Re: Saturday 30th and Sunday 31st July 2016
Posted: Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:14 pm
Maybe the few people at Smith's rally weren't even really there, just holograms beamed in by the elite to fool everyone but the awakened ones ?
Stilton with apricots is my favourite cheese.I buy it in Lidl.ohsocynical wrote:Stilton. Just the thought of it makes my mouth water. And nutty vintage cheddar .... Stilton with apricots ....
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Of course, they will suggest the most flattering shot. The issue is surely the media going along with it?yahyah wrote:& if you were involved in campaigning for yourself or someone else OhSo, which pic would you recommend was used ?
What would Ed's media advisor have suggested ?
(remember last years GE - more than once there were shots of Cameron looking like he was speaking to a huge crowd when he actually, erm, wasn't)
Oh, yes! Wensleydale with cranberriesohsocynical wrote:Stilton. Just the thought of it makes my mouth water. And nutty vintage cheddar .... Stilton with apricots ....
Arrgh, Have just realised he was speaking at Liverpool Pride & my post could possibly be misconstrued.PorFavor wrote:@tinybgoat
Whoops! I've just seen your "99" post. My only excuse is that I'm trying to catch up and, for some reason, have opted to do so by reading the posts in backwards order.
Edited to add -
More commonly known as reverse order.
tinybgoat wrote:Arrgh, Have just realised he was speaking at Liverpool Pride & my post could possibly be misconstrued.PorFavor wrote:@tinybgoat
Whoops! I've just seen your "99" post. My only excuse is that I'm trying to catch up and, for some reason, have opted to do so by reading the posts in backwards order.
Edited to add -
More commonly known as reverse order.
Hope not and If so I apologise too anyone offended, it was genuinely unintended.
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the police
Is it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?Rosie R. @yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
I thought the show of loyalty was quite sweet if a little tortuous but listing all those things does Mr Corbyn no favours about the big question - why?ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn’s dangerous friends: debunking the myths
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It seems our correspondent could not help himself (probably posts 'Bliar' below the line @ Guardian?). Yet, while trying to impeach everything that Gilligan had said, the established evidence that Gilligan is a liar is used to repeat a 'lie' as being 'accurate'. The truth and facts are that Dr Kelly favoured the war, Gilligan favoured war but still went 'out of his way' to attack Labour and Campbell for doing something that Dr Kelly never said and Gilligan now admits it - whatever his weasel form of words!Gilligan’s unusual trajectory after being sacked by the BBC for (as it turns out accurately) reporting Blair’s sexing-up of the famous WMD dossier has not passed unnoticed. But his role in generating many of the above rumours needs greater public reckoning with. <my emphasis>
We have pretty well known from Campbell's reaction and practically confirmed this via Hutton when he had not yet come clean about it but his PDA and refusal to supply proper access to the back-ups condemned him. There were two recorded accounts of his meeting with Dr Kelly - one dated for the day before the day he met him without the word 'Campbell', and one correctly dated, with the word 'Campbell' (he claimed that the PDA's date had been wrong). Of course, Mr Wilding found five anomolies with the PDA - including:... He admits that the suggestion that the Government "probably knew" its dossier was wrong had not come from Dr Kelly but was the journalist's own invention.
Gilligan's solicitors had refused 'unlimited access' to the laptop that Gilligan used for backups and downloaded the 'relevant files' to a standard PC instead. As another tech. witness said:Lord Hutton asked how the clock going forward could explain the omission of the word Campbell.
Mr Wilding said: "That concerned me."
The computer expert told the hearing: "I also discovered some experimentation when somebody was looking at creating memorandums and seeing if dates and times could be changed."
The truth is that Gilligan would be willing to misportray and torture the facts about ANY Labour leader or politician (I'm sure we all remember Ken Livingstone). Please don't use him as someone who can indeed easily be refuted and dismissed, then believe him! This was probably the most divisive single piece of misinformation that probably did more (coming from the BBC) to undermine the trust in and damage the integrity of a Labour Government than Sky's leak of bigot-gate.Professor Sammes then told the hearing that the best evidence "almost certainly" was still within the laptop and that forensic examination of the original handheld computer would provide information "very valuable to the inquiry"
90+2 mins: Nope, there's the whistle and United beat Galatasaray 5-2 with what was a fantastic second half performance
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 64141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Indeed.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Rashford looks the real deal, alright
The answer to that is the same as usual, I think.ohsocynical wrote:Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the policeIs it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?Rosie R. @yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
United? They were playing Arnhem and won 3-2. http://www.nufc.com/tinyclanger2 wrote:90+2 mins: Nope, there's the whistle and United beat Galatasaray 5-2 with what was a fantastic second half performance
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 64141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
cheered me up anyway.
from the link:ohsocynical wrote:Curious @myviewontopic 52m52 minutes ago
BUSTED! THE “NO APPETITE FOR INDEPENDENCE” MYTH
http://atrueindependentscotland.com/bus ... ence-myth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From the Scotsman:Thousands of people took to the streets of Glasgow today...
Not a great turnout for one of the three or four LA areas that voted 'yes'! A bit like the Cameron crowds - slightly exaggeratedPolice said around 2,000 marchers had joined the procession by 10.30am.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/v ... -1-4190212
Next an unusually blunt comment in the Court judgement on 'named persons':A SENIOR judge has given the go ahead for “selfish” and “arrogant” independence campers to be evicted from the grounds of the Scottish Parliament.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/court-orde ... -1-4187625
Co-incidentally(?), on the same day as the 'named person' legislation was declared illegal, Police Scotland released this:Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial Named Person scheme was yesterday ruled unlawful by the UK’s highest court in a judgment that is deeply embarrassing for the Scottish Government.
...The 48-page document... issued a general warning, noting: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/court-rule ... -1-4188345
Now, if I had a tinfoil hat, I might wonder who was responsible for the timing of the release of the abuse story.More than 500 children have been identified as potential victims of online sexual abuse during a major police investigation.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/523-childr ... -1-4189657
Ms Sturgeon has been unusually quiet for the last few days.A NEW poll has found “no real shift” in opinion towards Scottish independence in the wake of the Brexit vote.
The YouGov poll found Scots would vote to remain in the UK by 53% to 47% if another referendum on the issue were held now.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/no-real-sh ... -1-4190220
I've only scanned the Supreme Court judgement, but I think it says something rather different than the Scotsman implies. It's complex and densely argued, taking in UN stuff, ECHR, the Data Protection Act and more.Eric_WLothian wrote:Next an unusually blunt comment in the Court judgement on 'named persons':Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial Named Person scheme was yesterday ruled unlawful by the UK’s highest court in a judgment that is deeply embarrassing for the Scottish Government.
...The 48-page document... issued a general warning, noting: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/court-rule ... -1-4188345
I agree that the comment on a totalitarian state is not the key - but it's a strange comment in what would normally be a fairly conservative (small 'c') document.TR'sGhost wrote: I've only scanned the Supreme Court judgement, but I think it says something rather different than the Scotsman implies. It's complex and densely argued, taking in UN stuff, ECHR, the Data Protection Act and more.
The stuff about totalitarian regimes is not the key to the judgement, by the way, nor is it anything said by a party to the case but a comment by the court on the findings of a US case regarding the requirements of UN treaties and declarations. I suppose it makes better copy for a newspaper than "Court finds law technically unlawful after a lot of closely argued complicated legal nit-picking and consideration of complex legal matters"
At a glance, the Court concluded the Scottish Parliament Act in question is unlawful as it stands basically because they consider it disproportionate in some ways, too loose in some ways and goes further regarding derogation of powers from the UK Parliament Data Protection Act 2014 than the court considers lawful.
The Court concludes by inviting the Scottish Parliament to seek to amend the law in such a way as to make it lawful, and in part suggests how this might be done without the disapproval of the courts.
The full judgement is at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; should anyone require a cure for insomnia.
Edited to add - the chief party opposing the Scots government in the case was The Christian Institute, who are US-style conservative biblical literalists who, according to their Wiki entry are most noted for campaigning vigorously against homosexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's interesting. I haven't read much of Chilcott as I really only looked for information that was unknown until after the initial military victory. I have looked at 'a lot' of the US revelations over the years (some excellent investigative US journalism as well - apropos your last point) into what went wrong and how they got the 'framing' of their intel wrong and found their NSA reporting and assessments a lot more open in their exposition of the duty to understand this. [For example: They also accounted very well for some preconceptions I had about various individuals and how they seemed to 'mispeak'. I had kind of assumed (like many others) that Colin Powell, for example, had probably known that the mobile labs was wrong when he described their designs but it turns out he was (almost certainly?) not deliberately and knowingly misleading. That the story of how the mobile labs (that were found and assessed) came about was down to the modus operandi of the investigation into the creative aspect of type of design needed to work and then misreported as factual]RobertSnozers wrote:... a reference to Chilcott finding that the UK government had exaggerated some evidence and presented some details that it knew were false. But badly phrased in the context. Gilligan was sort of right, by mistake, ...
I live in Hull & didn`t even know this was happening!..jeez...got to take less medication:)Maeght wrote:Many thanks Ohso for the link to this excellent article and also for the photos today.ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn’s dangerous friends: debunking the myths
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That big crowd can't all be young members of Momentum can they?
I don't think anyone else did either, it's just me.PorFavor wrote:tinybgoat wrote:Arrgh, Have just realised he was speaking at Liverpool Pride & my post could possibly be misconstrued.PorFavor wrote:@tinybgoat
Whoops! I've just seen your "99" post. My only excuse is that I'm trying to catch up and, for some reason, have opted to do so by reading the posts in backwards order.
Edited to add -
More commonly known as reverse order.
Hope not and If so I apologise too anyone offended, it was genuinely unintended.
I didn't make the connection, if that helps at all.
Off to pick some currants for breakfast!ChrisDean wrote:It's getting late/early, so goodnight to all and as Mr Dean often says, "life is NOT a bowl of cherries"....
But may your tomorrow be one.
Posted at the top of page2 by maeght , yesterday .SpinningHugo wrote:More from Wren-Lewis today for those who didn't understand the first post
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And for a reminder that some people are capable of learning/evolvingWhat makes me really sad is the contempt that some members seem to have for Labour MPs. I can think of some that fit the caricature frequently painted of diehard triangulating Blairites, but they are far from the majority. I agree that collectively Labour MPs became embroiled in a failing electoral strategy before 2015, but you change that by persuasion through evidence and hopefully example, not by casting them as the enemy or as forever ‘lost’. Most of all, they are not some kind of inconvenience that can be ignored or who will collectively come to their senses if the membership continues to vote for Corbyn. They are an essential part of the means of achieving a mass social democratic party: that is why 2016 is not 2015.
ohsocynical wrote:Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the policeIs it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?Rosie R. @yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
I wouldn't question their ability to learn/evolve,frog222 wrote:Posted at the top of page2 by maeght , yesterday .SpinningHugo wrote:More from Wren-Lewis today for those who didn't understand the first post
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Liked this bit
And for a reminder that some people are capable of learning/evolvingWhat makes me really sad is the contempt that some members seem to have for Labour MPs. I can think of some that fit the caricature frequently painted of diehard triangulating Blairites, but they are far from the majority. I agree that collectively Labour MPs became embroiled in a failing electoral strategy before 2015, but you change that by persuasion through evidence and hopefully example, not by casting them as the enemy or as forever ‘lost’. Most of all, they are not some kind of inconvenience that can be ignored or who will collectively come to their senses if the membership continues to vote for Corbyn. They are an essential part of the means of achieving a mass social democratic party: that is why 2016 is not 2015.
http://www.organizedrage.com/2016/07/ma ... t.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Even Mandy , I was going to say, but he was one of the brighter Blairites .
This will probably get me in trouble, and I do not condone threats under any circumstances, but why stick your hand in a wasps nest just to assert your right to do so?ephemerid wrote:ohsocynical wrote:Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the policeIs it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?Rosie R. @yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
A little restraint of tongue, pen, and keyboard wouldn't go amiss.
For someone who claims to be telling it like it is, she spends an inordinate amount of time yelling it like she thinks it is.
Hopefully, she'll take a little holiday at some point. Lord knows we need one.
I got one of those, with the option to replyephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.
It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.
I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.
I am not impressed.
tinybgoat wrote:I got one of those, with the option to replyephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.
It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.
I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.
I am not impressed.
YES,NO,NOT SURE, or STOP, (am currently a member of said tufty club, so suppose I shouldn't be too surprised), but I tried replying and message won't send.
Could get really irritating, but think there's a blocking filter somewhere on phone.
Or you get an email saying why you should vote for Owen Smith. Then: Please indicate if you are going to vote for Owen Smith. Yes. No. or Don't know.ephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.
It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.
I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.
I am not impressed.
Thanks for the reply. Well yes, the CURVEBALL episode is what I was referring to as causing great consternation in the US IC with a systemic problem of the different services having to operate and come up with a report as 'we'. From my readings I don't think your/Chilcott's(?) characterisation reflects the way that those agencies were behaving if they were 'suspicious' let alone 'certain' they were dealing with a 'fabricator' - though many of them did and they were dismayed and appalled at hearing Powell's speech! The CIA's Tenet seemed to have to shoulder the blame for that though he does have a decent opportunity to defend himself in the NSA archive:RobertSnozers wrote:...
Well known to the Germans that 'Curveball' (whence came the mobile labs etc) was probably lying through his teeth even before they relented and let the Americans and British talk to him. The mobile labs are a case in point - para 168-9 of Chilcott exec summary
168. Mr Blair responded that “even German and French intelligence were sure that there was WMD in Iraq”. Dr Blix said they seemed “unsure” about “mobile BW production facilities”: “It would be paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 men were to invade Iraq and find very little.”
169. Mr Blair responded that “our intelligence was clear that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programme”.
And para 172
On 25 February, Mr Blair told the House of Commons that the intelligence was “clear” that Saddam Hussein continued “to believe that his weapons of mass destruction programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression”. It was also “essential to his regional power”. “Prior to the inspectors coming back in”, Saddam Hussein “was engaged in a systematic exercise in concealment of those weapons”. The inspectors had reported some co‐operation on process, but had “denied progress on substance”.
Blair seriously overselling the evidence and presenting things as certain that were known not to be.
It is important to note that these WMD (almost) all dated from before the Gulf War and deemed a failure of intelligence rather than legitimising previous errors. They are not evidence of an extant WMD programme - but dispersed, buried (and forgotten about? Though some insurgents clearly knew where?) rather than destroyed as claimed (though with illegal missiles found elsewhere - and still being bought on the black market by US (IC?) I don't know if date is a concern?)The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraq’s old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons.
But it had not shared this data publicly. And as it prepared to withdraw, old stocks set loose after the invasion were still circulating. Al Muthanna had still not been cleaned up.
Finding, safeguarding and destroying these weapons was to be the responsibility of Iraq’s government.
Iraq took initial steps to fulfill its obligations. It drafted a plan to entomb the contaminated bunkers on Al Muthanna, which still held remnant chemical stocks, in concrete.
...
The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.
Is this another instance where a company has employed people with not too many questions asked, and for very low wages, hears they're going to be raided, and if found to be illegally employing staff will face stiff fines, so they 'co-operate' with Border Control and avoid the fines.AngryAsWell wrote:Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Totally against shutting restaurants and probably depriving staff of their day's pay...but I'd query this:AngryAsWell wrote:Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I could understand them being fooled by one or two staff with fake documents but 35 or more? That, to me, smacks of turning a blind eye. Might be wrong but I reckon they got caught out and had no option but to go above and beyond merely co-operating.Byron was unaware that any of our workers were in possession of counterfeit documentation until the Home Office brought it to our attention, despite carrying out rigorous ‘right to work’ checks
Meant to add, it's wrong to allow companies to get away with it.ohsocynical wrote:Is this another instance where a company has employed people with not too many questions asked, and for very low wages, hears they're going to be raided, and if found to be illegally employing staff will face stiff fines, so they 'co-operate' with Border Control and avoid the fines.AngryAsWell wrote:Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is, if it's an iPhone. I blocked him yesterday.tinybgoat wrote:I got one of those, with the option to replyephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.
It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.
I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.
I am not impressed.
YES,NO,NOT SURE, or STOP, (am currently a member of said tufty club, so suppose I shouldn't be too surprised), but I tried replying and message won't send.
Could get really irritating, but think there's a blocking filter somewhere on phone.