Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Biden note that’s made Harris odds on favourite once again

12467

Comments

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,309
    edited July 2020
    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Book on Corbyn in prominent central position in shot (albeit not as much as The Deficit Myth)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Since increasing age appears to be affecting my balance my wife is insisting I sell my (electric-assist) bike. I just can't face not having it about any more, though. Keep thinking I will get back to it one day.

    Fingers crossed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,595

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I see he has placed 'The Deficit Myth' right in the middle of his book shelf for all to see what he is reading this week.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Not another world-beating industry in the UK!
    I'm guessing that he is going as Zorro but he needs the hat.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That train doesn't look "ram-packed".
    And he's not sitting on the floor. Weird.
    I liked that incident with Corbyn because it gave the lie to the idea he was not an 'ordinary' politician, one who engaged in spin just like any other. What he was was unconventional in some ways, and certainly had not been a leading figure before, but he operated like any other once he did get to the top.
    I liked it because it allowed us all to laugh at those who claimed Corbyn was more honest or sincere than other politicians.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That train doesn't look "ram-packed".
    And he's not sitting on the floor. Weird.
    I liked that incident with Corbyn because it gave the lie to the idea he was not an 'ordinary' politician, one who engaged in spin just like any other. What he was was unconventional in some ways, and certainly had not been a leading figure before, but he operated like any other once he did get to the top.
    I liked it because it allowed us all to laugh at those who claimed Corbyn was more honest or sincere than other politicians.
    I also like those incidents as you usually get the defenders in the aftermath talking about how person x highlighted a real issue of concern (essentially saying it 'could' have been true), which can only every provoke the response 'then why did he choose to highlight it with a lie, when it would have been true on plenty of other occasions?'
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    kle4 said:

    They are partly to blame, and it doesn't mean actual avoidable mistakes should not be accountable, but I think this is a very fair point.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1288243148976783360

    They are not so much to blame as subject to ridicule when they try to pretend that they have more control than they do.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    edited July 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:
    £81,932 is plenty to be getting on with. Has @HYUFD applied for the spokesman job ?
    He was, but in the end they considered HYUFD to be too much of an independent minded loose cannon I believe..
    Wait until Laura Kunnesberg takes the job

    Ducks
    Bit overfamiliar calling TUD 'Ducks'!
    My mum lived in Leics for a few years so I'm used to being addressed as 'mi duck'. I assume it's on the same lines as 'hen' in Glasgow. I've even heard a couple of people use 'ma chick' as a form of address.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited July 2020
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    They are partly to blame, and it doesn't mean actual avoidable mistakes should not be accountable, but I think this is a very fair point.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1288243148976783360

    They are not so much to blame as subject to ridicule when they try to pretend that they have more control than they do.
    Sometimes. But I do think we expect government and politicians to be able to influence or control everything a lot more than is reasonable. I'm not suggesting we go back to the days when expectations were very low indeed, but government simply cannot do all we think it can, nor should it at a certain level of detail, and while they do pretend to have more control than they do, there's a reason they do that, and it's on us expecting it. Heck, conspiracy theorists are the biggest believers in that control.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772
    Nigelb said:

    This really ought to put to an end the nonsense about lab origins of the virus.

    Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0771-4
    There are outstanding evolutionary questions on the recent emergence of human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 including the role of reservoir species, the role of recombination and its time of divergence from animal viruses. We find that the sarbecoviruses—the viral subgenus containing SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2—undergo frequent recombination and exhibit spatially structured genetic diversity on a regional scale in China. SARS-CoV-2 itself is not a recombinant of any sarbecoviruses detected to date, and its receptor-binding motif, important for specificity to human ACE2 receptors, appears to be an ancestral trait shared with bat viruses and not one acquired recently via recombination. To employ phylogenetic dating methods, recombinant regions of a 68-genome sarbecovirus alignment were removed with three independent methods. Bayesian evolutionary rate and divergence date estimates were shown to be consistent for these three approaches and for two different prior specifications of evolutionary rates based on HCoV-OC43 and MERS-CoV. Divergence dates between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat sarbecovirus reservoir were estimated as 1948 (95% highest posterior density (HPD): 1879–1999), 1969 (95% HPD: 1930–2000) and 1982 (95% HPD: 1948–2009), indicating that the lineage giving rise to SARS-CoV-2 has been circulating unnoticed in bats for decades....

    The only people who think this thing is genetically engineered from the ground up are the ones who think it is spread by 5g signals. The interesting and in my view tenable lab origin theory says that it was collected from the wild, taken to a lab and escaped again. This paper has nothing to say about that.

    The argument isn't that strong anyway because it says only that sars2 doesn't originate from sarbecoviruses detected to date *and known about by the authors* but also that China is stuffed with the things and they are recombining all the time. You would hardly expect the hypothetical nefarious gengineers to publish details of their source material. So the conclusion is probably true but the argument is pretty feeble.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That train doesn't look "ram-packed".
    And he's not sitting on the floor. Weird.
    I liked that incident with Corbyn because it gave the lie to the idea he was not an 'ordinary' politician, one who engaged in spin just like any other. What he was was unconventional in some ways, and certainly had not been a leading figure before, but he operated like any other once he did get to the top.
    I liked it because it allowed us all to laugh at those who claimed Corbyn was more honest or sincere than other politicians.
    I also like those incidents as you usually get the defenders in the aftermath talking about how person x highlighted a real issue of concern (essentially saying it 'could' have been true), which can only every provoke the response 'then why did he choose to highlight it with a lie, when it would have been true on plenty of other occasions?'
    Traingate was epic once the CCTV images were released. I had people saying Virgin had photoshopped children into seats, that the lat/long references had been doctored, that the train layout was different than Virgin were describing it etc etc. It was impossible for He to be anything other than the unadultered truth therefore the counterparty must be lying regardless of evidence.

    Lying in the face of evidence then became normal for the cult when answering why each round of election results were so bad. Hence his lost elections apparently being a better performance than Blair's later elections wins because apparently the popular vote unweighted for population change is the only measure that matters.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,450
    Fishing said:



    This brings us back to Gordon’s Golden Rule. It’s actually sound economics as long as you don’t keep changing the definition of where in the economic cycle you are and you don’t classify pay rises for the public sector as investment: http://journals.rcni.com/nursing-standard/standing-ovations-for-brown-as-he-pledges-support-for-nurses-ns.23.36.5.s2
    Investment should be designed to increase GDP or reduce costs for the government, that way it pays for the extra cost of borrowing it incurs. Health spending does this very indirectly at best (when there isn’t a pandemic of course) but it’s the easiest way of attacking the Tories if they refuse to match any increase in spending you can come up with.

    Rules like this are sound economics but unrealistic politically, as governments never keep to them when times are bad. There is no substitute for year-by-year vigilance and electing people who know what they are talking about.
    No, the problem is they don't stick to them when times are good.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    They are partly to blame, and it doesn't mean actual avoidable mistakes should not be accountable, but I think this is a very fair point.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1288243148976783360

    They are not so much to blame as subject to ridicule when they try to pretend that they have more control than they do.
    Sometimes. But I do think we expect government and politicians to be able to influence or control everything a lot more than is reasonable. I'm not suggesting we go back to the days when expectations were very low indeed, but government simply cannot do all we think it can, nor should it at a certain level of detail, and while they do pretend to have more control than they do, there's a reason they do that, and it's on us expecting it. Heck, conspiracy theorists are the biggest believers in that control.
    I have to say that some of the complaints on here about how the government had not given sufficient instructions on the running of a pub or a cafe were good examples of that. If anything I would criticise the government for attempting to micro manage more than they should, no doubt for the reasons that you have spelt out. Its worse in Scotland, of course.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,915
    This image looks like a scene from Tales from the Loop.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Since increasing age appears to be affecting my balance my wife is insisting I sell my (electric-assist) bike. I just can't face not having it about any more, though. Keep thinking I will get back to it one day.

    There's quite a lot of evidence on here that you are leaning too far to the left if that's any help.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    Corbyn had to attack the trains because they were privatised. Except of course they weren't - never mind that Virgin Trains East Coast did not own the Intercity East Coast service it was providing, Branson didn't own a business that was 90% owned by Stagecoach. Didn't stop the wazzocks banging on and on about Branson and if you pointed out that their "they faked the CCTV" attacks were absurd then you evidently supported billionaires.

    Even funnier was when he attacked Virgin Trains (West Coast) over delays caused by Network Rail. Rant rave privatised railway he said. "But its state owned" we pointed out. To more frenzied attacks that we were supporting Branson in saying so.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    Superb.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:
    £81,932 is plenty to be getting on with. Has @HYUFD applied for the spokesman job ?
    He was, but in the end they considered HYUFD to be too much of an independent minded loose cannon I believe..
    Wait until Laura Kunnesberg takes the job

    Ducks
    Bit overfamiliar calling TUD 'Ducks'!
    My mum lived in Leics for a few years so I'm used to being addressed as 'mi duck'. I assume it's on the same lines as 'hen' in Glasgow. I've even heard a couple of people use 'ma chick' as a form of address.
    Being called "my lover" in a thick Devon burr was something of a surprise. I rather thought I'd have remembered....
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,591

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    tlg86 said:

    That train doesn't look "ram-packed".
    And he's not sitting on the floor. Weird.
    I liked that incident with Corbyn because it gave the lie to the idea he was not an 'ordinary' politician, one who engaged in spin just like any other. What he was was unconventional in some ways, and certainly had not been a leading figure before, but he operated like any other once he did get to the top.
    I liked it because it allowed us all to laugh at those who claimed Corbyn was more honest or sincere than other politicians.
    I also like those incidents as you usually get the defenders in the aftermath talking about how person x highlighted a real issue of concern (essentially saying it 'could' have been true), which can only every provoke the response 'then why did he choose to highlight it with a lie, when it would have been true on plenty of other occasions?'
    Traingate was epic once the CCTV images were released. I had people saying Virgin had photoshopped children into seats, that the lat/long references had been doctored, that the train layout was different than Virgin were describing it etc etc. It was impossible for He to be anything other than the unadultered truth therefore the counterparty must be lying regardless of evidence.

    Lying in the face of evidence then became normal for the cult when answering why each round of election results were so bad. Hence his lost elections apparently being a better performance than Blair's later elections wins because apparently the popular vote unweighted for population change is the only measure that matters.
    and to think, we once got all wound up because George Osborne was sat in the seat he was allocated.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    DavidL said:

    Its worse in Scotland, of course.

    I think everyone took that for granted.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:
    £81,932 is plenty to be getting on with. Has @HYUFD applied for the spokesman job ?
    He was, but in the end they considered HYUFD to be too much of an independent minded loose cannon I believe..
    Wait until Laura Kunnesberg takes the job

    Ducks
    Bit overfamiliar calling TUD 'Ducks'!
    My mum lived in Leics for a few years so I'm used to being addressed as 'mi duck'. I assume it's on the same lines as 'hen' in Glasgow. I've even heard a couple of people use 'ma chick' as a form of address.
    Being called "my lover" in a thick Devon burr was something of a surprise. I rather thought I'd have remembered....
    Doesn't say much for your Friday nights.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    DavidL said:

    Its worse in Scotland, of course.

    I think everyone took that for granted.
    Indeed, though why it was adopted as the slogan of VisitScotland I'll never know.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    Krupp could make a fortune selling copies of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288 to people like him - the WhenInAHoleReallyStartDigging brigade.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    DavidL said:

    Its worse in Scotland, of course.

    I think everyone took that for granted.
    Nicola has many strengths as a politician and even as a First Minister compared to some of the muppets we have had in the past but blimey, does she like to Nanny State us. This crisis has brought that tendency to the fore.

  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,611
    edited July 2020
    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,450

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:
    £81,932 is plenty to be getting on with. Has @HYUFD applied for the spokesman job ?
    He was, but in the end they considered HYUFD to be too much of an independent minded loose cannon I believe..
    Wait until Laura Kunnesberg takes the job

    Ducks
    Bit overfamiliar calling TUD 'Ducks'!
    My mum lived in Leics for a few years so I'm used to being addressed as 'mi duck'. I assume it's on the same lines as 'hen' in Glasgow. I've even heard a couple of people use 'ma chick' as a form of address.
    'Chick' is used in Cheshire, according to a work colleague of mine from Cheshire.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:
    £81,932 is plenty to be getting on with. Has @HYUFD applied for the spokesman job ?
    He was, but in the end they considered HYUFD to be too much of an independent minded loose cannon I believe..
    Wait until Laura Kunnesberg takes the job

    Ducks
    Bit overfamiliar calling TUD 'Ducks'!
    My mum lived in Leics for a few years so I'm used to being addressed as 'mi duck'. I assume it's on the same lines as 'hen' in Glasgow. I've even heard a couple of people use 'ma chick' as a form of address.
    'Chick' is used in Cheshire, according to a work colleague of mine from Cheshire.
    Ah well, I eggspect nothing less of the people of Cheshire.

    See you later.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772

    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
    Owning up to travelling first class is also a major step forwards. Genuinely impressed.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    edited July 2020
    Putting up a picture of the wrong black person is insidious, say The Guardian

    "An MP casually dropping the N-word may seem like the more serious cause for offence, but the fact no one at the Herald noticed the picture on its back page was of the wrong black man is just as insidious. We are quick to focus on the obvious displays of racism that are relatively easy to condemn and call out the individual racists. But it is the mundane, everyday racisms that we all collude in that we need to be just as vigilant about."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/stormzy-lukaku-n-word-irish-herald
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    IshmaelZ said:

    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
    Owning up to travelling first class is also a major step forwards. Genuinely impressed.
    Show Labour cant be trusted with the economy - he and his photographer are proably the only people on the whole train
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    isam said:

    Putting up a picture of the wrong black person is insidious, say The Guardian

    "An MP casually dropping the N-word may seem like the more serious cause for offence, but the fact no one at the Herald noticed the picture on its back page was of the wrong black man is just as insidious. We are quick to focus on the obvious displays of racism that are relatively easy to condemn and call out the individual racists. But it is the mundane, everyday racisms that we all collude in that we need to be just as vigilant about."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/stormzy-lukaku-n-word-irish-herald

    :lol:
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    isam said:

    Putting up a picture of the wrong black person is insidious, say The Guardian

    "An MP casually dropping the N-word may seem like the more serious cause for offence, but the fact no one at the Herald noticed the picture on its back page was of the wrong black man is just as insidious. We are quick to focus on the obvious displays of racism that are relatively easy to condemn and call out the individual racists. But it is the mundane, everyday racisms that we all collude in that we need to be just as vigilant about."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/stormzy-lukaku-n-word-irish-herald

    Owen Jones is such a numpty



  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    edited July 2020
    IshmaelZ said:

    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
    Owning up to travelling first class is also a major step forwards. Genuinely impressed.
    He's not in first class
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,462
    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.

    It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.

    Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?

    It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.

    Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
    That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
    True.

    Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
    The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
    Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
    Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
    So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?

    USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama

    UK - Atlee, Churchill (when sober), Thatcher, Major, Blair (ignoring Iraq).

    Guess it could have been worse.

    Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.

    The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.

    Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
    I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).

    Too early to judge on Boris.
    What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
    For me his two greatest achievements:

    * He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.

    * Introduced equal marriage.

    Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
    You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
    No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.

    The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.

    During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.

    What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
    Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
    Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.

    Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
    Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.

    Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.

    Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.

    Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13302
    Who was in charge of financial stability regulation? Who created that body? Why was the regulatory oversight of financial services changed so drastically in 2001? How were RBS allowed to operate with just 2% liquidity? How was Northern Rock allowed to operate for years with just 3% liquidity and why were FSA rules allowing those banks to show more than double their true liquidity to markets?

    These are all failures we can attribute to Brown. There's no doubt that the sub-prime housing crisis in the US was the match that started the fire, but Brown was the arsonist who put kindling under the UK economy when he tore up regulations in 2001 and put lesser people in charge of overseeing our most complicated and important sector.
    And don't forget cooking the books with PFI.

    On Brown's watch the City forgot about risk management in the chase for revenues and bonuses. He went along with this, drank the kool aid, happy to take a share, allowed them to more or less regulate themselves. Meaning they were not regulated.

    In his defence it was the prevailing consensus then - thanks to Greenspan - that the finance sector could be left to its own devices and omnipotent central bankers could ride the tiger and use monetary policy to keep it on the reservation. Which was bollocks of course.

    A massively overrated chancellor. John McDonnell would have been much better.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526

    isam said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
    Owning up to travelling first class is also a major step forwards. Genuinely impressed.
    Show Labour cant be trusted with the economy - he and his photographer are proably the only people on the whole train
    He's not in first class
    What a spoilsport
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    isam said:

    isam said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
    Owning up to travelling first class is also a major step forwards. Genuinely impressed.
    Show Labour cant be trusted with the economy - he and his photographer are proably the only people on the whole train
    He's not in first class
    What a spoilsport
    I know... When the trains are this empty what is the point in First Class? Spread out in standard.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,772

    IshmaelZ said:

    I do like the fact that he seems to be staring out of the window. If it’s the bit of track I think it is anyone who doesn’t has no soul, or they are from Devon (don’t say that amounts to the the same thing...)
    Owning up to travelling first class is also a major step forwards. Genuinely impressed.
    He's not in first class
    Really? I don't get seats that wide in cattle class
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,462
    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:



    Crashes happen, its an inevitable fact of life.

    Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.

    Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
    Shocks happen.

    What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
    Yes, shocks do happen. But there is a huge difference between largely exogenous shocks, like China flu, and endogenous shocks, like the 2008 financial crash. The former was largely outside our control, though with perfect foresight we could have managed it better and the latter was because our financial regulation was criminally reckless and irresponsible.

    Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
    Do you really think that if the UK had continued with the system of financial regulation in place prior to 1997 we would have been largely shielded from the impact of the Global Financial Crisis?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,408
    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:



    Crashes happen, its an inevitable fact of life.

    Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.

    Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
    Shocks happen.

    What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
    Yes, shocks do happen. But there is a huge difference between largely exogenous shocks, like China flu, and endogenous shocks, like the 2008 financial crash. The former was largely outside our control, though with perfect foresight we could have managed it better and the latter was because our financial regulation was criminally reckless and irresponsible.

    Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
    Do you really think that if the UK had continued with the system of financial regulation in place prior to 1997 we would have been largely shielded from the impact of the Global Financial Crisis?
    Better protected yes.

    And if we had not gone in completely exposed with a maxed out deficit the Treasury would have been better protected too.

    Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Its not possible to avoid all shocks, it is possible to avoid adding fuel to the fire to make them worse. Brown stacked kerosene on top of kindling before the first sparks flew.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Waking up 100 million year old microbes would only be sensible if you were wanting to probe the very origins of The Archers.

    I'm reminded of a time I watched (from a distance) a group of Brummie blokes in shorts poking a large snake. When asked what they were doing, back came the answer

    "We want to hear it rattle.....".

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    The EHCR is Israeli?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035
    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:



    Crashes happen, its an inevitable fact of life.

    Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.

    Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
    Shocks happen.

    What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
    Yes, shocks do happen. But there is a huge difference between largely exogenous shocks, like China flu, and endogenous shocks, like the 2008 financial crash. The former was largely outside our control, though with perfect foresight we could have managed it better and the latter was because our financial regulation was criminally reckless and irresponsible.

    Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
    Do you really think that if the UK had continued with the system of financial regulation in place prior to 1997 we would have been largely shielded from the impact of the Global Financial Crisis?
    We will never know, but I don't think there's much doubt that the BoE was better at supervising the financial sector than its successors. At any rate, it could hardly have been worse. Certainly the Conservatives, who opposed the 1997 reforms, argued so at the time.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    The EHCR is Israeli?
    In their paranoid world *everything* is Israel.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    isam said:
    “ Supporters of the teenagers - Henry Long, 19, Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, both 18 - had crowded into the public gallery of the Old Bailey as the case got under way in March. But no sooner had it started, Mr Justice Edis brought the trial to a halt over an alleged potential plot to intimidate jurors.

    An unidentified person in the public gallery overlooking the courtroom was seen pointing at jurors.

    Defence barrister Timothy Raggatt QC dismissed the incident as 'a touch oversensitive'.

    In the absence of the jury, he said: 'In the circumstances, someone could be pointing for all sorts of reasons. Take, for example, there appear to be a lot of ladies in this court.' “

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8556903/Andrew-Harper-jury-needed-police-protection-amid-fears-intimidation.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited July 2020

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As the context makes clear. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,825
    edited July 2020
    isam said:
    Summary - it requires confirmation that jury tampering was attempted before it can go to the high court and then it's up to the court to decide if the case should be redone...

    Personally when I looked at the evidence you can see a lot of things but sadly I don't think murder is one of them (it's hard to see pre-mediation and the intent was to escape not to cause harm).

    Manslaughter can carry an 18 year sentence though so it's possible that it will make little difference to actual sentencing.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035
    edited July 2020
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.

    It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.

    Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?

    It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.

    Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
    That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
    True.

    Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
    The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
    Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
    Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
    So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?

    USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama

    UK - Atlee, Churchill (when sober), Thatcher, Major, Blair (ignoring Iraq).

    Guess it could have been worse.

    Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.

    The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.

    Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
    I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).

    Too early to judge on Boris.
    What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
    For me his two greatest achievements:

    * He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.

    * Introduced equal marriage.

    Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
    You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
    No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.

    The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.

    During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.

    What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
    Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
    Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.

    Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
    Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.

    Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.

    Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.

    Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13302
    Who was in charge of financial stability regulation? Who created that body? Why was the regulatory oversight of financial services changed so drastically in 2001? How were RBS allowed to operate with just 2% liquidity? How was Northern Rock allowed to operate for years with just 3% liquidity and why were FSA rules allowing those banks to show more than double their true liquidity to markets?

    These are all failures we can attribute to Brown. There's no doubt that the sub-prime housing crisis in the US was the match that started the fire, but Brown was the arsonist who put kindling under the UK economy when he tore up regulations in 2001 and put lesser people in charge of overseeing our most complicated and important sector.
    And don't forget cooking the books with PFI.

    On Brown's watch the City forgot about risk management in the chase for revenues and bonuses. He went along with this, drank the kool aid, happy to take a share, allowed them to more or less regulate themselves. Meaning they were not regulated.

    In his defence it was the prevailing consensus then - thanks to Greenspan - that the finance sector could be left to its own devices and omnipotent central bankers could ride the tiger and use monetary policy to keep it on the reservation. Which was bollocks of course.

    A massively overrated chancellor. John McDonnell would have been much better.
    No, I'd rather live in post-Crash Britain for all its faults than in Venezuela or North Korea or wherever his and Corbyn's ideal society is this week.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,197
    NHS England Hospital numbers out

    Headline - 14
    7 Days - 13
    Yesterday - 2

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    edited July 2020
    Fishing said:

    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:



    Crashes happen, its an inevitable fact of life.

    Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.

    Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
    Shocks happen.

    What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
    Yes, shocks do happen. But there is a huge difference between largely exogenous shocks, like China flu, and endogenous shocks, like the 2008 financial crash. The former was largely outside our control, though with perfect foresight we could have managed it better and the latter was because our financial regulation was criminally reckless and irresponsible.

    Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
    Do you really think that if the UK had continued with the system of financial regulation in place prior to 1997 we would have been largely shielded from the impact of the Global Financial Crisis?
    We will never know, but I don't think there's much doubt that the BoE was better at supervising the financial sector than its successors. At any rate, it could hardly have been worse. Certainly the Conservatives, who opposed the 1997 reforms, argued so at the time.
    Peter Lilley:

    “with the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority – the ‘super-SIB’ – it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.” (Hansard, 11 November, 1997)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,176
    kinabalu said:

    Fishing said:

    Fishing said:



    Crashes happen, its an inevitable fact of life.

    Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.

    Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
    Shocks happen.

    What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
    Yes, shocks do happen. But there is a huge difference between largely exogenous shocks, like China flu, and endogenous shocks, like the 2008 financial crash. The former was largely outside our control, though with perfect foresight we could have managed it better and the latter was because our financial regulation was criminally reckless and irresponsible.

    Those who just dismiss the 2008 crash by saying "shocks happen" let Blair and Brown off much too lightly.
    Do you really think that if the UK had continued with the system of financial regulation in place prior to 1997 we would have been largely shielded from the impact of the Global Financial Crisis?
    Yes of course we would.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    Isn`t the problem the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which the LP adopted? Makes it difficult to criticise Israel policies without being accused of antisemitism.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,462

    Fishing said:



    Crashes happen, its an inevitable fact of life.

    Financial crashes are NOT inevitable - they are failures of financial regulation.

    Business cycles seem to be inevitable, but they often have different drivers. The current recession, for example, is a supply-side shock - nothing to do with the financial sector, which was fairly sound.
    Shocks happen.

    What causes the next shock can't be predicted, but we need to be prepared for a shock when it happens.
    The only shock
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.

    It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.

    Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?

    It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.

    Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
    That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
    True.

    Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
    The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
    Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
    Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
    So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?

    USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama

    UK - Atlee, Churchill (when sober), Thatcher, Major, Blair (ignoring Iraq).

    Guess it could have been worse.

    Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.

    The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.

    Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
    I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).

    Too early to judge on Boris.
    What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
    For me his two greatest achievements:

    * He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.

    * Introduced equal marriage.

    Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
    You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
    No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.

    The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.

    During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.

    What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
    Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
    Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.

    Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
    Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.

    Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.

    Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.

    Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13302
    He was responsible for ramping up the housing market to the point whereby it wasn't only Lehman that got hit but our non-IB domestic mortgage lenders also.

    That was all on him.
    A list of things Brown got wrong as Chancellor would be quite a long one. My top 3 are:

    - Acquiescing with City malpractice and bonus culture.
    - Cooking the books with PFI.
    - Being afraid to raise taxes.

    But I have no time for the notion that he was a bigger contributory factor to the crisis in our public finances post GFC than the GFC itself. Or that he was a significant cause of the GFC.

    This is Tory Story rather than anything rooted in objective reality. The good news is we don't hear it much these days in respectable circles.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    eek said:

    isam said:
    Summary - it requires confirmation that jury tampering was attempted before it can go to the high court and then it's up to the court to decide if the case should be redone...

    Personally when I looked at the evidence you can see a lot of things but sadly I don't think murder is one of them (it's hard to see pre-mediation and the intent was to escape not to cause harm).

    Manslaughter can carry a life sentence though so it's possible that it will make little difference to actual sentencing.
    Yes, what happened wasn’t as bad as them tieing him to the car, that part seems accidental. Hopefully, their lack of remorse, to put it at its mildest, and the public outcry will lean on the judge to give a heavy sentence.

    I’d back big odds on they knew PC Harper was attached to the car though.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    TOPPING said:

    isam said:
    Can't wait for the next Top Boy season.
    Thanks for putting me on to this Topping. I really enjoyed Top Boy Summerhouse but was a bit disappointed with the follow up, Top Boy.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,980
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    They are partly to blame, and it doesn't mean actual avoidable mistakes should not be accountable, but I think this is a very fair point.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1288243148976783360

    They are not so much to blame as subject to ridicule when they try to pretend that they have more control than they do.
    Indeed and they are very happy to claim credit for good things that happen that they had little or no involvement in as well.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,825
    isam said:

    eek said:

    isam said:
    Summary - it requires confirmation that jury tampering was attempted before it can go to the high court and then it's up to the court to decide if the case should be redone...

    Personally when I looked at the evidence you can see a lot of things but sadly I don't think murder is one of them (it's hard to see pre-mediation and the intent was to escape not to cause harm).

    Manslaughter can carry a life sentence though so it's possible that it will make little difference to actual sentencing.
    Yes, what happened wasn’t as bad as them tieing him to the car, that part seems accidental. Hopefully, their lack of remorse, to put it at its mildest, and the public outcry will lean on the judge to give a heavy sentence.

    I’d back big odds on they knew PC Harper was attached to the car though.
    I don't think it would make any difference though - to me it's maximum sentence manslaughter but not quite murder....
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    Interview with Jonathan Sumption.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=-syjnHYST-4
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,993
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As the context makes clear. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.
    I've no time for Chris Williamson, nor has the Labour Party, nor have the voters of Derby North (635 votes as an independent in 2019). And yes, there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour Party, being tackled by Starmer.

    But, and it's an important but, we have reached a stage where any criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is designated as ipso facto anti-semitic by a lot of commentators and pundits. This cannot be healthy, especially given some of the policies of the Israeli state over the last couple of years. We are also almost at the stage where support for the Palestinian cause is in itself perceived as evidence of anti-semitism as well. The debate has become unhealthily unbalanced.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    So, as rumour swirls that returnees from Belgium, Luxembourg and Croatia will be added to the UK quarantine list from Friday, the official government position is now to encourage people to go abroad on holiday whilst simultaneously threatening to wreck their trip at next to no notice?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,462

    I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.

    Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?

    Did I say that a Tory Story propaganda merchant will often find themselves wildly exaggerating the importance of a single year's 2.9% deficit and playing down the importance of the Global Financial Crisis?

    I'm so astute sometimes. :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    Isn`t the problem the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which the LP adopted? Makes it difficult to criticise Israel policies without being accused of antisemitism.
    No. The problem is that Chris Williamson is a racist twat. No more, no less.

    There is no earthly reason to think that the EHRC have been influenced by the Israelis, Jews, or indeed the Inuit peoples of Greenland. The reason he is being criticised is because he has a history of making outrageous remarks and has associated with racists.

    However, his backers do not like this fact and so try to pretend 'he's only criticising Israel.' Rubbish. Neither he nor Corbyn are criticising Israel, they are working with anti-Semites for reasons which become painfully obvious with even a cursory glance at their record - they are anti-semites themselves.

    And look at the abuse I get from their admirers for pointing this out. Ironic really given that I am accused of being anti-semitic for pointing out that Williamson is making an anti-semitic remark. But then I suppose I did quote what he meant rather than what he said, and what he meant was undoubtedly racist (is your head hurting yet)?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    edited July 2020
    kinabalu said:

    A list of things Brown got wrong as Chancellor would be quite a long one. My top 3 are:

    - Acquiescing with City malpractice and bonus culture.
    - Cooking the books with PFI.
    - Being afraid to raise taxes.

    But I have no time for the notion that he was a bigger contributory factor to the crisis in our public finances post GFC than the GFC itself. Or that he was a significant cause of the GFC.

    This is Tory Story rather than anything rooted in objective reality. The good news is we don't hear it much these days in respectable circles.

    When people talk about the GFC they mean many things. They mean the pictures of Lehman employees leaving their offices with their stuff in cardboard boxes, but the pictures of queues of people fearful that their bank were going to collapse were not in E14. They were on the High Street.

    Brown's ramping and lax regime of the housing market, as well as his regulatory failures as described by many including @MaxPB, meant that the UK was doubly and particularly badly hit. Of course the crash was the crash but the conditions in the UK, mostly related to the housing market, meant it hit us very badly indeed.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    ydoethur said:

    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.

    Yep, this is exactly the excuse that people who are cheerfully adopting antisemitic tropes to stifle criticism of Israel always say- "But-but-- he did it first!" I remember posts on this site accusing a pro-Palestinian protest of being anti-semitic based on nothing but the fact that it critised Israel. People shut up about it after I brought up the fact that some of the signs were about solidarity with Israelis who were also supporting this cause.

    That's the harm your kind of comment does, but you clearly don't really care because you've chosen doubling down over the least bit of introspection.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,176
    edited July 2020
    kinabalu said:


    A list of things Brown got wrong as Chancellor would be quite a long one. My top 3 are:

    - Acquiescing with City malpractice and bonus culture.
    - Cooking the books with PFI.
    - Being afraid to raise taxes.

    But I have no time for the notion that he was a bigger contributory factor to the crisis in our public finances post GFC than the GFC itself. Or that he was a significant cause of the GFC.

    This is Tory Story rather than anything rooted in objective reality. The good news is we don't hear it much these days in respectable circles.

    No-one has ever claimed that Brown was a significant cause of the GFC per se. What they say is that the UK was particularly badly hit because:

    (a) he was running a deficit at a time when tax revenues were absolutely pouring in especially from the financial sector, leaving no room for a safe fiscal stimulus when the dosh from the City dried up - in very marked contrast to properly-run economies such as Denmark.

    (b) He had totally screwed up financial supervision with his utterly brain-dead 'tripartite' system which left no-one in charge of the actual stability of the banking system. He deliberately wrecked the system which had worked extremely well for 150 years, maintaining stability through two world wars, multiple late-Victorian world financial crises, the 1929 crash, the Great Depression, the oil-price crisis of early 1970s, the dot-com crash, etc, and replaced it with confused box-ticking micro-regulation, which was obsessed with minor details but took no interest in the big picture.

    I really don't know why people find it so hard to understand these completely valid criticisms, and instead pretend that Brown was being blamed for the world crisis. It isn't a complicated distinction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited July 2020

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As the context makes clear. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.
    I've no time for Chris Williamson, nor has the Labour Party, nor have the voters of Derby North (635 votes as an independent in 2019). And yes, there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour Party, being tackled by Starmer.

    But, and it's an important but, we have reached a stage where any criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is designated as ipso facto anti-semitic by a lot of commentators and pundits. This cannot be healthy, especially given some of the policies of the Israeli state over the last couple of years. We are also almost at the stage where support for the Palestinian cause is in itself perceived as evidence of anti-semitism as well. The debate has become unhealthily unbalanced.
    Bullshit. I criticise Israel frequently. I've documented how they are making Gaza uninhabitable, making it impossible for non-Jews to buy property in Israel, and trying to annex the West Bank. Why do I say those things? Because they are all true. Indeed, most of them I saw for myself when I visited Israel and the West Bank. Some of them I even got from the curator of Yad Vashem.

    I am however, unlike Williamson and Corbyn, or indeed Sultana, BLM and various grime artists, not an antisemite. I do not donate money to holocaust deniers. Or endorse conspiracy theories. Or propagate them, as in this case by Williamson. Because that isn't necessary to criticise the actions of Israel. But they do it anyway, and then bleat 'it's not fair' when they are called out as the scum they are.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 891
    edited July 2020
    IanB2 said:

    So, as rumour swirls that returnees from Belgium, Luxembourg and Croatia will be added to the UK quarantine list from Friday, the official government position is now to encourage people to go abroad on holiday whilst simultaneously threatening to wreck their trip at next to no notice?

    Seems reasonable from this gang of dopes and duffers. Or at least not inconsistent.

    That is, totally consistent with their inconsistency.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    I've been compelled to spend today back in the big wide world. Well Otley to be precise.

    Highlight of the day has been my first Greggs in almost 5 months.

    A savoury to savour.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As the context makes clear. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.
    I've no time for Chris Williamson, nor has the Labour Party, nor have the voters of Derby North (635 votes as an independent in 2019). And yes, there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour Party, being tackled by Starmer.

    But, and it's an important but, we have reached a stage where any criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is designated as ipso facto anti-semitic by a lot of commentators and pundits. This cannot be healthy, especially given some of the policies of the Israeli state over the last couple of years. We are also almost at the stage where support for the Palestinian cause is in itself perceived as evidence of anti-semitism as well. The debate has become unhealthily unbalanced.
    Disagree with this. The state of Israel has some truly awful politicians doing some truly awful things. Criticising Netanyahu isn't anti-semitism, I'm confident the various courts he's being dragged through in Israel say worse than I do. And which Palestinian cause? The one that removes Israel from the map, sweeps away its citizens and restores the 4th generation "refugees" who the other countries making up old Palestine refuse to settle is anti-semitic. The one that calls for peace and safety for Palestinians is not.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    edited July 2020
    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    Isn`t the problem the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which the LP adopted? Makes it difficult to criticise Israel policies without being accused of antisemitism.
    No. The problem is that Chris Williamson is a racist twat. No more, no less.

    There is no earthly reason to think that the EHRC have been influenced by the Israelis, Jews, or indeed the Inuit peoples of Greenland. The reason he is being criticised is because he has a history of making outrageous remarks and has associated with racists.

    However, his backers do not like this fact and so try to pretend 'he's only criticising Israel.' Rubbish. Neither he nor Corbyn are criticising Israel, they are working with anti-Semites for reasons which become painfully obvious with even a cursory glance at their record - they are anti-semites themselves.

    And look at the abuse I get from their admirers for pointing this out. Ironic really given that I am accused of being anti-semitic for pointing out that Williamson is making an anti-semitic remark. But then I suppose I did quote what he meant rather than what he said, and what he meant was undoubtedly racist (is your head hurting yet)?
    I`m not disagreeing re: Williamson.

    However, I`m uncomfortble with the charge that some others, Corbyn for example, is racist. I struggle to accept this.

    My hunch is that the hard left is anti wealth-creation and anti-capitalist - which leads them to be against the rich - some of whom are Jewish. I am sure that were they to find a group of poor downtrodden jewish people they would advocate for them as much as for any other of their victim groups. Therefore, to my mind, they are not racist. Maybe I`m wrong.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,526
    edited July 2020
    For all the Black Lives Matter virtue signalling, badge wearing, twitter avoiding, knee taking and hashtagging, this weeks photographic mix ups show the likes of The Guardian don’t really care that much at all.

    Makes me embarrassed to be white!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    IanB2 said:

    So, as rumour swirls that returnees from Belgium, Luxembourg and Croatia will be added to the UK quarantine list from Friday, the official government position is now to encourage people to go abroad on holiday whilst simultaneously threatening to wreck their trip at next to no notice?

    The highest rates of cases per head in continental Europe at the moment are Spain, Sweden, the Balkans and Belgium so seems rational
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,462
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.

    It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.

    Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?

    It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.

    Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
    That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
    True.

    Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
    The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
    Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
    Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
    So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?

    USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama

    UK - Atlee, Churchill (when sober), Thatcher, Major, Blair (ignoring Iraq).

    Guess it could have been worse.

    Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.

    The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.

    Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
    I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).

    Too early to judge on Boris.
    What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
    For me his two greatest achievements:

    * He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.

    * Introduced equal marriage.

    Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
    You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
    No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.

    The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.

    During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.

    What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
    Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
    Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.

    Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
    Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.

    Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.

    Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.

    Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13302
    He was responsible for ramping up the housing market to the point whereby it wasn't only Lehman that got hit but our non-IB domestic mortgage lenders also.

    That was all on him.
    Removing the Bank from regulatory oversight of capital is also on him. Under the old regime would RBS have been allowed to operate at 50x leverage, or Northern Rock at 35x leverage? The FSA was completely incapable of performing the "financial stability" part of its remit and we all paid the price for that. The FSA completely failed to force banks not to take unnecessary risks with our money and ultimately that's on Brown, given that he set it up in 2001 and took the financial stability regulation away from the Bank and handed it to the FSA.
    Yes absolutely the regulatory regime was also on him but I didn't want to overload @kinabalu who was there probably trading CDSs with the best of them.
    A much abused instrument. But anyway - as I've just said to you and Max, if people stay away from softhead Brownaphobic abuse they will get only the warmest reception from me. I'm not the biggest Chancellor Gordon fan. He presided over a corrupt and bloated financial sector and he didn't seem to care so long as the tax revenues kept rolling in.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:
    Can't wait for the next Top Boy season.
    Thanks for putting me on to this Topping. I really enjoyed Top Boy Summerhouse but was a bit disappointed with the follow up, Top Boy.
    Yes Summerhouse was great and raw and had that energy that UK film makers can produce so well (Ill Manors, Attack the Block, Blue Story, Bullet Boy and even Starred up and '71).

    Top Boy itself I still enjoyed it, and I could watch Stormzy Kano reading out recipes for Baked Alaska all day so for me it was better than much that's around right now.

    Just started watching the OA which is proving intriguing. Any recommendations?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited July 2020

    ydoethur said:

    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.

    Yep, this is exactly the excuse that people who are cheerfully adopting antisemitic tropes to stifle criticism of Israel always say- "But-but-- he did it first!" I remember posts on this site accusing a pro-Palestinian protest of being anti-semitic based on nothing but the fact that it critised Israel. People shut up about it after I brought up the fact that some of the signs were about solidarity with Israelis who were also supporting this cause.

    That's the harm your kind of comment does, but you clearly don't really care because you've chosen doubling down over the least bit of introspection.
    No. I did not say that. I said that what he said was 'Israel' when he meant 'Jews' and was promoting an anti-Semitic trope. You are side stepping the issue and trying to conceal it by falsely accusing me of racism. Show me any evidence that this man with a long history of racist activism is actual being targeted by the Israeli government, rather than pulling Nazi conspiracy theories out of his arse, and I will concede your point.

    But you won't, because we both know that I'm right.

    And do you know where your sort of comment has led? To the Labour party being an organisation led by racists. Because you would rather bully people and make false allegations than face the facts.

    It's you that needs introspection. And that is my last response to you until you withdraw your lies and apologise.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984

    I've been compelled to spend today back in the big wide world. Well Otley to be precise.

    Highlight of the day has been my first Greggs in almost 5 months.

    A savoury to savour.

    I am about to put on a suit and tie tonight for the first time since Cheltenham.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    Isn`t the problem the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which the LP adopted? Makes it difficult to criticise Israel policies without being accused of antisemitism.
    No. The problem is that Chris Williamson is a racist twat. No more, no less.

    There is no earthly reason to think that the EHRC have been influenced by the Israelis, Jews, or indeed the Inuit peoples of Greenland. The reason he is being criticised is because he has a history of making outrageous remarks and has associated with racists.

    However, his backers do not like this fact and so try to pretend 'he's only criticising Israel.' Rubbish. Neither he nor Corbyn are criticising Israel, they are working with anti-Semites for reasons which become painfully obvious with even a cursory glance at their record - they are anti-semites themselves.

    And look at the abuse I get from their admirers for pointing this out. Ironic really given that I am accused of being anti-semitic for pointing out that Williamson is making an anti-semitic remark. But then I suppose I did quote what he meant rather than what he said, and what he meant was undoubtedly racist (is your head hurting yet)?
    I`m not disagreeing re: Williamson.

    However, I`m uncomfortble with the charge that some others, Corbyn for example, is racist. I struggle to accept this.

    My hunch is that the hard left is anti wealth-creation and anti-capitalist - which leads them to be against the rich - some of whom are Jewish. I am sure that were they to find a group of poor downtrodden jewish people they would advocate for them as much as for any other of their victim groups. Therefore, to my mind, they are not racist. Maybe I`m wrong.
    I don't think you're wrong but many ok, some on the left have conflated the two to such an extent (eg the mural) that it makes no odds and they use one as a shorthand for the other.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491
    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    Isn`t the problem the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which the LP adopted? Makes it difficult to criticise Israel policies without being accused of antisemitism.
    No. The problem is that Chris Williamson is a racist twat. No more, no less.

    There is no earthly reason to think that the EHRC have been influenced by the Israelis, Jews, or indeed the Inuit peoples of Greenland. The reason he is being criticised is because he has a history of making outrageous remarks and has associated with racists.

    However, his backers do not like this fact and so try to pretend 'he's only criticising Israel.' Rubbish. Neither he nor Corbyn are criticising Israel, they are working with anti-Semites for reasons which become painfully obvious with even a cursory glance at their record - they are anti-semites themselves.

    And look at the abuse I get from their admirers for pointing this out. Ironic really given that I am accused of being anti-semitic for pointing out that Williamson is making an anti-semitic remark. But then I suppose I did quote what he meant rather than what he said, and what he meant was undoubtedly racist (is your head hurting yet)?
    I`m not disagreeing re: Williamson.

    However, I`m uncomfortble with the charge that some others, Corbyn for example, is racist. I struggle to accept this.

    My hunch is that the hard left is anti wealth-creation and anti-capitalist - which leads them to be against the rich - some of whom are Jewish. I am sure that were they to find a group of poor downtrodden jewish people they would advocate for them as much as for any other of their victim groups. Therefore, to my mind, they are not racist. Maybe I`m wrong.
    British Indians and Chinese are also largely ignored by the hard left for the same reason
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,826
    "The Tories have lost the plot
    Their unhealthy embrace of nanny-state gimmicks reveals an administration that has lost its way.

    PADDY HANNAM"

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/29/the-tories-have-lost-the-plot/
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,176
    Stocky said:

    ..
    My hunch is that the hard left is anti wealth-creation and anti-capitalist - which leads them to be against the rich - some of whom are Jewish. I am sure that were they to find a group of poor downtrodden jewish people they would advocate for them as much as for any other of their victim groups. Therefore, to my mind, they are not racist. Maybe I`m wrong.

    You've pithily explained exactly why Corbyn and others on the hard left are racist. Based on a stereotype about Jews, they generalise to a hostile anti-Jewish mindset. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism, is it not?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,480
    isam said:


    Defence barrister Timothy Raggatt QC dismissed the incident as 'a touch oversensitive'.

    I'd have absolubtely lost my shit with Mr Raggatt over that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,408
    kinabalu said:

    I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.

    Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?

    Did I say that a Tory Story propaganda merchant will often find themselves wildly exaggerating the importance of a single year's 2.9% deficit and playing down the importance of the Global Financial Crisis?

    I'm so astute sometimes. :smile:
    It wasn't a single year's deficit, it was a structural deficit that was created from 2002 to 2007.

    If the GFC hadn't happened and Any Other Crisis (AOC) had happened instead, the results would have been the same. Brown had trashed the books so we were not prepared for a crisis to hit.

    This wasn't an accident. He had done it because he had "abolished busts".
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic:

    More likely to be cockup than conspiracy. Remember that Met officer who was photographed with all the government’s key counter-terrorism plans in a see through wallet facing outwards.

    It doesn’t suggest though that Biden has overcome his habit of making silly mistakes.

    Just seen the photoo and it looks contrived. It's not a natural way to hold a piece of paper and why is he scribbling highly legible notes like that and walking around with them?

    It’s entirely possible that it’s because of his usual carelessness and muddle-headedness.

    Which is why he would be completely the wrong person to be President if the alternative were anyone other than Donald Trump.
    That is very unfair, he is also more suited than the other Presidential runner, Mr West.
    True.

    Out of roughly 170 million eligible people, HTAF did they end up with this lot?
    The voting system mostly eliminates people for their negatives, rather than selecting for their positives. Trump is the ones that tests the rule, since negatives were the positives in the eyes of his base, but he only got the job because he was up against Clinton, and she only got the candidature because she was up against Bernie, and so on down the line.
    Yes, it's a bad system that promotes all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons, but we're hardly in a position to sneer.
    Every majority election winner in our system in recent decades has been positively rated themselves regularly and not just riding in on their opponents negatives.
    So who do you think were the half-decent Presidents/PMs post WW2?

    USA - Truman, Eisenhower (I think), Kennedy, GHW Bush, Obama

    UK - Atlee, Churchill (when sober), Thatcher, Major, Blair (ignoring Iraq).

    Guess it could have been worse.

    Perhaps it's telling that I found it easier to pick the US ones. Seemed to be a clearer difference between the good and the bad. Eisenhower was the only marginal call for me.

    The UK seemed to present greater mediocrity. I hesitated over Heath/Wilson for example.

    Fun game. Sure there will be plenty of disagreement.
    I'd add Cameron to your list for the UK so that's all majority election winners of my lifetime (born under Thatcher).

    Too early to judge on Boris.
    What did Cameron achieve with his majority win? A disasterous referendum campaign and early retirement is hardly even quarter-decent
    For me his two greatest achievements:

    * He saved the country from an economic catastrophe that Brown had bequeathed.

    * Introduced equal marriage.

    Losing an election doesn't count him out for me. Europe was a ticking timebomb in this country for decades and I hold Blair and Brown in more contempt for pushing through Lisbon without a referendum (having pledged one) because they knew they'd lose it, rather than Cameron for fighting honourably and losing. Had Blair/Brown not played silly buggers over Lisbon then I don't think Cameron's referendum would have ever happened or needed to happen.
    You said Cameron for his majority win. Gay marriage was a LibDem initiative during the coalition. And by Brown's economic catastrophe I take it you mean the financial crash? Where Cameron and Osborne argued for less regulation of the banking sector because Brown was trying the city up in red tape...
    No I don't mean the financial crash. Crashes happen. Recessions happen.

    The disaster was not having a crash. The disaster was the decisions made before the crash. The disaster was the Chancellor hubristically believing he'd "abolished boom and bust" and so leaving the country completely unprepared for the inevitable next bust.

    During the recession the deficit changed by 7% from trough to peak which is fairly standard for recessions - the financial crash was actually not that exceptional a recession.

    What was exceptional, what was catastrophic, was running a 3% deficit BEFORE the recession hit. Had the country been running a small surplus before the recession hit then the deficit would have risen to 7% instead of 10% which is an order of magnitude more manageable.
    Disappointed to see another floating of this long discredited 'Tory Story' drivel. It's been less than a week.
    Its not discredited its a matter of undeniable fact.

    Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust. He didn't. He left the country weak and exposed when a crash then hit.
    Two things contributed to the fiscal mess we found ourselves in after the 08 Crash. (1) That the Crash happened. (2) That we had a 2.9% deficit before it happened.

    Of these (1) was more important than (2). This is objective reality. To say (2) was more important than (1) is to depart from objective reality. This happens less and less these days – since it really is such obvious nonsense – but when it does happen the reason is always the same and is as follows.

    Gordon Brown was responsible for (2) but not for (1). Thus if a person wishes to spread Tory Story propaganda and the Brownaphobic falsehood that his fecklessness led to a decade of austerity they must wildly exaggerate the importance of the pre-Crash deficit and furiously play down the importance of the Crash itself.

    Below a reminder of just how profound and exceptional the Crash was.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13302
    He was responsible for ramping up the housing market to the point whereby it wasn't only Lehman that got hit but our non-IB domestic mortgage lenders also.

    That was all on him.
    Removing the Bank from regulatory oversight of capital is also on him. Under the old regime would RBS have been allowed to operate at 50x leverage, or Northern Rock at 35x leverage? The FSA was completely incapable of performing the "financial stability" part of its remit and we all paid the price for that. The FSA completely failed to force banks not to take unnecessary risks with our money and ultimately that's on Brown, given that he set it up in 2001 and took the financial stability regulation away from the Bank and handed it to the FSA.
    Yes absolutely the regulatory regime was also on him but I didn't want to overload @kinabalu who was there probably trading CDSs with the best of them.
    A much abused instrument. But anyway - as I've just said to you and Max, if people stay away from softhead Brownaphobic abuse they will get only the warmest reception from me. I'm not the biggest Chancellor Gordon fan. He presided over a corrupt and bloated financial sector and he didn't seem to care so long as the tax revenues kept rolling in.
    I think we get on best when you agree with me so thank you for this.

    All we are saying is that as those tax (and housing market receipts) were rolling in, he kept on spending. And while he was at it he dismantled the UK's system of regulatory oversight.

    And hence, his actions exacerbated the effects of the GFC.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,993
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As the context makes clear. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.
    I've no time for Chris Williamson, nor has the Labour Party, nor have the voters of Derby North (635 votes as an independent in 2019). And yes, there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour Party, being tackled by Starmer.

    But, and it's an important but, we have reached a stage where any criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is designated as ipso facto anti-semitic by a lot of commentators and pundits. This cannot be healthy, especially given some of the policies of the Israeli state over the last couple of years. We are also almost at the stage where support for the Palestinian cause is in itself perceived as evidence of anti-semitism as well. The debate has become unhealthily unbalanced.
    Bullshit. I criticise Israel frequently. I've documented how they are making Gaza uninhabitable, making it impossible for non-Jews to buy property in Israel, and trying to annex the West Bank. Why do I say those things? Because they are all true. Indeed, most of them I saw for myself when I visited Israel and the West Bank. Some of them I even got from the curator of Yad Vashem.

    I am however, unlike Williamson and Corbyn, or indeed Sultana, BLM and various grime artists, not an antisemite. I do not donate money to holocaust deniers. Or endorse conspiracy theories. Or propagate them, as in this case by Williamson. Because that isn't necessary to criticise the actions of Israel. But they do it anyway, and then bleat 'it's not fair' when they are called out as the scum they are.
    I was making a general comment, not aiming it at you. No need to be rude.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:


    Defence barrister Timothy Raggatt QC dismissed the incident as 'a touch oversensitive'.

    I'd have absolubtely lost my shit with Mr Raggatt over that.
    Perhaps you'd have lost your ragg att him?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    TOPPING said:

    Stocky said:

    TOPPING said:

    isam said:
    Can't wait for the next Top Boy season.
    Thanks for putting me on to this Topping. I really enjoyed Top Boy Summerhouse but was a bit disappointed with the follow up, Top Boy.
    Yes Summerhouse was great and raw and had that energy that UK film makers can produce so well (Ill Manors, Attack the Block, Blue Story, Bullet Boy and even Starred up and '71).

    Top Boy itself I still enjoyed it, and I could watch Stormzy Kano reading out recipes for Baked Alaska all day so for me it was better than much that's around right now.

    Just started watching the OA which is proving intriguing. Any recommendations?
    I wasn`t keen on The OA, to be honest. The best series I`ve seen recently is Unbelievable. And, My Brilliant Friend.

    I assume you`ve seen all three Fargo series? These are the best that TV (or film) gets.

    And Godless. Rectify is superb (but a slow burner).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    Andy_JS said:

    "The Tories have lost the plot
    Their unhealthy embrace of nanny-state gimmicks reveals an administration that has lost its way.

    PADDY HANNAM"

    Daniel Hannan should choose a less obvious pseudonym.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,491

    Andy_JS said:

    "The Tories have lost the plot
    Their unhealthy embrace of nanny-state gimmicks reveals an administration that has lost its way.

    PADDY HANNAM"

    Daniel Hannan should choose a less obvious pseudonym.
    On domestic policy the article suggests Boris is governing like New Labour
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,205
    edited July 2020

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    You are either dishonest or naive. He is deliberately using ‘Israel’ to hide the fact he means Jewish. As the context makes clear. As he always has, and as so many in Labour do. That’s what makes the video so horribly ironic.

    As for the rest - you are the one who supports antisemites. Not me. Amazing for somebody who claims to be Jewish, but then of course Edwin Montagu was famous for his antisemitism as well.
    I've no time for Chris Williamson, nor has the Labour Party, nor have the voters of Derby North (635 votes as an independent in 2019). And yes, there is an anti-semitism problem in the Labour Party, being tackled by Starmer.

    But, and it's an important but, we have reached a stage where any criticism of the actions of the Israeli state is designated as ipso facto anti-semitic by a lot of commentators and pundits. This cannot be healthy, especially given some of the policies of the Israeli state over the last couple of years. We are also almost at the stage where support for the Palestinian cause is in itself perceived as evidence of anti-semitism as well. The debate has become unhealthily unbalanced.
    Bullshit. I criticise Israel frequently. I've documented how they are making Gaza uninhabitable, making it impossible for non-Jews to buy property in Israel, and trying to annex the West Bank. Why do I say those things? Because they are all true. Indeed, most of them I saw for myself when I visited Israel and the West Bank. Some of them I even got from the curator of Yad Vashem.

    I am however, unlike Williamson and Corbyn, or indeed Sultana, BLM and various grime artists, not an antisemite. I do not donate money to holocaust deniers. Or endorse conspiracy theories. Or propagate them, as in this case by Williamson. Because that isn't necessary to criticise the actions of Israel. But they do it anyway, and then bleat 'it's not fair' when they are called out as the scum they are.
    I was making a general comment, not aiming it at you. No need to be rude.
    It was a wrong comment, and moreover a foolish comment. It is perfectly possible to criticise Israel without being anti-Semitic. The issue is this is not what the hard left of Labour has been doing. What they've done instead is try to hide their anti-semitism by pretending they're only criticising Israel.

    Moreover, if you reply to a truly vile comment supporting a notorious antisemite and falsely accusing me of racism while endorsing its views, you should expect me to see it as 'aimed at me.' I personally saw that as rather rude. However, you may not have intended it that way.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 7,062
    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://youtu.be/MggvosRQyrw

    The thing I find with this is he says he has been named in the report

    If so how many others and who

    I have been named as an antisemite.

    This is a lie and despicable smear arranged by the Jewish lobby.

    He just doesn’t fucking get it, does he?
    You're deliberately conflating "Israeli" and "Jewish", which is extremely antisemitic. As a Jewish person, it's dangerous and offensive when you imply that criticism against Israel- of which there is plenty to legitimately raise- should be recast as criticism against all Jewish people. I realise you did this in the interest of a bit of political point scoring against Williamson, but I'd urge you and the people who liked your post to reconsider whether that's justification for propagating antisemitic tropes.
    Isn`t the problem the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which the LP adopted? Makes it difficult to criticise Israel policies without being accused of antisemitism.
    No. The problem is that Chris Williamson is a racist twat. No more, no less.

    There is no earthly reason to think that the EHRC have been influenced by the Israelis, Jews, or indeed the Inuit peoples of Greenland. The reason he is being criticised is because he has a history of making outrageous remarks and has associated with racists.

    However, his backers do not like this fact and so try to pretend 'he's only criticising Israel.' Rubbish. Neither he nor Corbyn are criticising Israel, they are working with anti-Semites for reasons which become painfully obvious with even a cursory glance at their record - they are anti-semites themselves.

    And look at the abuse I get from their admirers for pointing this out. Ironic really given that I am accused of being anti-semitic for pointing out that Williamson is making an anti-semitic remark. But then I suppose I did quote what he meant rather than what he said, and what he meant was undoubtedly racist (is your head hurting yet)?
    I`m not disagreeing re: Williamson.

    However, I`m uncomfortble with the charge that some others, Corbyn for example, is racist. I struggle to accept this.

    My hunch is that the hard left is anti wealth-creation and anti-capitalist - which leads them to be against the rich - some of whom are Jewish. I am sure that were they to find a group of poor downtrodden jewish people they would advocate for them as much as for any other of their victim groups. Therefore, to my mind, they are not racist. Maybe I`m wrong.
    British Indians and Chinese are also largely ignored by the hard left for the same reason
    Yes, that`s how I see it: "how dare our victim group have the temerity to no longer be victims!"
This discussion has been closed.