Friday 12th May 2017

[howsillyofme1]

Here is an example that under incessant questioning most people sound incompetent - even one who has been described on here as the best politician in Britain

https://ayerightradio.wordpress.com/201 ... five-live/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Corbyn's speech today was much better than the rubbish we have heard from may and Johnson in the past - not to mention the Michael 'First Strike' Fallon

None of the military adventures mentioned (and I think you are the one who is naive if you think Trump was intervening to stop chemical weapons attacks - ratings, ratings and ratings!) will achieve anything - in the end there is no military solution unless you are prepared to go in hard, put boots on the ground and stay for a long time. Diplomacy is needed

The other comments are your own one-sided interpretation. Nowhere did I see him say that action should be stopped against ISIS rather the suggestion that defeating them militarily is not enough.

If you think the Tories are not dire on foreign policy with that buffoon in charge and us about to start another useless 'support' mission in order to suck up to Trump - I wonder if it will be as effective of the excursion Cameron and Benn were so keen on

I wonder about people who are so keen to support aggressive foreign policy when it has hardly made us any safer over the last few decades

[howsillyofme1]

There have been two people on here who have dismissed Corbyn's speech as being 'unmentionable' and 'dire'

I just would ask what was deserving of such a response?

It comes across as hopelessly naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

A classic example is his stuff on Syria, where he goes after Trump for basically stopping the use of chemical weapons. By any measure that intervention was both proportionate and so far at least hugely succesful. Then he talks about stopping taking action against ISIS and somehow achieving a miracle at the peace talks (which have achieved nothing).

Hidden away in there as well a reference to reducing tensions with Russia, which is Corbyn code for withdrawing troops from NATO allies who are desperately worried about an actual Russian invasion.

His track record on foreign policy is dire and ripe for exploitation by the Tories. Therefore the less he talks about this stuff and concentrates on domestic policy, where May is vulnerable in a whole host of areas the better for all concerned (except the Tories).

He must have made a lot of changes to the speech. I read the one below.
I don't care about Corbyn. If the man fails people, country and Labour, he's a goner.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1605820 ... tham-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why assume that he made major changes to the speech based on what TE has interpreted it as - he said pretty much what has been released with a few fairly minor changes as he talked (which is normal)?

I suggest you believe what is written rather than listen to a someone who has no real credibility when interpreting corny - his last sentence says it really. He thinks he is dire so there you go!

If you like what he said then support it

[citizenJA]

It's what I do,bereft of medias intepretation/commenting for me,I try and make my own mind up.

Yes, but many people don't or can't

The last television programme Mr citizen and I encountered, we both thought the crew of smooth-talking publicists were being lampooned and the guy not saying much with a product he manufactured was the hero of the thing. We laughed when everyone else didn't. There was an awkward silence when we all realised we weren't seeing things the same.

[howsillyofme1]

It's what I do,bereft of medias intepretation/commenting for me,I try and make my own mind up.

Yes, but many people don't or can't

The last television programme Mr citizen and I encountered, we both thought the crew of smooth-talking publicists were being lampooned and the guy not saying much with a product he manufactured was the hero of the thing. We laughed when everyone else didn't. There was an awkward silence when we all realised we weren't seeing things the same.

Or taking any notice of a poster's personal interpretation of a speech on here when the text is in front of you

[citizenJA]

Why assume that he made major changes to the speech based on what TE has interpreted it as - he said pretty much what has been released with a few fairly minor changes as he talked (which is normal)?

I suggest you believe what is written rather than listen to a someone who has no real credibility when interpreting corny - his last sentence says it really. He thinks he is dire so there you go!

If you like what he said then support it

I respect TE's judgement. I respect my own, Mr citizen's, our other friends' here and elsewhere. We're going to disagree. I'm terrified of more Tory government. I ask everyone to vote Labour, keep Tories from being returned to government.

[TechnicalEphemera]

There have been two people on here who have dismissed Corbyn's speech as being 'unmentionable' and 'dire'

I just would ask what was deserving of such a response?

It comes across as hopelessly naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

A classic example is his stuff on Syria, where he goes after Trump for basically stopping the use of chemical weapons. By any measure that intervention was both proportionate and so far at least hugely succesful. Then he talks about stopping taking action against ISIS and somehow achieving a miracle at the peace talks (which have achieved nothing).

Hidden away in there as well a reference to reducing tensions with Russia, which is Corbyn code for withdrawing troops from NATO allies who are desperately worried about an actual Russian invasion.

His track record on foreign policy is dire and ripe for exploitation by the Tories. Therefore the less he talks about this stuff and concentrates on domestic policy, where May is vulnerable in a whole host of areas the better for all concerned (except the Tories).

He must have made a lot of changes to the speech. I read the one below.
I don't care about Corbyn. If the man fails people, country and Labour, he's a goner.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1605820 ... tham-house" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes so did I to make absolutely sure everything I referenced was in it, and not some Torygraph interpretation. It is all there in black and white.

[citizenJA]

It's what I do,bereft of medias intepretation/commenting for me,I try and make my own mind up.

Yes, but many people don't or can't

The last television programme Mr citizen and I encountered, we both thought the crew of smooth-talking publicists were being lampooned and the guy not saying much with a product he manufactured was the hero of the thing. We laughed when everyone else didn't. There was an awkward silence when we all realised we weren't seeing things the same.

Or taking any notice of a poster's personal interpretation of a speech on here when the text is in front of you

Different ways of seeing
I can't force people to see with my eyes
People usually have enough in common and come to understandings together
Sometimes it's more difficult

[howsillyofme1]

It isn't - it is your interpretation of what was in their - please put in the direct quotes in 'black and white' that say

i. Stopping action against ISIS
ii. Withdrawing troops from NATO allies

Your first paragraph gives a very high level of benefit of doubt to Trump and what motivates his actions

CJA had a positive view of it on their initial interpretation

There is no need for a Telegraph interpretation when we have you to do it for us

[TechnicalEphemera]

Here is an example that under incessant questioning most people sound incompetent - even one who has been described on here as the best politician in Britain

https://ayerightradio.wordpress.com/201 ... five-live/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Corbyn's speech today was much better than the rubbish we have heard from may and Johnson in the past - not to mention the Michael 'First Strike' Fallon

None of the military adventures mentioned (and I think you are the one who is naive if you think Trump was intervening to stop chemical weapons attacks - ratings, ratings and ratings!) will achieve anything - in the end there is no military solution unless you are prepared to go in hard, put boots on the ground and stay for a long time. Diplomacy is needed

The other comments are your own one-sided interpretation. Nowhere did I see him say that action should be stopped against ISIS rather the suggestion that defeating them militarily is not enough.

If you think the Tories are not dire on foreign policy with that buffoon in charge and us about to start another useless 'support' mission in order to suck up to Trump - I wonder if it will be as effective of the excursion Cameron and Benn were so keen on

I wonder about people who are so keen to support aggressive foreign policy when it has hardly made us any safer over the last few decades

You asked a question, I have answered it. I haven't put stuff in that isn't there.

You would have to be drinking Kool aid to miss his comment on Trump's unilateral action and the stuff on Russia and NATO is there, as is his stuff on ISIS. Both can be referenced back as well to other very recent explicit statements he has made in these areas.

Also your comments on Trump hitting Assad because of ratings is shite.

[howsillyofme1]

Different ways of seeing
I can't force people to see with my eyes
People usually have enough in common and come to understandings together
Sometimes it's more difficult

No and nor should you - your interpretation is as valid as someone else's - my point is that you read the text and seemed relatively happy. TE interpreted it in his way - it doesn't mean you were wrong and he was right.

I actually agree with yours

[citizenJA]

I'll get some sleep now
I respect the judgement of my friends here, sometimes we disagree
goodnight
love,
cJA

[howsillyofme1]

Here is an example that under incessant questioning most people sound incompetent - even one who has been described on here as the best politician in Britain

https://ayerightradio.wordpress.com/201 ... five-live/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Corbyn's speech today was much better than the rubbish we have heard from may and Johnson in the past - not to mention the Michael 'First Strike' Fallon

None of the military adventures mentioned (and I think you are the one who is naive if you think Trump was intervening to stop chemical weapons attacks - ratings, ratings and ratings!) will achieve anything - in the end there is no military solution unless you are prepared to go in hard, put boots on the ground and stay for a long time. Diplomacy is needed

The other comments are your own one-sided interpretation. Nowhere did I see him say that action should be stopped against ISIS rather the suggestion that defeating them militarily is not enough.

If you think the Tories are not dire on foreign policy with that buffoon in charge and us about to start another useless 'support' mission in order to suck up to Trump - I wonder if it will be as effective of the excursion Cameron and Benn were so keen on

I wonder about people who are so keen to support aggressive foreign policy when it has hardly made us any safer over the last few decades

You asked a question, I have answered it. I haven't put stuff in that isn't there.

You would have to be drinking Kool aid to miss his comment on Trump's unilateral action and the stuff on Russia and NATO is there, as is his stuff on ISIS. Both can be referenced back as well to other very recent explicit statements he has made in these areas.

Also your comments on Trump hitting Assad because of ratings is shite.

Firstly that 'Kool Aid' reference is disgusting and offensive based on the origin of it. Pathetic

You can't answer because it is not there in black and white - it is your interpretation of it

Just admit is is - we all interpret to a greater or lesser extent.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Here is an example that under incessant questioning most people sound incompetent - even one who has been described on here as the best politician in Britain

https://ayerightradio.wordpress.com/201 ... five-live/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And Corbyn's speech today was much better than the rubbish we have heard from may and Johnson in the past - not to mention the Michael 'First Strike' Fallon

None of the military adventures mentioned (and I think you are the one who is naive if you think Trump was intervening to stop chemical weapons attacks - ratings, ratings and ratings!) will achieve anything - in the end there is no military solution unless you are prepared to go in hard, put boots on the ground and stay for a long time. Diplomacy is needed

The other comments are your own one-sided interpretation. Nowhere did I see him say that action should be stopped against ISIS rather the suggestion that defeating them militarily is not enough.

If you think the Tories are not dire on foreign policy with that buffoon in charge and us about to start another useless 'support' mission in order to suck up to Trump - I wonder if it will be as effective of the excursion Cameron and Benn were so keen on

I wonder about people who are so keen to support aggressive foreign policy when it has hardly made us any safer over the last few decades

You asked a question, I have answered it. I haven't put stuff in that isn't there.

You would have to be drinking Kool aid to miss his comment on Trump's unilateral action and the stuff on Russia and NATO is there, as is his stuff on ISIS. Both can be referenced back as well to other very recent explicit statements he has made in these areas.

Also your comments on Trump hitting Assad because of ratings is shite.

Firstly that 'Kool Aid' reference is disgusting and offensive based on the origin of it. Pathetic

You can't answer because it is not there in black and white - it is your interpretation of it

Just admit is is - we all interpret to a greater or lesser extent.

Yeah right on the first bit, whatever.

Reviewing the role of RAF airstrikes is explicit and in the Q&A, it doesn't require interpretation.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ts-malware" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The NHS trusts hit by malware – full list

[HindleA]

Another forum I am not banned from has a crossword thread where you give the next clue containing the answer,I've managed one,a lot harder than I thought.One bloke in particular is,what I would call an expert in doing so whilst letting his views known,in how shall I put it,in strong terms.
Their latest

(Answer was reset)

Reset cast on very private arrangement,the utter cunts.(12,5)


It's an anagram.

Conservative Party,of course.

[HindleA]

Deleted

[HindleA]

N.Engel NEDerbyshire marginal



"Dear all

Please find below my views on fracking. This is a letter which is going out as an insert in Dronfield Eye and will be leafleted in Eckington and Marsh Lane.

I know that national Labour policy is to ban fracking and have made this clear at the top of the letter but I hope that this will be the start of a more rational debate on what is a very important and emotive issue. Please do let me have your feedback and thoughts by email

All good wishes

Natascha

"With the calling of the snap General Election, I wanted to try and set out in detail my position on fracking as a whole and the INEOS application for an exploratory well at Bramleymoor Farm in Marsh Lane in particular.

These are my own personal views which I have arrived at after a great deal of research. These views are not shared by the Labour Party nor local Labour councillors.

There has been a lot of pressure with the general election on June 8 for me to campaign to ban fracking. It would have been an easy campaign to justify and may well be a vote-winner. But those of you who know me also know that I stand by my principles and would never campaign for something I don’t believe in. I have always put my constituents’ well-being above all else and would never support anything that I thought was unsafe.

Since hearing of the possibility of fracking in North East Derbyshire, like many of you, I have immersed myself in the subject. I have read reports and talked to campaigners against fracking, the industry, experts, and academics on shale, geology and energy.

I have had several meetings with the Energy Minister who is responsible for shale to discuss my concerns and spent much of Easter travelling around North Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire looking at the sites where fracking is due to take place as well as some of the existing oil and gas wells that are dotted around the country.

MY CONCERNS
Lorry movements: My chief concern about the Bramleymoor Farm application is lorry movements. The route through Coal Aston will need to be looked at again both for residential parking, safety for people on pavements, traffic blackspots like at Snowdon Lane, HGVs managing the little roundabout towards the petrol station and garden centres. I am also worried about the number of lorries and the times of day they will be passing through.

Proximity to housing: I have also been talking to INEOS about how close the site is to the nearest residential houses and how noise and light pollution can best be reduced and kept to a minimum to make sure that those people who are worst affected are best compensated.

PLANNING PROCESS
The government regards shale as an important potential industry and they are keen to see if there is enough of the right sort of shale in the UK to make it viable. If it comes off in the amounts that they hope, then this would lead to a huge tax take for them – in fact the government hopes that it will go some way to funding health and social care.

This means that the government has gone a long way to make sure that shale exploration will take place. They have done two things. They have made the planning framework for a shale application far more rigorous than any other conventional oil and gas application, but, once those planning requirements have been met, then if a council rejects an application it is called in by the Secretary of State who will almost certainly overturn the decision.

DISRUPTION, SAFETY, HEALTH AND HOUSE PRICES
I know how upset and worried some people are about fracking especially about health, safety, house prices and security. From visiting sites, speaking to engineers and public health experts, I have not heard, seen or read anything that convinces me that shale exploration is any more or less safe than conventional oil and gas drilling.

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a technique that has been used since the late 1940s to extract conventional oil and gas. We have had thousands of onshore oil and gas wells drilled over the decades (some of which have been fracked) and currently have over 200 wells around the country pumping quietly away with little or no concern to local residents.

There will, without a doubt, be significant disruption during the building phase of a shale site during the clearing, rig building and initial fracking phases, and there will be more than usual heavy lorry movements carrying water and aggregate. This is the part of the development that I have most concerns about and is the subject that I am in close communication with INEOS on.
But the disruption caused by the building and drilling phase is the same as with any large build project, whether it’s industrial, a new school or a new supermarket – and in the case of a supermarket, the increased lorry movements will continue throughout the life-time of the supermarket and there will be no compensation paid to locally-affected residents.

THE WATER TABLE AND OLD MINESHAFTS
The other real concern that people have raised is over the water table, drinking water and the potential risk to disused pits and mineshafts. Again, this is something that we have to keep a close eye on but the regulations covering fracking are extremely tight and the planning conditions have been strengthened over the years.

It means that 3D seismic testing has to take place to find fault-lines or disused mineshafts before anyone can frack, and baseline testing has to have been carried out a year before fracking happens so that any changes in the soil, water or air are immediately noticed and drilling is stopped. These conditions are far more rigorous than any conditions the construction industry has to meet.

From what I have seen, the independent engineers I have spoken to at the Royal Society for Civil Engineers and the British Geological Survey, the casing of a shale pipe through the water table has to be three steel tubes, each injected with a layer of cement. The chance of any contamination of the water table from shale extraction in this country is almost impossible.

RELIABLE INFORMATION
One of the biggest problems about shale exploration that I came across was that no-one knows where to get trustworthy advice or facts about fracking – what it actually entails and what the risks are. There is a lot of information on the internet and much of it is either not relevant to the UK or just plain scaremongering.
There is the industry on the one side which people don’t trust because they have a vested financial interest in downplaying any risks, and on the other side are the green campaign groups for whom anti-fracking campaigns have seen an enormous boost in donations and membership. They have a different agenda which is to see the country de-industrialise.

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT
I totally agree with the green campaigners who make the case for more investment in renewables and winding down our reliance on fossil fuels. We should be doing far more to encourage wind, solar and water energy generation as well as putting more money into researching carbon capture and storage.

But spreading scare stories for which there is no reliable evidence about increases in cancer rates and low-birth-weight babies is unforgiveable. I have not seen credible evidence to support this and it should have no place in the debate about energy, climate change and shale.

While I agree that we should do all we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, I do not believe in de-industrialisation. Most people (including me) want to come home after work, switch on the lights, turn on the heating, run a hot bath and cook meals on their hobs.

Most people would rather pay less for utility bills and many people are also concerned for the environment and would rather have less pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

But the fact is that at the moment only 7% of the energy we use comes from renewables such as wind and solar. The rest comes from gas and oil. A decreasing amount comes from our domestic wells in the North Sea, but increasingly we are importing shale gas from America and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) from Qatar. As we become more reliant on imports, we can expect our energy bills to rise even higher.

And if our concern is reducing global greenhouse gas emissions then we ought to start calculating the real carbon footprint of importing oil and gas. We know working conditions are bordering on slavery in Qatar and health and safety regulations are almost non-existent with spillages, accidents and gas escaping into the atmosphere commonplace.

Once the gas is captured, it has to be frozen to liquefy it and put onto hugely polluting diesel ships to transport to the UK where it is re-gassified and pumped into our domestic network. Each of those steps has a very large carbon footprint which would be avoided if we took shale out of the ground here.

From a green perspective, investment in renewables is essential. But gas will still have a role to play for the foreseeable future and we might as well make it as low-carbon as we can, controlling it better, and getting our domestic energy prices down. This will be especially important after Brexit.

JOBS AND INDUSTRY
Energy is something which Derbyshire is expert in with its proud coal mining history and mineral richness. It seems that beneath our feet could be another large-scale manufacturing industry that is nowhere near as dangerous as sending people down deep mines. If the shale industry develops in the UK, it would use some of the most advanced civil and petro-chemical engineering technologies in the world and could create a whole new generation of jobs for our children and grandchildren.

In Danesmoor near Clay Cross, we already have the country’s best rig-building company being used by the industry all over the country. They are struggling at the moment with protesters chaining themselves to the factory gates. But if this industry comes off, we could see a massive expansion creating many more jobs in Danesmoor alone.

If, on the other hand, we allow the protesters to stop the company from supplying rigs, the opposite will happen. The jobs that exist in Danesmoor today will not be there tomorrow.

As a former trade union organiser, I am proud that the UK has the strictest Health and Safety regulations in the world. It means that the kind of gung-ho drilling and spillages that have happened in America are simply not allowed to happen here.

Our planning regime is extremely rigorous and our environmental laws so tight that the industry is constantly complaining about the hoops through which they have to jump. Quite right too. This, of course, does not mean that accidents can’t happen. It just means that the risk is minimal and the penalties great.

MINIMISING RISKS
I appreciate that people ask why they have to put up with the disruption. We should look carefully at every application to make sure that drilling and fracking happens away from homes and in the remotest places with the least disruption possible. We should certainly not have wells covering every inch of our beautiful countryside.

Many people say that even a small risk is a risk too far. If this is how we lived our lives, we would have no development of any kind. It is about making sure any development is safe. We need an army of inspectors and environmental protection officers to keep a careful and constant eye on the industry to keep it safe.
I am not against fracking as long as the industry stays highly regulated and controlled. If taking shale out of the ground in the UK means that we have fewer greenhouse gas emissions, that we can control our own energy and get prices down because we are not importing it, if it creates a whole new industry with good jobs, if it is good for Derbyshire, then I support it.

Our next step has to be setting up a strong Community Liaison Group to negotiate with INEOS on lorry routes and times, on making sure that noise and light pollution are kept to a minimum and that individuals and the community are properly compensated.
Marsh Lane and Apperknowle need a bus service to Sheffield and Chesterfield. Let’s see if we can get a shale bus from the industry. And if fracking does actually happen, let’s ask for free energy for all homes within a certain radius. That would increase house prices and certainly reduce bills. Let’s see if INEOS can work with Eckington School (which has an engineering specialism), or pay for local people to train as lorry drivers.

If shale exploration is going to happen, let’s make sure that we get the most out of it.

I hope this will start a proper debate on shale exploration in which everyone can raise their issues and concerns. It has been very one-sided until now so I am looking forward to hearing your views on this and everything else!

All good wishes as always"

[HindleA]

https://www.equaltimes.org/portugal-s-d ... RZurTnTVpV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Portugal’s disabled population continue to struggle for independent living

[HindleA]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local ... ar_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Second newly-elected Tory councillor embroiled in offensive Twitter row