight to do something outside if one is working to the normal day! And that is Inverness/Aberdeen sort of latitude.
Notice the helpful use of the third-party.
And who was running the NCCL at the time, Patricia?
Brian Moore @brianmoore666 2 mins
I don't think @LouiseMensch realises that every word from an English Tory in favour of union makes it less likely.
Will Jennings @drjennings 50m
Latest migration figures leave Cameron pledge 'in tatters' <= net migration always a stupid pledge, target, policy... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-migration-pledge-in-tatters-as-figures-reveal-net-immigration-of-200000-9157334.html …
It's not about my track record, or the Herald's. They have every right to reprint the allegations. Note that they don't endorse them, only reprint them and mention that they uncovered something similar in Spain. It is you that needs a lesson in reading comprehension.
You need to take your bile and bugger off, you make this website a chore to read. Your constant reposting of bullcrap and "jokes" and numerous posts of Twitter rubbish is tiresome.
No, I don't. You need to take your bizarre sense of entitlement elsewhere since it carries no weight on here.
Just admit you were wrong and we can all move on. That's all it will take Pork.
http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_02_27/Iconic-Standard-Life-could-move-south-in-case-of-Scottish-independence-8813/
Things must be bad if you're losing bestest of mates, 'Voice of Russia'.....
When you have all the embarassing secrets of everyone in the country plus terabytes of amateur porn no-one's that honourable.
Net migration soars over 200,000 despite David Cameron's pledge! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10664667/Net-migration-soars-over-200000-despite-David-Camerons-pledge.html …
Things must be bad if the fop's Cast Iron Pledges are in tatters. Well, more of them. We all know gullible tory eurosceptics should be used to it by now.
Electoral Calculus:
SNP 29 seats (+23)
Lab 26 (-15)
Con 2 (+1)
LD 2 (-9)
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/userpoll_scot.html
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1901740_620650658018579_955969555_n.jpg
You need help Pork. Serious help. Anyway, I'm done with this. Since you aren't able to admit mistakes I'll move on. I made a mistake in bothering to correct your stupidity, and I'm sorry to have wasted everyone else's time having to read this back and forth.
Merkel tells Cameron she cannot satisfy all Britain's EU wishes http://ow.ly/2EggD0
Gwennael Tristan @GwennaelTristan 1m
It's a "Nein" to EU reform: Merkel delivers blunt message to Cameron's call for changes to European Union http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/angela-merkel-tells-david-cameron-3190019#.Uw-QuLn3cWg.twitter …
Poor old gullible tory Eurosceptics, what a shame.
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
- "... Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy appears to have been fighting back – not online, but on the Commons floor. Witnesses report that he told the SNP’s Pete Wishart to ‘Fuck off, fuck off, fuck off’ during a division."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/02/jim-murphy-takes-union-fight-offline/
Methinks the plot has been lost.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26376896
Uses the S word.
Not just being contrarian, I don't believe it was wrong, in principle, for the NCCL to accept PIE as an affiliate in the mid 1970s.
Civil rights (if not necessarily liberties) should be made available to all citizens good and bad, Indeed an argument can be put that it is the 'bad' who have more need of organised advocacy support than the 'good'.
Where PIE went wrong was not in advocating rights and protection for paedophiles nor in lobbying for changes in the criminal law on, for example, ages of consent. However unacceptable such views may be to the vast majority of people, it doesn't follow that a civilised society should deny minorities the right to organise and lobby for (unacceptable) change.
PIE's unacceptability arose from its officers personally committing criminal acts (for which they were charged, convicted and imprisoned) and from the scope of its activities becoming extended to promoting illegal activity. Simplifying what happened it became more a dating and supply agency for paedophiles rather than a civil rights and support group.
I doubt though those arguing this line will win many friends or much support, but my guess is that it represents the true thinking of those involved in the NCCL in the 1970s.
Patricia Hewitt is right to claim that she and her colleagues were "naive" and "wrong" but it does not follow that these errors were fundamentally ones of principle. It is more a statement of "knowing what we know about how PIE turned out today and, recognising the almost universal contempt in which paedophiles are held by society today, we recognise that our youthful support for PIE is incompatible with the high offices we were later to hold in government".
A braver response would have been to defend the principles and condemn the actual outcomes.
One thing that I’ve missed in recent weeks has been the growing sentiment on the betting markets that Labour will win most votes and that the task facing UKIP is going to be harder than many predicted. "
It's that and the fact that Farage couldn't capitalise on Cammie's flood shambles as well as the polls simply not going up for the kippers right now. This time last year they were definitely showing the beginnings of the upward swing for last May's local elections.
Well the kippers have just been handed all the ammunition they could wish for thanks to one of the incompetent fop's endless untrustworthy Cast Iron Pledges. There's also the small matter of CCHQ overhyping and overspinning Merkel's 'love in' that most definitely did not give the Eurosceptics all that they crave or even close to it. The tiny scraps Merkel threw to a begging and desperate Cameron will not satisfy those unhappy tory backbenchers who think he's full of it when it comes to EU pledges and promises. Finally Farage had Clegg throw him a lifeline with the debate since that is certain to get big publicity. So unless CCHQ really are staffed by complete incompetents then even they must realise Farage getting loads of free publicity is not what they need for the EU elections. It's the exact opposite of what they need.
So whatever happens now Farage will not have the excuse that it was just bad luck if he fails to have a good showing in May. He and the kippers have a great many of the cards now stacked in their favour.
Very good speech by Chancellor Merkel. Interesting watching the faces of Conservative eurosceptics surrounding me...
Bodes well though I somehow doubt Chuka is entirely impartial so we'll have to wait for the first backbench grumblings to begin.
Michael Heaver @Michael_Heaver
Amount of media in Torquay for #UKIPSpring is phenomenal. A true sign of the party's progress.
The frothing over on conhome suggests that an explosion of fury from Cam's backbenchers is just around the corner.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26335569
Updated background on PIE, Harman and NCCL.
They did not come away disappointed last time either with the Farage Bloom shambles.
But it's hard to see how Farage could miss such a massive open goal as Cammie's immigration Pledge. If you then start getting Eurosceptic tory MPs coming out of the woodwork grumbling about Cammie and Merkel's 'love in' then I find it hard to believe anything other than a long planted 'gotcha' from CCHQ and friends could spoil things for Farage tomorrow. We shall see.
Another corking set of results from RBS Mr Pole. So how's getting that £46bn back for the taxpayer going ?
Your comment re PIE has the potential to land Mike Smithson in a lot of trouble.
You are no longer permitted to comment on this topic.
Please confirm you understand this instruction.
It certainly doesn't follow that any decent or sensible organisation should accept the former as an affiliate.
I must say, I really am supportive of backbenchers not being pushovers, but these Tory ones seem like the most unpleasable and miserable bunch ever conceived. It's to the point that when I see 'Tory rebellion' or 'Tory whispers' on something, I'm inclined to think Cameron is doing something sensible simply on reflex, and I know he's not sensible as often as that!
I can see that 'extremist' political organisations at both ends of the spectrum may have a need for their rights to be protected and for their aims to be advocated and lobbied.
If the NCCL's aims accommodated such a spread of political positioning I would see no reason to exclude them.
But I suspect this view is merely theoretical given the general positioning of the NCCL towards the left of politics.
"Be aware that while Dnipropetrovsk is located in Ukraine, like many cities of Eastern Ukraine, it is very rare to hear people speaking the Ukrainian language. Unfortunately, in a business setting, speaking Ukrainian is often met with confusion or contempt. So it's better to stick to Russian or English here."
http://wikitravel.org/en/Dnipropetrovsk
No wonder there are problems in Ukraine if you can't even speak the national language in large swathes of the country.
1. On why I haven't replied on NF & NCCL
Because I am old and slow and there were other replies ahead of you in the queue. Our posts have though crossed so my reply is below.
2. Chance of litigation
You know what exists 'out there', It is a tinderbox waiting to be ignited. And a year ago you could have asked the same rhetorical question about Lord MacAlpine. We don't know the facts, Nigel (or at least are very unlikely to) so it is much better to err on the side of caution. It is Mike's money and reputation you would be putting at risk However low you might consider that risk to be why subject Mike to it? Most of us know where such names and allegations can be openly discussed. Why not go there?