FlyTheNest

RogerOThornhill wrote:

PorFavor wrote:

Lucas and Bartley elected co-leaders with 86% of first-preference votes

Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley have been elected co-leaders with 86% of the first preference votes. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Co-leaders?

It'll never work - look out for the first "hang on - you co-leader said something entirely different!" interview/announcement/whatever.

Well we do have a tradition of two speakers - leafders - so as far as the Greens go its not going to cause problems - the party is used to doing things like that; of course Im sure it will send tthe press corp into an hysterical spin. JB is a polished media performer - as is CL - and they work well together. i voted for them, despite reservations about JB being on the right of the party.

Good result I think. Not sure how Tiz voted.

Brexit: UK may have checked out, but it can never leave
A divided public and constitutional concerns make it impossible for Britain to pull out of the EU, says Felipe Fernández-Armesto
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/co ... ever-leave" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hotel California has been ringing round my head since the end of June, too.

, the constitutional imbroglio is intractable. The UK cannot invoke Article 50 without undermining her own negotiating position; and cannot negotiate without invoking the article. The impasse makes catch-22 look like noughts and crosses. The lip-smackers in Brussels would love to see the article invoked and the UK exposed: to subvert the UK’s interest and get rid of a turbulent and perfidious former partner would suit them admirably; but prime minister Theresa May is surely not foolish enough to oblige them. If she wished to do so, how could she manage? If she were to try to steamroller Parliament, she would face a constitutional crisis. If she called a general election on an article-invoking platform she would be back with the old problem for which David Cameron sacrificed himself: how to keep the Conservative Party together.

Corbyn hasn't served in any Cabinet post in his Parliamentary career beginning in 1983.

howsillyofme1 wrote:Morning most

If people continually provoke in their posts then do not be surprised to get some comeback.......

and then make a big song and dance about blocking people

Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Live from the Cabinet office this afternoon.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Temulkar wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:Morning most

If people continually provoke in their posts then do not be surprised to get some comeback.......

and then make a big song and dance about blocking people

Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Live from the Cabinet office this afternoon.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's three o'clock in the afternoon and any courage I woke with is long gone, Tem.
I'll get a cup of tea and see if I can work up the nerve to see what's going on.
You take cream or sugar?

Willow904 wrote:

StephenDolan wrote: Corbyn if standing down would really have to recommend this candidate IMHO to have a chance of getting the (newer) membership on board.

It would be tricky to pull off, I would have thought.

I don't disagree. Can't see how the contest and the direction of the party under a new leader wouldn't twang back to what had become the norm.

tinybgoat wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Assuming it is a postal ballot, that does seem low yes. Certainly all Labour contests since individual voting was introduced in 1994 have been higher.

They were probably trying to save trees, so didn't vote.

Online ballot, but it's no secret that people have left the Greens to rejoin/join Labour under Corbyn over the last year. I openly considered it, but would have been purged quicker than a toddler full of castor oil.

Glad I stayed Green given the bile spouted - on both sides - and the truly reprehensible behaviour of the PLP at a time of national crisis. ON top of that there is frighteningly childish, inept, insulting, arrogance and shameless self promotion of some MPs - in particular the new intake - and I would rather wipe my arse with a dead hedgehog than vote for Nia Griffith. So...

But many Greens have gone home to Labour - good luck to them.

It might be a bit pricklier and quieter than I'd like at FTN Towers, but it's preferable to a lot of other places I regularly post and read.

citizenJA wrote:

Temulkar wrote:

howsillyofme1 wrote:Morning most

If people continually provoke in their posts then do not be surprised to get some comeback.......

and then make a big song and dance about blocking people

Wonder what evil the Tories will be up to today....?

Live from the Cabinet office this afternoon.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's three o'clock in the afternoon and any courage I woke with is long gone, Tem.
I'll get a cup of tea and see if I can work up the nerve to see what's going on.
You take cream or sugar?

Im off cream and sugar - cholesterol - and geenerally eating rabbit food.

He has never sat on a committee or put forward s Bill. 30 years+ in Parliament.

SpinningHugo wrote:He has never sat on a committee or put forward s Bill. 30 years+ in Parliament.

You sure?

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=127881#p127881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

deleted

I just want to say, it's nice to see a change of topics on here.

Wait.

The other thing.

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:He has never sat on a committee or put forward s Bill. 30 years+ in Parliament.

You sure?

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=127881#p127881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For a legal type he's remarkably careless about, y'know, facts.

In other news, Cleggy has criticized Osborne for not caring about the poor when he cut benefits. Reaction seems to be "It's no good telling us now!"

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:He has never sat on a committee or put forward s Bill. 30 years+ in Parliament.

You sure?

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=127881#p127881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the point of arguing with him? He's like a religious fundamentalist who won't see any contradiction to his beliefs, no matter what evidence you put in front of him.

Came on to post, if you haven't got your Labour ballot email, and can't get through on the phone, try logging onto
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/lead ... nfo#change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People on Twitter claim to be getting a response within a couple of hours

deleted

refitman wrote:I just want to say, it's nice to see a change of topics on here.

Wait.

The other thing.

We're not to post Labour leadership things here, are we? I've made a mistake then by posting what I've done.
I apologise and will post Labour leadership information on the appropriate thread(s).

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:I just want to say, it's nice to see a change of topics on here.

Wait.

The other thing.

We're not to post Labour leadership things here, are we? I've made a mistake then by posting what I've done. I sincerely apologise and if I need to move things off the thread, that's fine. Tell me what I need to do.

No it's fine. We just seem to be repeating a lot of the same stuff.

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:I just want to say, it's nice to see a change of topics on here.

Wait.

The other thing.

We're not to post Labour leadership things here, are we? I've made a mistake then by posting what I've done. I sincerely apologise and if I need to move things off the thread, that's fine. Tell me what I need to do.

No - you're alright. Refitman's just joshing.

I understand, thank you, refitman.

Whoops!

PorFavor wrote:

citizenJA wrote:

refitman wrote:I just want to say, it's nice to see a change of topics on here.

Wait.

The other thing.

We're not to post Labour leadership things here, are we? I've made a mistake then by posting what I've done. I sincerely apologise and if I need to move things off the thread, that's fine. Tell me what I need to do.

No - you're alright. Refitman's just joshing.

The couple of posts I've deleted weren't any big deal.

On the post about sitting on committees - select committees are a way of holding the executive to account. If a backbencher sits on them, then to my mind it is evidence that they are serious about the work of Parliament and thinks it's important.

Now, if the work of the committee is ignored then that's a different matter but committee chairs are highly influential and the reports that come out can cause government no little embarrassment.

Of course, there are some like Phillip Davies types that use it just to make idiotic points but generally most backbenchers take their work on them seriously.

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:He has never sat on a committee or put forward s Bill. 30 years+ in Parliament.

You sure?

viewtopic.php?f=4&p=127881#p127881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair enough.

Not exactly a full cv for a 67 year old with 33 years in Parliament though, is it?

SpinningHugo wrote:He has never sat on a committee or put forward s Bill. 30 years+ in Parliament.

SH, WHY DON't you just go somewhere else to spit your nonsense. And yes I was shouting at you. This place was one of the few things keeping me in the world this summer while I nearly died half a dozen times, and you keep on createing havoc and untruth. Life is too bloody short for this shit, just get out of our hair.

My apologies to anyone who has no sympathy with my above post.You have more tolerance than I have time for. Or think it is fine to allow this to continue.

danesclose wrote:

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:He's like a religious fundamentalist who won't see any contradiction to his beliefs, no matter what evidence you put in front of him.

OK, so let me try and set out the kind of evidence that would shake me.

So, on here I argue about several things.

1. Policy. So on, say, railway privatisation, or NATO, or student fees I am well to the right of most here. I think subsidising rail fares and student fees is regressive beause all the evidence says it is regressive. Being of the left, I don't support regressive policies. On points like this there may be counterarguments as to why this kind of regressive policy is otherwise a good thing, but my view is (I think) evidence based. I think we're just going to have to disagree about these.

2. Corbyn's suitability for leadership. So, I think an IRA apologist, who has been paid to appear on Iranian Press TV, sides with Putin over the west, and described Hamas as his 'friends' is inappropriate to be the leader of the Labour party, Indeed I couldn't remain a member of a party prepared to elect him as leader: I clearly no longer belonged. Now I am not sure what evidence is going to shake my position on this? Proof that the IRA were just a nice bunch of lads, or that Iran doesn't execute homosexuals perhaps? Again, I think we're just going to have to disagree about this. This seems to me to be an ethical matter.

3. Corbyn's electability. Here I think we do have a proposition where the evidence may be able to refute me, and where hard facts may close down disagreement. I think Corbyn is leading Labour into electoral oblivion. I claimed from the get go that he would never be able to lead a party where the MPs didn't want him (the PLP having the same view of him as me). So far, I haven't had any evidence to shake my belief, but here you may have me and be able to mock me for a fool in a few short years time.

Or not.

Of course, from 2010-2015 we used to argue about other things. I remember happy afternoons on CiF arguing with AK and others about whether Miliband was doing well enough to win. Years of fun. Happy innocent days.

i asked yesterday what had happened here. You did.

Seeingclearly is right - and I am pleased not only that she is here and well enough to post, but also that her sentiments echo mine and others.

I have said plenty on the subject of SH and his relentless derailing of threads and general tediousness; people's posts can be ignored, but once the nasty taste is there it's very hard to get rid of as it infects the whole day. That's one of the reasons why I've not been posting here.

The other is the increasingly unpleasant atmosphere. That's not entirely due to SH, and I am very angry about the way Ohso has been spoken about. There have been many thousands of posts here on the Daily Politics over the years; many of them, including plenty of mine, have referred to various people in the most insulting terms, in some cases possibly libellous - yet one remark posted in anger from a long-term member of this forum has been alluded to repeatedly, and last night it was suggested that had certain authorities known of it Ohso could have been banned from membership of her party. This is simply disgraceful.

SH pisses people off wherever he goes. Why people put up with it here is a mystery to me. But if attacking long-term members for honest (if not approved by a majority) opinions is what this forum is about, then I should have been banned years ago when you consider the things I have said about certain politicians.

This used to be a pleasant place where we could agree to differ. It remains a nicer place than many, but as with the EU Referendum, what's going on with Labour is causing otherwise perfectly nice people to act like fucking thought police.

You're welcome to it.

RogerOThornhill wrote:On the post about sitting on committees - select committees are a way of holding the executive to account. If a backbencher sits on them, then to my mind it is evidence that they are serious about the work of Parliament and thinks it's important.

Now, if the work of the committee is ignored then that's a different matter but committee chairs are highly influential and the reports that come out can cause government no little embarrassment.

Of course, there are some like Phillip Davies types that use it just to make idiotic points but generally most backbenchers take their work on them seriously.

Andrew Tyrie. Great on the Treasury Select Committee and otherwise a very odd cove. I think I may have said that before . . .

SpinningHugo wrote:

danesclose wrote:

refitman wrote:

OK, so let me try and set out the kind of evidence that would shake me.

So, on here I argue about several things.

1. Policy. So on, say, railway privatisation, or NATO, or student fees I am well to the right of most here. I think subsidising rail fares and student fees is regressive beause all the evidence says it is regressive. Being of the left, I don't support regressive policies. On points like this there may be counterarguments as to why this kind of regressive policy is otherwise a good thing, but my view is (I think) evidence based. I think we're just going to have to disagree about these.

2. Corbyn's suitability for leadership. So, I think an IRA apologist, who has been paid to appear on Iranian Press TV, sides with Putin over the west, and described Hamas as his 'friends' is inappropriate to be the leader of the Labour party, Indeed I couldn't remain a member of a party prepared to elect him as leader: I clearly no longer belonged. Now I am not sure what evidence is going to shake my position on this? Proof that the IRA were just a nice bunch of lads, or that Iran doesn't execute homosexuals perhaps? Again, I think we're just going to have to disagree about this. This seems to me to be an ethical matter.

3. Corbyn's electability. Here I think we do have a proposition where the evidence may be able to refute me, and where hard facts may close down disagreement. I think Corbyn is leading Labour into electoral oblivion. I claimed from the get go that he would never be able to lead a party where the MPs didn't want him (the PLP having the same view of him as me). So far, I haven't had any evidence to shake my belief, but here you may have me and be able to mock me for a fool in a few short years time.

Or not.

Of course, from 2010-2015 we used to argue about other things. I remember happy afternoons on CiF arguing with AK and others about whether Miliband was doing well enough to win. Years of fun. Happy innocent days.

Is raising human rights on Iranian TV for £20k, worse than shutting down a high level bribery and corruption scandal for the Saudis? And benefitting rather nicely from deals with the Saudis after leaving office?

Mental health trust apologises after woman has to sleep in police car

Katie Simpkins, from Corsham in Wiltshire, was detained for her own safety but no hospital bed was available in the county (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... police-car

While we have had a horrendous few years since 2010 in terms of Labour I think it is well to remember we suffered the equivalent iof a silent coup in this country ixn which nearly all media was complicit and in which Labour became labelled the perpetrator of past ecomonic failings. The vilification still goes on. This, as such events in other places show, is not an easily recoverable situation. Why the heck people are still pretending that things are the same as they were before baffles me. We have a wrecked parliamentary system, other than the tories and SNP there isn't a party that hasn't been weakened or thrown to the wolves. It is because of this that such lengths had to be taken to destroy the character of Labour Leaders. My goodness it is like talking to children. What the establishment used to do to ittss colonies it just did to us. Theresa May is not better, just different. Cameron even had to have his own personal blooding with Libya. And in the meantime people are suffering, and they need hope. And a sense their grievances are heard. That is what Labour can and should do . Not go looking for a other yes man or woman.

Temulkar wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

danesclose wrote:

OK, so let me try and set out the kind of evidence that would shake me.

So, on here I argue about several things.

1. Policy. So on, say, railway privatisation, or NATO, or student fees I am well to the right of most here. I think subsidising rail fares and student fees is regressive beause all the evidence says it is regressive. Being of the left, I don't support regressive policies. On points like this there may be counterarguments as to why this kind of regressive policy is otherwise a good thing, but my view is (I think) evidence based. I think we're just going to have to disagree about these.

2. Corbyn's suitability for leadership. So, I think an IRA apologist, who has been paid to appear on Iranian Press TV, sides with Putin over the west, and described Hamas as his 'friends' is inappropriate to be the leader of the Labour party, Indeed I couldn't remain a member of a party prepared to elect him as leader: I clearly no longer belonged. Now I am not sure what evidence is going to shake my position on this? Proof that the IRA were just a nice bunch of lads, or that Iran doesn't execute homosexuals perhaps? Again, I think we're just going to have to disagree about this. This seems to me to be an ethical matter.

3. Corbyn's electability. Here I think we do have a proposition where the evidence may be able to refute me, and where hard facts may close down disagreement. I think Corbyn is leading Labour into electoral oblivion. I claimed from the get go that he would never be able to lead a party where the MPs didn't want him (the PLP having the same view of him as me). So far, I haven't had any evidence to shake my belief, but here you may have me and be able to mock me for a fool in a few short years time.

Or not.

Of course, from 2010-2015 we used to argue about other things. I remember happy afternoons on CiF arguing with AK and others about whether Miliband was doing well enough to win. Years of fun. Happy innocent days.

Is raising human rights on Iranian TV for £20k, worse than shutting down a high level bribery and corruption scandal for the Saudis? And benefitting rather nicely from deals with the Saudis after leaving office?

They will rake up anything. Of course there is no great crime. Why aren't we digging the dirt on the tories and insisting that there are answers. As a nation, I mean. Their game is munufacturing outrage out of nothing.

Another topic...

Don't look tinyclanger, it'll only upset you.

Nigel Lawson ''Brexit gives us the chance to finish the Thatcher revolution''
https://www.ft.com/content/6cb84f70-6b7 ... z4J76Qdlvw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat wrote:The above makes it look unlikely he'll go before an election. Maybe there should could be an 'employment contract' for the leader,
along lines of meeting certain targets, i.e. getting a specified approval level in polls by a certain date?
At least it would provide an agreed imperical measure of electability rather than just unfounded accusations.

The trouble with polls is that they can be used to return whatever result whoever is paying for the poll wants. Tying the Labour leadership to polls would mean frequent elections as leader after leader was traduced and forced to stand down.

Whoever leads Labour, the big problems they face are that the PLP, or at least some senior members of it, and much of the membership have a different view on what should be achieved. The PLP itself is divided in more ways than Corbyn vs. Smith, and some of the newer MPs in particular seem perfectly happy to do all kinds of damage to their own party so long as they get lets of lovely media attention.

Problem number 2 is that at the moment those with money, power and influence want a Tory government, not a Labour one and will stoop at nothing to damage Labour on the one hand and minimise Tory weaknesses on the other. Rather like the Zinoviev Letter in 1924. The effectiveness of non-stop demolition of a party leader is quite clear - in 2014 Ashcroft's polls placed Labour 16% ahead in Wolverhampton SW. After a year or so of relentless Miliband bashing by the Guardian rightwards that lead reduced to making the constituency a close marginal.

I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt very much it's as simple as changing the leader. And a Labour party that is to the right of New Labour seems hardly worth voting for. There needs to be a better reason to vote Labour than "well, I suppose they might kick us a bit less hard than the other lot, and they do wear such nice suits and ties. Hand me my gas mask and I'll go down the polling station".

Temulkar wrote:
Is raising human rights on Iranian TV for £20k, worse than shutting down a high level bribery and corruption scandal for the Saudis? And benefitting rather nicely from deals with the Saudis after leaving office?

There is no evidence at all that he did that. Go watch the extracts on youtube, there are plenty of them. Iran is never discussed. Human rights doesn't come up. It is all about Israel, Iraq and the duplicitous actions of the US.

Corbyn seems to me to be so sure of his own righteousness that when he is caught out, as with telling untruths about the lack of any seats on a train, he can't fess up. So he digs himself in deeper.

The rest is the usual whataboutery.

The country is suffering. Labour has to be the peoples party again.

All those who find Hugo such a pain, just block him. And don't peek at his posts by overriding it to check that he is offending you or it won't work.

The whataboutery is all yours Hugo.

In other places they laugh at auch small minded notions that no one should speak on another countries media. The Iranians might have had some bloody awful governments but its people are part of the human race. Just like us.

He is ruining this place, when it is no longer recoverable how will you feel?

[quote="AnatolyKasparov"In the next few years, though, if Corbyn stays there are likely going to be changes in the culture of the party which would make such a "counter revolution" next to impossible - he may then feel able to hand over, even if his successor is from the "soft left" rather than his own vintage.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Maybe.

I think the big weakness in our political system, or more accurately perhaps how Labour responds to it has been thoroughly demonstrated since 2010.

The post-war consensus started breaking down in the late 70s, but Cameron hammered the nails into the coffin. The basic problem is that whatever a Labour government does can so easily and quickly be undone, even by a government that lied its way into office (both Cameron and Clegg). 40 years of foreign and economic policy which underpins so much can be overturned by a small majority in an advisory referendum only called because Cameron wanted to try and get some of the kippers to return to voting Tory. No other country would go down the road of such a major constitutional change on that basis.

And again, the referendum was characterised by lies, deceit, jingoism, misinformation, astroturfing and abuse, while most of the electorate had little knowledge of how the EU works, how its decisions are made or Directives written and agreed. Or even the role of the UK's government and what it was supporting and lobbying for within the EU.

While the most prominent and visible politician on the issue led a party whose NEC he himself described as "terrible" a few days after the vote and who threw away their manifesto mid-interview becasue it was, in his words, "twaddle he'd never read". And who, like Boris and Gove was held up as an "expert" despite lying himself blue in the face and then ran away after the vote.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe it comes down to Gramsci's thoughts around hegemony. If so, a half million strong Labour party, along with the left wing of the Greens and maybe the SNP, SF and Plaid, could go a long way to start to change the way politics and economics are done in this country.

It's no good setting up regulators, a health service, social security system or any other kind of public provision if the next government can shut them down, undermine them or sell them off cheaply to their mates. It just means we end up endlessly fighting the same bloody fight over and over again, constantly defending rather than advancing.

RogerOThornhill wrote:On the post about sitting on committees - select committees are a way of holding the executive to account. If a backbencher sits on them, then to my mind it is evidence that they are serious about the work of Parliament and thinks it's important.

Now, if the work of the committee is ignored then that's a different matter but committee chairs are highly influential and the reports that come out can cause government no little embarrassment.

Of course, there are some like Phillip Davies types that use it just to make idiotic points but generally most backbenchers take their work on them seriously.

And the likes of George I D Smith, Lieutenant, Scots Guards (retired), No BA.Hons(Perugia) can sit smugly in front of them, lie himself hoarse, refuse to accept any reality other than his own unique one and even simply not turn up for several sittings because "he has a novel to finish".

Apologies if I'm a bit tetchy today and yesterday.

One of our cats made an unexpected final journey to the vets this morning having gone downhill rapidly from Wednesday.

So not in a good mood I'm afraid.

seeingclearly wrote:He is ruining this place, when it is no longer recoverable how will you feel?

He is just a scapegoat. As is PK, AngryAsWell, and others.
As was dear JA, who, hard to believe but it happened, got accused of bullying the other week because she dared to see things differently from the groupthink and questioned things in that lovely way she has of being open minded.

It is just a mini version of what is happening in the real world.
How will people who need a Labour government feel when the Labour party is no longer recoverable or electable ? It's getting close to the former.

All so uneccessary. Labour's always been a broad church, there are people who don't fall into either faction who are members who are being disenfranchised by the warring sides.
Willow put it well yesterday, as she always does.

It is all about hegemony, and protecting the status quo. Our politicAl parties do not exist on equal ground, but the majority of people think they do. In fact your assessment rings very true, the ignorance encourage allows Ll these things to happen.In which case an educating campaigning energised and committed Labour might be exactly what we need.

Yahyah, the polarising came in with him, the carefulness and then the outbursts as it became a less comfortable place to be. and of course we are not immune to the disappointment, ugliness and divisive attitudes around us in real life not just cyberspace. It has been a long six years and very very damaging not least to morale and spirit, but when you have someone who cleary comes to create dissent then you nurture them and make it impossible for your own to stay?

I posted years ago about this, on the old forum I think, because when a nation suffers this kind of thing this is precisely what happens. I witnessed it as a young woman.

Perspnally I value this forum, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

seeingclearly wrote:The whataboutery is all yours Hugo.

In other places they laugh at auch small minded notions that no one should speak on another countries media. The Iranians might have had some bloody awful governments but its people are part of the human race. Just like us.

Indeed they are. Which is why you shouldn't go around appearing on and taking money from the State broadcaster of a country that treats those members of the human race within its borders in such a disgusting manner.

And no he is not a scapegoat. All those people you mention are our good and valued friends.

that poor old 'scapegoat' pk1 who posted this last weekend

'Blimey, there are times when this place rivals twitter for crap. It's rapidly becoming meme central.'

Refused to explain what she meant by it......

That is the straw that broke the camel's back for me - I found it offensive to those who had been posting earlier and was something out of character with this board.....the arguments that followed it have led to a number of people stepping away from here, and apart from some sharp posts earlier today, I doubt they will be back

This is a shame because, apart from 3 specific people, I think this board is the most fun and engaging one I have ever have been a member of

Mea culpa I have been as guilty as some others in causing ructions for which I apologise but again we see in the post above a complete lack of awareness and a self-declaration of people being 'scapegoats' when at least some of them have been fully involved in poisoning the atmosphere

Oh, and SH has history of causing trouble...some days he is okay, but most he just causes problems as highlighted above

He has now been officially designated a 'scapegoat' now so I assume that means we can no longer point that out

I have just edited this to say that seeing clearly has been a beacon of light amongst the fog today (although there are others who continually post brilliantly despite the problems) and for that I will say a sincere thank you