FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Morning.

The horrible revelations about Trump must surely sink him below the water for once and for all.
He boasts about sexually assaulting women.
The American religious right should be pulling their votes surely ?

His apology sounds like a six year old who's been forced to apologise to his mum. ''I won't put my hand in the cookie jar ever again Mom. I won't let you down.'' Yuk yuk yuk.

Shadow cabinet list

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37588143" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@tizme

Your post about the Green view on a second referendum after we know what the negotiations amount to is whispering to me. I'm going to check out the official party website.
The Lib Dems seems a step much too far to contemplate, even though the Orange Bookers got wiped out in 2015.

If you know of any Green blogs that are taking an interest in Brexit and explaining party policy I'd appreciate the web addresses.

Strange times.

yahyah wrote:Morning.

The horrible revelations about Trump must surely sink him below the water for once and for all.
He boasts about sexually assaulting women.
The American religious right should be pulling their votes surely ?

His apology sounds like a six year old who's been forced to apologise to his mum. ''I won't put my hand in the cookie jar ever again Mom. I won't let you down.'' Yuk yuk yuk.

Don't forget, Bill said much, much worse to him on the golf course.

The debate should be a bloodbath.

One thing I missed was the promotion of Mr Ian Lavery to the shadow cabinet.

An interesting choice.

Was Lavery cleared of accusations against him ?

yahyah wrote:Was Lavery cleared of accusations against him ?

No.

For those unfamiliar with the claims

https://storify.com/hopisen/defending-g ... cting-bad-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or was the Murdoch press out to get him ?

yahyah wrote:Or was the Murdoch press out to get him ?

The only defence I have seen is "this is the Murdoch press out to get him."

Here is a defence of him

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... g.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read them both and think for yourself.

The loan has been written off it seems.

Just for a bit of balance re Lavery, I'm assuming you meant the accusations around the mortgage payments?

Some info here (I'd link to his own 'setting the record straight' but would guess it would seem biased)


For example, Ian Lavery MP bought his house with a loan from a fund set up by his union.
His loan came from the NUM (Northumberland Area) Provident and Benevolent fund, to be precise. Remember that name, if you can. It'll be useful later

https://storify.com/hopisen/defending-g ... cting-bad-

...to which Zelo Street replied with...

All the real reporting below was done by James Lyons of the Sunday Times … All I'm doing is setting it out in one place”, we are told. Two things here. One, it is best to be wary of the Murdoch press - one should not have to make that caveat, but we are where we are with the press, and a paper that, back in the days of Roy Thomson, could be considered reliable, certainly cannot be nowadays.

There is a clear suggestion in Hopi Sen’s Storify, and I have to assume in Lyons’ reportage, that Ian Lavery is one of “those who would rip [union members] off to feather their own nest”. However, the evidence relies on assuming the basest of motives, contains a significant number of howlers, and is presented as a fait accompli. Something bad can be made to appear to have happened, so it really did happen - perhaps.
Yet at no point do we have presented an answer to the question in the title of this post - What Has Ian Lavery Done Wrong?

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... wrong.html

As there's been no further movement, speaking for myself personally now, I think it may well have been a Murkydochian shiny squirrel...I wonder what else was in the news that day...but most absolutely definitely categorically nothing whatsoever to with Lavery being a prime agitator for the miners during their demonisation and subsequent destruction by Thatcher/Murdoch/Hart using their semi-private security firm, the South Yorks Police...no siree...absolutely definitely not...

Three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth...and I see other responses now....so.as ever, apologies for any toe-treading

ttfn

SpinningHugo wrote:

yahyah wrote:Or was the Murdoch press out to get him ?

The only defence I have seen is "this is the Murdoch press out to get him."

But but Hugo...what if the accusations are in fact baseless? Surely any bright legal mind would agree to an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance?

Definitely ttfn this time

Today need a new interviewer, Thornberry just ate Robinson alive. A joy to listen to.

Lonewolfie wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

yahyah wrote:Or was the Murdoch press out to get him ?

The only defence I have seen is "this is the Murdoch press out to get him."

But but Hugo...what if the accusations are in fact baseless? Surely any bright legal mind would agree to an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance?

Definitely ttfn this time

Absolutely.

Go read the documents, reflect on what Lavery has said, and apply your own reason is my advice.

Robinson did manage a good job on a [rather stereotypical] male Trump supporter.

yahyah wrote:Robinson did manage a good job on a [rather stereotypical] male Trump supporter.

The I'll vote for him no matter what talk was a bit of a headshaker.

SpinningHugo wrote:

Lonewolfie wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote: The only defence I have seen is "this is the Murdoch press out to get him."

But but Hugo...what if the accusations are in fact baseless? Surely any bright legal mind would agree to an 'innocent until proven guilty' stance?

Definitely ttfn this time

Absolutely.

Go read the documents, reflect on what Lavery has said, and apply your own reason is my advice.

OK I'll bite (again - and apologies to others here who understandably find interaction with Hugo so difficult)...

I read the documentation at the time....my general rule (as so much of what we read/see could have/has been tainted by contact with Murkydochia) is to see whether anything comes of it...which nothing has....which then leads me to believe there's no basis for the accusations....so...until someone somewhere comes up with real actual evidence, then to my mind Lavery has no case to answer and therefore should be afforded the respect due to someone who's done nothing wrong.

...and, just to expand on the Murkydochian theme a little, not sure if this was linked...but are we finally seeing the beginning of the end of 'Government by foreign media billionaire'? As ever I life in Hope (just north of Peterborough)

Mazher Mahmood was, by the time his personal Wild West Show came to and end, no mere journalist. He was a confidante of the Murdochs’ management, and, it has been claimed to me, of Rupert Murdoch himself.
What Maz did, it seems he did with the implicit blessing of The Top Man, the probable knowledge of son James, and the approval of News UK’s recently reinstated CEO, the twinkle-toed yet domestically combative Rebekah Brooks.

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/ ... dante.html

Definitely ttfn this time (I've said that before - does that make me an echoist?), so over to you Hugo, as I know you absolutely MUST get the last word in

I was half asleep listening to R4 this morning, but could swear the message from the Trump supporter was essentially "we need you to vote for Trump to keep Hilary out, but don't worry, as soon as he stuffs up we'll impeach him and replace him with a nice Republican". As I say, I was half asleep, because seriously, if that was what he was genuinely hinting, how desperate is that?!

To all the people here yesterday worried about Labour's EU/Brexit stance - Starmer's appointment should be good news for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... dApp_Tweet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Charity takes legal action against Home Office over child refugees

http://www.vice.com/read/robert-de-niro ... n-the-face" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Robert De Niro seems unsure about Trump

AnatolyKasparov wrote:To all the people here yesterday worried about Labour's EU/Brexit stance - Starmer's appointment should be good news for you.

I hope so.

Just a thought.

The referendum was so divisive wasn't it? 52% of Brits are rabid, racist, frothing, straight banana hating, Farge loving UKIPpers. 48% of Brits are Euro loving, hug a Turk, freedom of movement fetishists.

Yes the media want us to be a divided country, set against ourselves, scrapping and hating each other. Surely that isn't true. Surely most folk struggled to decide. Certainly many will have changed their minds since, in both directions. Probably the vote was actually 51% err maybe leave and 47% err maybe stay.

I cried at the Brexit result, but I still get up every morning and go to the same office. My kids still hop on the school bus. We still go walking round the Pennine hills. My local pub is still brewing great beer.

Life goes on. Brexit was a calamity there is no doubt. But why fall out over it? Why make enemies? What does that serve?

HindleA wrote:http://www.vice.com/read/robert-de-niro ... n-the-face

Robert De Niro seems unsure about Trump

Did he say, at the end, "If you care about your future, vote for him"?

"It"

At a guess,I don't think it was a Trump endorsement.

Good-morning, everyone

HindleA wrote:"It"

At a guess,I don't think it was a Trump endorsement.

Ah. I listened to it twice, and still heard "him". It confused me no end, given the foregoing.

I've been out of it for a couple days.
I'm fine now.

Oh - good morfternoon.

(citizenJA woke me up to my social solecism.)

Nice to see you back JA.

SpinningHugo wrote:Shadow cabinet list

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37588143" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I note the only people leaving were those who asked to return to the backbenches, not sure there were any sackings as such?

Which suggests this particular SC may not last long in its present form - IMO it is possible next months big meeting of the NEC may agree on *partial* election of its members (say 6-8 posts) Which may be why, despite the PLPs protestations, Corbyn wasn't interested in such a "deal" now.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Shadow cabinet list

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37588143" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I note the only people leaving were those who asked to return to the backbenches, not sure there were any sackings as such?

Which suggests this particular SC may not last long in its present form - IMO it is possible next months big meeting of the NEC may agree on *partial* election of its members (say 6-8 posts) Which may be why, despite the PLPs protestations, Corbyn wasn't interested in such a "deal" now.

I don't.

I think this team of Titans is it.

Well, as it is its not too bad (certainly in the top positions, Abbott aside)

Only a few people I would really like to see in there that aren't - Smith ruled himself out beforehand, then there is Jarvis and Nandy; after that I'm struggling a bit.....

Though a return to the front bench for Ed would have been nice

Indeed there are excellent members of it.I suppose if you view knowledge,conscientioness,diligence,forensic demolition as bad things as opposed to grandstandstanding shoutiness or via a binary prism,you may have a different opinion.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, as it is its not too bad (certainly in the top positions, Abbott aside)

Only a few people I would really like to see in there that aren't - Smith ruled himself out beforehand, then there is Jarvis and Nandy; after that I'm struggling a bit.....

Though a return to the front bench for Ed would have been nice

I don't think Thornberry is competent (I think less of her than Abbott, who is able but cones with baggage, such as where she sent her son to school.)

You can't say it both doesn't matter a jot at the same time as it does,of course.The hard graft of effective opposition is largely unseen.

SpinningHugo wrote:
I don't think Thornberry is competent (I think less of her than Abbott, who is able but cones with baggage, such as where she sent her son to school.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3222089.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"She's not a hypocrite, she just put what I wanted first," James told LBC.

He added that he had wanted to go private rather than attend a local state school in Ms Abbott's Hackney constituency.

He said: "My mum didn't force me to go to private school, I took the test for the schools I wanted to go to, and I chose the school I wanted to go to.

"If I wanted to go to a state school then my mum would have let me go to a state school.

"It's a good school. The facilities, the resources and the teachers seem better than the state school.

"My mum said you can go to what school you want, she didn't say you have to go to a private school, or you have to go to a state school."

And no, I didn't know this before now.

Maybe just let that one drop now?

We’re marching towards extreme Brexit. Someone must speak for the 48%
Jonathan Freedland


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Depends what you mean by Titans,most progressive and beneficial legislation ,still pertaining were ensured by people most wouldn't have heard of then and certainly hardly any now,Morris,Newton etc.

PorFavor wrote:Oh - good morfternoon.

(citizenJA woke me up to my social solecism.)

Many thanks, PorFavor, apologies for taking so long to acknowledge.
I was going through yesterday's thread.

yahyah wrote:Nice to see you back JA.

My dear friend, it's good to read you, thank you and apologies for not responding sooner.

Diane Abbott's hypocrisy comes not from which school she sent her son to, but from being openly critical of other Labour figures who did the same. If it's not OK for Harriet Harman and Tony Blair's children, then it's not OK for Abbott's son (who now works at the foreign office by the way, wonder how he got that job).

To be fair to Abbott Jnr, my niece works for the Foreign Office, and went abroad recently on a high profile secondment as aide to a senior diplomatic figure.
She started on a temporary contract doing very basic admin work a few years back.
So young people can get on in the FO even without well known parents or paid educations.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/ ... te-pension" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s a bargain state pension deal: put in £700, get £5,000 out
Around half a million public sector workers can massively boost their state pensions. Here’s how

yahyah wrote:To be fair to Abbott Jnr, my niece works for the Foreign Office, and went abroad recently on a high profile secondment as aide to a senior diplomatic figure.
She started on a temporary contract doing very basic admin work a few years back.
So young people can get on in the FO even without well known parents or paid educations.

Agree, I was a bit harsh there

I think Thornberry is decent, "that tweet" aside. She is normally a good media performer (despite that spat with Murnaghan, who arguably deserves it anyway)

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
I don't think Thornberry is competent (I think less of her than Abbott, who is able but cones with baggage, such as where she sent her son to school.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3222089.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"She's not a hypocrite, she just put what I wanted first," James told LBC.

He added that he had wanted to go private rather than attend a local state school in Ms Abbott's Hackney constituency.

He said: "My mum didn't force me to go to private school, I took the test for the schools I wanted to go to, and I chose the school I wanted to go to.

"If I wanted to go to a state school then my mum would have let me go to a state school.

"It's a good school. The facilities, the resources and the teachers seem better than the state school.

"My mum said you can go to what school you want, she didn't say you have to go to a private school, or you have to go to a state school."

And no, I didn't know this before now.

Maybe just let that one drop now?

You, of all people, should know why that is neither a justification not an excuse for Abbott's behavior.

As I have said on here before, one of the reasons I was a Labour member was suppport of Comprehensive education.

The next time a Tory sends his kids to Eton and the kid says "it was my choice it is where I wanted to go" I am sure you'll put your hands up and say fair enough.

For a *Labour* politician to opt out of collective provision like that is a complete disgrace.

I assume the boy paid the (large). Fees himself too?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I think Thornberry is decent, "that tweet" aside. She is normally a good media performer (despite that spat with Murnaghan, who arguably deserves it anyway)

I knew who the French foreign minister is.

OK, time for football.

Hopefully when I return we'll have moved on from revisiting 2003 and come back into the present day...

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I think Thornberry is decent, "that tweet" aside. She is normally a good media performer (despite that spat with Murnaghan, who arguably deserves it anyway)

Miliband's reprimand and Thornberry's prompt acknowledgement and resignation from her cabinet position following
her inappropriate tweet were judiciously handled. How someone handles their mistakes adds insight into their character.