Wednesday 2nd December 2015

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:46 am

He is fucking himself with every refusal.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:50 am

frog222 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I am certainly disappointed with Jarvis. I also agree that Labour's next leader is likely to be somebody who votes against military action today.

A point Andrew Sparrow made at 9.05 on the G live blog--

" 3) People. How MPs vote on matters of war is career-defining. Where Tory MPs stood on appeasement in the 1930s helped to decide leadership contests into the 1950s and even the 1960s, and Ed Miliband would never have become Labour leader in 2010 if he had voted for Iraq. Corbyn’s victory this summer was also, partly, a delayed backlash against Iraq. Future Labour leadership contests may be decided by how people vote tonight."

Unlike Suez and Iraq this vote is in many ways a symbolic one, ie not seriously 'Going to War' , but important for all that !

bifn !

(my bold)

How UK MPs vote on matters of war is of rather more importance to peoples' lives.
MP's goddamned careers, Sparrow?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:51 am

Even tories telling him to withdraw the remark. Still refuses.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:52 am

Sorry that was a lib dem.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:53 am

http://airwars.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Monitoring international airstrikes against so-called Islamic State (Daesh) and others in Iraq and Syria. Archiving official reports of the war. Verifying claims of civilian casualties. Promoting accountability of international forces.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:55 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:It looks like Jarvis has given up any chance of leading the party in the next few years

Realistically I think that anyone voting for airstrikes today will find it very difficult to win based on the current membership profile.

He seems to have taken the same route as the Lib Dems. Made up a few tests, believed Cameron (enough for me to question his judgement) and then ignored the big gaps. Poor show

Still want to see Benn gone if he votes with Cameron. Not sustainable to have a Shadow Minister who has such a public show of disagreement over a policy in his portfolio
While I may not agree with his decision, I think you may be doing Jarvis a slight disservice there. Don't forget this is a man who served in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan; unlike most in the House (and certainly unlike Cameron) he is all too aware of the realities of war and the consequences of the actions being proposed.

This is a political decision not a military one....there is no military objective but just to bomb

All I have to go is the comments he has made and for that I maintain my original point

if he is basing his judgement on what The Liar says (and he must do if he has set these tests) then more fool him

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:55 am

4th time he refuses.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:58 am

Temulkar wrote:4th time he refuses.

Sounds like a great drinking game. Tea, naturally

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:58 am

5th time. Every intervention now except Nadim Zahawi and Frank Field has told him to withdraw. He is looking very petty and weak. Not a good start for Dave.

rustinpeace · Post by **rustinpeace** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:59 am

Fascinating, albeit not entirely surprising to see some of the FTNers considering throwing in the towel over the ongoing Corbyn fiasco. Slightly less easy to understand it when some of you were so vocal and uncompromising about appointing him in the first place, but here we are.

I admit to enjoying more than a few moments of schadenfreude upon learning that Corbyn had been named Labour leader. After the intensity of the election, watching Labour flounder and self-immolate was extremely amusing for a while, but that amusement is rapidly coming to an end. It isn’t funny anymore.

Although I am a Conservative, I am under no illusions that the party is the perfect party of government. Mistakes have been made and there is no one on the other side of the House to oppose them. A strong opposition would have nipped certain government farces (tax credits being chief among them) in the bud far earlier. Would the Junior Doctors mess have carried on this long if Labour had someone competent at Shadow Health? No, but then Labour is no longer a credible party of opposition, by any reasonable measure. The latest unsightly display of rabid Corbynites turning up outside Stella Creasy’s office and screeching about her deselection only serves to highlight the sort of behaviour which is now de rigeur under Corbyn. The lunatics have seized control of the asylum. This is of course before the Oldham vote, where a 15,000 Labour majority is expected to be reduced to virtually nothing. I'll declare an interest - I’ve taken a small punt (at 3/1) on UKIP taking the seat. Highly unlikely, sure, but then so was my bet on a Conservative majority.

As Nick Cohen has expertly argued for this week’s Spectator, Labour must call time on this failed experiment, kick Corbyn out and replace him with someone remotely credible. The three obvious questions are – When? How? and Whom? I’d still be inclined to go for Jarvis, even though it’ll now mean losing a not inconsiderable chunk of the £3 membership (some of whom are ditching out anyway, now that the fun of picking leaders is over). In any case, Labour needs to act fast.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 11:59 am

Can someone smell shit?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:01 pm

sixth time

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:02 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:Does Milne have the same influence as Campbell I wonder, don't know much about him tbh. I remember a chap at work who was the union secretary who greatly admired Joe Haines, Harold Wilson's press officer,later the leader writer for the Mirrorwho called Maxwell a crook and a liar.

Well, that's very strange. I dreamt about Joe Haines last night (which is weird enough in itself).

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:02 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
HindleA wrote:Ever more reason to stay in,if that is the case,I would say,but respect different view.
The moment Corbyn was elected, it was posited that those in the membership who didn't support him would step back for a while, become less visible. That seems to have happened to a degree and it's not good for Labour. Some people who did vote for Corbyn aren't "Corbynistas", as well, and I don't think their voice is being heard either. The Syrian situation is very emotive, but it will pass. The debate today will allow both those for and against within Labour to have their say. Corbyn should embrace that. His vision for Labour was to allow debate to happen, not for his followers to impose their views on others. A free vote is more challenging, politically, it doesn't give the public a simple position to latch onto, but Labour's ambivalence towards the airstrikes seems to reflect the public's ambivalence towards them. It's not the worst place for the party to find itself.
It's tricky. To some people, it seems that everyone who supports Corbyn is a Corbynista. I don't see myself as a Corbynista at all, but I get the feeling others disagree. Conversely, everyone who opposes him tends to get branded a Blairite or Tory-lite, but I see the two positions as slightly different in that I would like all Labour party members to at least give him a chance, and see opposing him openly as problematic. I would like to see an actual debate, by which I mean a sober discussion of the merits of opposing positions, not the hurling of insults from increasingly entrenched positions.

It's quite weird...Every time he has an interview people are impressed at the way he carries himself. Every time he holds a meeting people come away pleasantly surprised at how honest and down to earth he is. He's caused a sea change in PMQs and gets admired for that. He's bowed, made himself approachable on rememberance day, been accepted by the Queen without letting himself down and considering the hostile media has made him out to be an awkward inflexible cuss, has proved them wrong on quite a few fronts.

I suppose it depends on what you want from a politician. I think that it's a real treat to have one that doesn't have a greedy or egotistic agenda. Agree with him or not, at least when he says something you have a pretty good idea it's what he truly believes and isn't just sound bites.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:05 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

I can't help thinking about how little the USA did to help combat the IRA (who operated their fundraising in America mainly unimpeded until "fairly" recently). Bit of a non sequitur (not quite the right use of the phrase but it will have to do), I know, but it keeps skittering across my brain. Especially when the term "terrorist sympathisers" is being bandied about. But, of course, that's now all water under the bridge and they are our best mates . . .

NORAID was founded in 1969; in 1981, a US judge said this when delivering his judgement on NORAID being a fundraising organisation for a "foreign principal" - "The uncontroverted evidence is that it is an agent of the IRA providing money and services for other than relief purposes". NORAID supported the Good Friday Agreement and is now supportive of Sinn Fein as a political party.

I think that the US as a country didn't support the aims/objectives of the IRA, hence the 1981 case against NORAID - but it certainly supports (with money and its' veto powers at the UN) Israel continuously; and of course other countries as and when it suits....

The Troubles were really a "local" issue, in that the worst was largely confined to the UK. Corbyn and McDonnell get a lot of bad press about their support for negotiations etc. but it was precisely that which led to the cessation of the bombings in the end.

On the UK mainland, there were more than 70 successful (in that the bombs worked) attacks between 1972 and 1992. There were thousands of attacks of various kinds across NI and the mainland; a lot of them were plots which failed or were stopped by security services - but despite that, many lives were lost and tens of thousands injured. Working in London at the time, I had a few "near misses" (I'd just got on to a train at Kings Cross when we heard the explosion of the bomb there - back in 1973) and people were constantly on alert. In A&E, we not only got used to the carnage, we also had to treat known terrorists in custody who'd been caught during the failed attempts but were injured (mainly minor burns); they couldn't be admitted to wards as they were a flight risk.

The thing about the terrorist threats now - well, for me anyway - is that the risk, though real, is being exaggerated for the express purpose of justifying going to war, IMHO. Without minimising what happened in Paris and what could happen here, yes there is a risk - but is it enough to justify gong to bomb people in a country we are not at war with? Personally, I don't think so.....

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:12 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:It looks like Jarvis has given up any chance of leading the party in the next few years

Realistically I think that anyone voting for airstrikes today will find it very difficult to win based on the current membership profile.

He seems to have taken the same route as the Lib Dems. Made up a few tests, believed Cameron (enough for me to question his judgement) and then ignored the big gaps. Poor show

Still want to see Benn gone if he votes with Cameron. Not sustainable to have a Shadow Minister who has such a public show of disagreement over a policy in his portfolio
While I may not agree with his decision, I think you may be doing Jarvis a slight disservice there. Don't forget this is a man who served in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan; unlike most in the House (and certainly unlike Cameron) he is all too aware of the realities of war and the consequences of the actions being proposed.

Yes but the hope many had was that as an ex military man and knowing what war is actually like, he might be cautious about endorsing Dave's "war leader" delusion. And indeed his very decent Graun article the other day hinted as much.......

I just don't see how he (or anybody else) can seriously claim the requirements set out in that piece have been met. So either that was just a piece of political positioning (as Farron's similar "line" seems to have been for the LibDems) or his decision to vote with Dave now is. Or indeed both.

Whatever of the above applies, it doesn't look good.

And what increased my cynicism was his assertion the choice was now effectively between bombing and "inaction". Absolutely nobody, Corbyn very much included, is suggesting that we "do nothing". That is a lazy get out trope that does him no credit.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:16 pm

Was Paddy Ashdown given respect when he was leader of his party (can't remember !) David Davis is ex SAS apparently, he isn't taken much notice of, or John Baron ?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:20 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:It looks like Jarvis has given up any chance of leading the party in the next few years

Realistically I think that anyone voting for airstrikes today will find it very difficult to win based on the current membership profile.

He seems to have taken the same route as the Lib Dems. Made up a few tests, believed Cameron (enough for me to question his judgement) and then ignored the big gaps. Poor show

Still want to see Benn gone if he votes with Cameron. Not sustainable to have a Shadow Minister who has such a public show of disagreement over a policy in his portfolio
My difficulty is this: Ed Miliband showed that a compromise candidate would not get the full support of the PLP even if most of the membership got behind him. Corbyn has showed that the membership was thoroughly fed up with having to accept a compromise candidate when the right of the party wasn't prepared to make even that compromise, and elected a leader of the left. Both the right of Labour's PLP and the media will not give any leader on the left or centre of the party a moment's break. So I'm not sure where we are supposed to go from there. If the PLP stages a coup and elects an Umunna or a Hunt (or indeed, a Jarvis - a lot of people seem to be forgetting he's still of the Progress wing) I suspect membership will collapse in protest, and that will seriously hurt the party's financial ability to fight an election (unless wealthy donors flock back). On the other hand, the very best we have to expect from a leader who is centrist by Labour terms, a Burnham, say, then the best we can expect is a repeat of Miliband's leadership.

Benn has jumped the shark as far as I can see. He had so much room for compromise, and yet has seemingly sleepwalked into going to bat for Cameron's non-existent case for airstrikes. I don't know what he was thinking.

A fantastic chance to build solid Labour foundations, has been blown by the dissenters. All they had to do was compromise and wait ... The fact they haven't shows what sort of government we can expect if they manage to scramble to the top. It also shows they have severe character flaws.

And what are they going to do for financing now Cameron's messing around with funding? They had a very welcome influx of money with the surge in membership ... Another chance that'll be wasted.

My grandchildren have better sense than some of them.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:23 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:Was Paddy Ashdown given respect when he was leader of his party (can't remember !) David Davis is ex SAS apparently, he isn't taken much notice of, or John Baron ?

DD was a reservist SAS. I completely agree with AK, the false binary option argument was very disappointing, especially in a newspaper piece given the chance to choose your words.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:27 pm

"Turning to the issue of ground forces, Cameron says he told MPs last week there were 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters.

There is a limit to what he can say, he says. He does not want to jeopardise their safety."

A limit yes, but he can't provide any detail? Just a snippet and puff, they'll go?

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:39 pm

ephemerid wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

I can't help thinking about how little the USA did to help combat the IRA (who operated their fundraising in America mainly unimpeded until "fairly" recently). Bit of a non sequitur (not quite the right use of the phrase but it will have to do), I know, but it keeps skittering across my brain. Especially when the term "terrorist sympathisers" is being bandied about. But, of course, that's now all water under the bridge and they are our best mates . . .

NORAID was founded in 1969; in 1981, a US judge said this when delivering his judgement on NORAID being a fundraising organisation for a "foreign principal" - "The uncontroverted evidence is that it is an agent of the IRA providing money and services for other than relief purposes". NORAID supported the Good Friday Agreement and is now supportive of Sinn Fein as a political party.

I think that the US as a country didn't support the aims/objectives of the IRA, hence the 1981 case against NORAID - but it certainly supports (with money and its' veto powers at the UN) Israel continuously; and of course other countries as and when it suits....

The Troubles were really a "local" issue, in that the worst was largely confined to the UK. Corbyn and McDonnell get a lot of bad press about their support for negotiations etc. but it was precisely that which led to the cessation of the bombings in the end.

On the UK mainland, there were more than 70 successful (in that the bombs worked) attacks between 1972 and 1992. There were thousands of attacks of various kinds across NI and the mainland; a lot of them were plots which failed or were stopped by security services - but despite that, many lives were lost and tens of thousands injured. Working in London at the time, I had a few "near misses" (I'd just got on to a train at Kings Cross when we heard the explosion of the bomb there - back in 1973) and people were constantly on alert. In A&E, we not only got used to the carnage, we also had to treat known terrorists in custody who'd been caught during the failed attempts but were injured (mainly minor burns); they couldn't be admitted to wards as they were a flight risk.

The thing about the terrorist threats now - well, for me anyway - is that the risk, though real, is being exaggerated for the express purpose of justifying going to war, IMHO. Without minimising what happened in Paris and what could happen here, yes there is a risk - but is it enough to justify gong to bomb people in a country we are not at war with? Personally, I don't think so.....

This whole "terrorist sympathisers" thing is an offensive nonsense being perpetrated by Cameron and his ilk; somebody today posted a picture of Livingstone alongside Gerry Adams, as if that proved Cameron's point; to my mind it proved Livingstone's point, the point he made at the time, that the only way we could hope to solve the conflict in Northern Ireland was through talking (don't forget at that time Thatcher's solution was to insist the BBC/ITV News weren't even allowed to use Adams real voice, a laughable idea even then).

Talking solves things. Talking brought The Troubles to an end (I know things still aren't perfect out there, but they are so much better, thank you Mo Mowlam) and it is obvious from the noises being made that would not have happened under Cameron - but then he represents a party where some still consider Mandela a terrorist.

The Tories are all about causing dissension, causing hatred toward others, that every Muslim is a potential terrorist. Like Ephe I had a few near misses - I lost friends in the Hyde Park bombing and was working in Harrods the day 6 people were killed by a car bomb - but that didn't make me think that every Irish man or woman was a terrorist; that way madness lies, and that is the path Cameron is attempting to lead us down.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 12:40 pm

StephenDolan wrote:"Turning to the issue of ground forces, Cameron says he told MPs last week there were 70,000 moderate Syrian opposition fighters.

There is a limit to what he can say, he says. He does not want to jeopardise their safety."

A limit yes, but he can't provide any detail? Just a snippet and puff, they'll go?

Ha! I knew that was coming (as I posted yesterday) . . .

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:03 pm

Shenanigans in Walthamstow are ridiculous, Stella Creasey is a damn fine MP.
.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:08 pm

Temulkar wrote:Shenanigans in Walthamstow are ridiculous, Stella Creasey is a damn fine MP.
.

A large part of that story is invention, for instance it now seems that the "protesters outside her house" never happened and was a confection of the Sun.

What is true, though, is that if boundary changes go through as planned she could well be effectively fighting John Cryer for a single seat.

It would be a shame to lose either of them.......

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:17 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Temulkar wrote:Shenanigans in Walthamstow are ridiculous, Stella Creasey is a damn fine MP.
.
A large part of that story is invention, for instance it now seems that the "protesters outside her house" never happened and was a confection of the Sun.

What is true, though, is that if boundary changes go through as planned she could well be effectively fighting John Cryer for a single seat.

It would be a shame to lose either of them.......

The letter sent to MPs about deselection in six months? Have party rules changed that much because I thought that was against them. It's also so very badly phrased. I wonder if all this 'bullying' is coming from momentum supporters. Some of it seems quite kippery.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:21 pm

I certainly doubt if *all* the people indulging in the worst bellowing (and bullying) on social media are genuine Labour - or indeed Corbyn - supporters.

It isn't conspiracy theorising to note that the state has used "provocateurs" in the past (some believe they were present in the 1990 poll tax protests)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:23 pm

The screeching hectoring disgusting behaviour in the Mother of Parliaments is a national disgrace. Bercow needs to get a fucking grip.

I can't watch any more. Sickening.

Over on the AS blog, monteverdi1610 posted this -
"...Cameron's National Security Adviser, fellow Old Etonian Sir Mark Lyall Grant, was only appointed by Cameron in September 2015. His job was 'to give security briefings to wavering MPs'. Cameron set up his 'placeman' in early preparation for this long planned second attempt to get our official intervention in Syria"

I don't know if this is true - Lyall Grant is a career diplomat and has been quite anti-Syria while on the UN Security Council. Obviously, with the usual nonsense we get from OGRPPFGTCC it wouldn't surprise me in monteverdi1610 is right.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:26 pm

Does anyone know what time the vote outcome will actually be ?
The vote's scheduled for 10pm, how long between trooping through the lobbies and the result being given ?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:27 pm

Angus Robertson (SNP) is doing a good job on the anti-bombing case.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I certainly doubt if *all* the people indulging in the worst bellowing (and bullying) on social media are genuine Labour - or indeed Corbyn - supporters.

It isn't conspiracy theorising to note that the state has used "provocateurs" in the past (some believe they were present in the 1990 poll tax protests)

I read a link to a non-tin foil hat (or else a very well hidden tin foil hat) website the other day which was about the cyber propaganda unit run by GCHQ etc, in relation to a psychologist whose work has been used for the project.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:32 pm

Thanks PF, Temulkar & others for watching and reporting.
Too stressful for me.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:40 pm

yahyah wrote:Thanks PF, Temulkar & others for watching and reporting.
Too stressful for me.

Hello. It's not doing much for me, actually! I thought Angus Robertson did a lot better than Jeremy Corbyn who I felt was rather unfocussed.

(PS You're welcome - for as long as I can stand it. Adam Werrity's friend is speaking now.)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:41 pm

@Eph FWIW have expressed my "disappointment" of the tone,to some MP's on Twitter,well their accounts,never sure if it is actually them.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:45 pm

Double post.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:50 pm

Husband's put it on.
Good intervention from Tory Crispin Blunt, chair of the Foreign Affairs committee.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:54 pm

I don't know if I'm in favour of "unfocussed" or "unfocused" - it's optional, but I thought I'd try the double "s" version. May we have a vote on it? I promise I won't accuse anyone of being double "s" sympathisers.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:56 pm

yahyah wrote:Husband's put it on.
Good intervention from Tory Crispin Blunt, chair of the Foreign Affairs committee.

Can he type? (Your husband - not Crispin Blunt.)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:58 pm

Definately one "s" for me.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 1:59 pm

PorFavor wrote:
yahyah wrote:Husband's put it on.
Good intervention from Tory Crispin Blunt, chair of the Foreign Affairs committee.
Can he type? (Your husband - not Crispin Blunt.)

When I let him

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:03 pm

My MP,apparently,in favour but cannot vote(Deputy Speaker)

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:05 pm

unfocussed unfocused
Is the one s the American spelling ? Two does look unwieldy though.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:08 pm

Is it unduly cynical to wonder how many MPs, or their spouses, have shares in companies whose stock will rise if there is a vote to bomb ?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:09 pm

yahyah wrote:unfocussed unfocused
Is the one s the American spelling ? Two does look unwieldy though.

I've just checked - there's no mention of either spelling being predominantly used in America.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:10 pm

It has escaped..bollockss

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:11 pm

Or even being predominantly used . . . .

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:16 pm

Jewelry or jewellery?

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:17 pm

John Baron is nailing it.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:19 pm

HindleA wrote:Jewelry or jewellery?

For me - definitely jewellery.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:23 pm

yahyah wrote:unfocussed unfocused
Is the one s the American spelling ? Two does look unwieldy though.

I vote for, 'unfocused'. Why risk further incertitude using more letters than are strictly required?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 02 Dec, 2015 2:27 pm

Alan Johnson behaving disgracefully with a totally unnecessary swipe at what we'd probably call "Corbynistas".

Edited to add -

Funny how I often think that those whom we are encouraged to think of as "nice guys" (Kenneth Clarke springs to mind) have a very nasty, petty and self-serving streak running right through them.