FlyTheNest

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 7:10 am**

Morning all.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 7:11 am**

Day 3 .All watching Only Connect.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 7:14 am**

Which I would imagine would be nigh impossible for a fish.Then again I may be presuming and as far as I know I am not a fish.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 7:51 am**

Robert Peston
@Peston

15h
Government re-imposes direct rule from Westminster of Northern Ireland for - it hopes - a temporary period, as I warned was on cards a fortnight ago. Serious and troubling moment

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 8:02 am**

Health department 'ignoring UK life expectancy concerns'

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

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 9:24 am**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43121680" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Addressing MPs on Tuesday, Mrs Bradley said: "I intend to take steps to provide clarity on the budget and will update the House (of Commons) as soon as possible.

"This is clearly not where I want to be but in the absence of an executive I have no other choice."

The official line is this isn't direct rule. But it is, really, isn't it? I think Peston is right, if Westminster makes a decision re budgets, it's direct rule whatever the government want to call it and worse still it's direct rule without a declaration of direct rule that interested parties can respond to, it's direct rule by the back door, through absence of governmental action.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 9:25 am**

Seems quiet this morning.

I'm worried!

#PMQs to "look forward to" later I suppose

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 9:28 am**

Actually some good Qs on NI would be very sensible. Answers needed.

One question would be, to what extent has Arleen Foster been consulted on......

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 10:19 am**

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

MPs refuse to endorse former Tory minister as head of Charity Commission

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 10:38 am**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43112650" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DNA secrets of how vampire bats became bloodthirsty

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 10:40 am**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-43131918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scunthorpe campaigner hands in better disabled toilets petition

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 10:55 am**

Good morfternoon.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 10:56 am**

Ministers set to ignore objections and appoint anyway,apparently.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 11:32 am**

Britain Elects@britainelects
13 minutes ago

London local election voting intention:

LAB: 54% (+16)
CON: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 4% (-6)
UKIP: 2% (-7)

via @YouGov, 12 - 15 Feb
Chgs. w/ 2014 results

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 11:36 am**

We don't normally bother with polls on here (rightly in my view) but that one is too striking to ignore I suppose.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 11:44 am**

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Britain Elects@britainelects
13 minutes ago

London local election voting intention:

LAB: 54% (+16)
CON: 28% (+2)
LDEM: 11% (-)
GRN: 4% (-6)
UKIP: 2% (-7)

via @YouGov, 12 - 15 Feb
Chgs. w/ 2014 results

Grenfell. I expect they'll lose control of Westminster. Corbyn is much less of a drag at local level.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 11:51 am**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:We don't normally bother with polls on here (rightly in my view) but that one is too striking to ignore I suppose.

Yes and follows nicely from our discussion about the locals the other day.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 11:59 am**

Morning

Don't have any time for polls as they are never tested outside elections an are normally wrong. We will wait and see but I think the indications are that Labour will make gains in the capital (although we will not take Westminster after our own version of Mystic Mogg has said we probably will)

Corbyn is much less of a drag at local level.

And what shit is this? - the only election I can remember Labour getting much better share of the vote than in 2017 was 1997 - not much of a drag, although you will make some completely unsupported (and actually pretty ridiculous) claim that 'Labour should be 20 points ahead'

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:19 pm**

Well Labour got hammered here for various reasons,you can choose which one to "prioritise" to suit,what it has done is rejuvenate,certainly me in activity.Though,I still can't get to regular meetings but "following".

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:22 pm**

Having more members under 50 than called Skinner would be a good start.(Nothing against the surname Skinner,clarification)

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:30 pm**

SH praised former MP for her "independent" stance re fracking,not sure if he would have the same view as per voting for referendum.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:32 pm**

HindleA wrote:SH praised former MP for her "independent" stance re fracking,not sure if he would have the same view as per voting for referendum.

She was pro-fracking, her Tory opponent last year was anti.

Whilst as we all know the seat is trending Tory long term anyway, that makes the result still more explicable.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:33 pm**

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:35 pm**

She was also increasingly disconnected from members and broader community,rather going through the motions.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 12:38 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:Corbyn is much less of a drag at local level

Not much evidence he is much of a "drag" at any level in the capital.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 1:00 pm**

Though Rowley,thoroughly untrustworthy,hopefully this will become more exposed.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 1:26 pm**

Good-afternoon, everyone

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 1:27 pm**

I've been out of it for awhile, feeling better now
The news looks interesting

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 1:32 pm**

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2018/02/ ... it-appeals" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DWP goes back to court to block future benefit appeals

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 1:35 pm**

http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/ ... iscretion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Specialist welfare rights advice practitioner and trainer Sarah Batty outlines her 2017 research into the impact of welfare reforms on social tenants in the North East

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 1:39 pm**

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/e ... d0e12d4b85" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit Must Not Mean We Lose Out On Access To Healthcare Abroad
This is important for workers, students, the retired, holiday makers – millions of UK and EU citizens

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 2:16 pm**

HindleA wrote:She was also increasingly disconnected from members and broader community,rather going through the motions.

That is actually a risk in becoming a Deputy Speaker. You are largely depoliticised, but this isn't recognised "officially" in the way the actual Speaker position is.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 3:16 pm**

Good to see Unison continue their grants/awards towards OU courses and involvement in education in general.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 3:19 pm**

This is clearly right

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

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 4:00 pm**

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-t ... iption-tab" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 4:19 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:This is clearly right

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

We "shrug" largely because there is no magical solution we can impose there.

There was perhaps a very narrow window for careful, targeted intervention in Syria (and against Assad) soon after the start of the Arab Spring.

By the time we got round considering anything in the autumn of 2013, that opportunity had already gone.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 4:31 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:This is clearly right

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-atrocity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We "shrug" largely because there is no magical solution we can impose there.

There was perhaps a very narrow window for careful, targeted intervention in Syria (and against Assad) soon after the start of the Arab Spring.

By the time we got round considering anything in the autumn of 2013, that opportunity had already gone.

I think that is rot, am attempt to deny responsibility.

Actions have consequences, but so do inactions. There was no easy choice, and now we have to accept the bad consequences, rather than just shrug, turning away.

I don't mind people defending action or inaction. What I mind very much are people who think the choice easy, and then deny the consequences.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 4:35 pm**

In other news, the German Stasi archives have announced that they hold no records that relate to either Corbyn or Abbott.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 4:50 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:This is clearly right

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-atrocity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We "shrug" largely because there is no magical solution we can impose there.

There was perhaps a very narrow window for careful, targeted intervention in Syria (and against Assad) soon after the start of the Arab Spring.

By the time we got round considering anything in the autumn of 2013, that opportunity had already gone.

I think that is rot, am attempt to deny responsibility.

Actions have consequences, but so do inactions. There was no easy choice, and now we have to accept the bad consequences, rather than just shrug, turning away.

I don't mind people defending action or inaction. What I mind very much are people who think the choice easy, and then deny the consequences.

I think that is rot

The article itself is okay as far as the sentiment goes but Freedland doesn't really take it anywhere and doesn't say what we could have or should have done - he sort of mentions interventions but then doesn't take it that far because he has no real argument as to what difference it would have made and how that intervention would have taken shape

It is you I suggest who think the choice is easy - we intervene (somehow) and everything will all be great and all the baddies will go away. Arnie and Stallone made millions appealing to this simplistic view of the world

There may have been a point at some time when some sort of intervention could have made a difference but we will never know and the record of Western intervention in civil wars is now what that covers itself in glory

Intervention means soldiers on the ground, it means body bags containing other people's children and it usually means years of stalemate. We intervened in Afghanistan 15 years ago and the Taliban are still there

The reasons for war are often many years in the making and just a catalyst is needed. then the common thing, especially in the Middle East, is we go back to the Great Game and everyone piles in with weapons and 'advisors' which are then used to blow the crap out of anything that moves for years- and in the end we generally achieve nothing

One bit of intervening we could do without is putting huge amount of weaponry into theatre - the Syrians and their opponents do not possess huge weapon's factories as far as I know so the huge amount of explosives dropped on there must have come from somewhere - and we are a major exporter of death and destructions aren't we?

Wars are a result of human evil and the inability to respect one another. I would hesitate to say that they are inevitable but history suggests strongly they are - what we can do is to promote institutions that work to prevent war and not use other countries in proxy wars against others or sell weaponry into troubleshpots. Sometimes intervention will be needed but the reality is it will be in only certain cases and only if will not escalate

Putting ground troops into he Middle East in the current situation would possibly lead to a severe escalation that would be existentially threatening - note the threats coming against Iran now.....Syria is yesterday's news I am afraid - the Great Game has moved on. The best thing for Syria would be a rapid end to the war - probably with Assad still in charge. Sad thing is that without our 'intervention' we would probably have got to the same outcome much sooner

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 4:55 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:This is clearly right

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-atrocity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We "shrug" largely because there is no magical solution we can impose there.

There was perhaps a very narrow window for careful, targeted intervention in Syria (and against Assad) soon after the start of the Arab Spring.

By the time we got round considering anything in the autumn of 2013, that opportunity had already gone.

I think that is rot, am attempt to deny responsibility.

Actions have consequences, but so do inactions. There was no easy choice, and now we have to accept the bad consequences, rather than just shrug, turning away.

I don't mind people defending action or inaction. What I mind very much are people who think the choice easy, and then deny the consequences.

I love the way to try to move 'responsibility' to people who opposed armed intervention. by that I am sure you are aiming at Milibandand Corbyn - although it was Tory rebels who actually allowed them to do so

The responsibility lies with Assad and those who supported him for years. It also lies with those people who decided it was a good opportunity to fight a few proxy wars and put lots of weaponry into theatre

I have yet seen any credible definition of what intervention would have looked like and what it would achieve. In the end the US dropped large amounts of bombs on the country but the Generals knew putting soldiers on the ground would require massive resources and it never happened.

Would you have gone to fight the Syrians, Russians and Iranians if we had voted to go in - or is it just other people who would do the fighting?

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 5:03 pm**

Jeremy Corbyn
@jeremycorbyn
·
4h
The suffering of Syrians must end. I fully support the UN’s demand for an immediate ceasefire. And I urge all countries to support these efforts. There can be no long-lasting peace in Syria and the region without an inclusive agreement, negotiated through the UN.

For SpinngHugo, who was worried people aren't interested.

Of course people are interested, but as with the Rohingya crisis, if the regime responsible is uncooperative what exactly can be done but to try to keep lines of communication open and try to keep pressure on them to desist?

These things don't tend to be discussed on forums because discussions tend to revolve around disagreement and there tends to be little disagreement that targeting civilians and hospitals is wrong.

Just because people aren't talking about it, it doesn't mean they are not aware or don't care. I care about deforestation and melting ice caps. I care about a lot of things I don't necessarily raise on social media on a daily basis. If people who care can't stop the UK government from taking money away from terminally ill cancer patients I'm at a loss as to how they are supposed to prevent a foreign dictator from killing his own people.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 5:06 pm**

Within a few years of the Syrian conflict starting, the opposition was (Kurds aside, and we have never exactly been their reliable friends have we) dominated by Islamists (no I don't just mean ISIS, though they were indeed a significant part of it) Going in hard against Assad undoubtedly meant helping them.

Even during Cameron's generally dismal PMship, there were few things more pathetic and mendacious than his bigging up (at times literally) non-existent "moderate rebels"

And that Hillary Benn speech - what embarrassing, transparent tosh.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 5:33 pm**

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Within a few years of the Syrian conflict starting, the opposition was (Kurds aside, and we have never exactly been their reliable friends have we) dominated by Islamists (no I don't just mean ISIS, though they were indeed a significant part of it) Going in hard against Assad undoubtedly meant helping them.

Even during Cameron's generally dismal PMship, there were few things more pathetic and mendacious than his bigging up (at times literally) non-existent "moderate rebels"

And that Hillary Benn speech - what embarrassing, transparent tosh.

Hillary Benn speech? Do you mean when he supported lending our support to France against Isis in Syria? If so, I'm not sure it's fair to Benn to chuck that in there alongside Cameron's reckless plan to attack Assad before the UN had even confirmed the use of chemical weapons. They were two very different situations. Just because Cameron tried to conflate them to salvage his own ego, I don't think it helpful for others to do so, even if they disagree with Benn's stance on the latter.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 6:09 pm**

Willow904 wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn
@jeremycorbyn
·
4h
The suffering of Syrians must end. I fully support the UN’s demand for an immediate ceasefire. And I urge all countries to support these efforts. There can be no long-lasting peace in Syria and the region without an inclusive agreement, negotiated through the UN.
For SpinngHugo, who was worried people aren't interested.

Of course people are interested, but as with the Rohingya crisis, if the regime responsible is uncooperative what exactly can be done but to try to keep lines of communication open and try to keep pressure on them to desist?

These things don't tend to be discussed on forums because discussions tend to revolve around disagreement and there tends to be little disagreement that targeting civilians and hospitals is wrong.

Just because people aren't talking about it, it doesn't mean they are not aware or don't care. I care about deforestation and melting ice caps. I care about a lot of things I don't necessarily raise on social media on a daily basis. If people who care can't stop the UK government from taking money away from terminally ill cancer patients I'm at a loss as to how they are supposed to prevent a foreign dictator from killing his own people.

That is the same old stuff from Corbyn.

His "solution" is always the same: peace and a political settlement.

That is willing the nice ends we all agree with, whilst proposing no means. It is a denial of responsibility, a negation of leadership.

Maybe inaction is the right choice between two hard options. Just don't give me bullshit like that, which Corbyn does over and over again. Assad and Russia will not be taking the ceasefire peaceful route.

Without the threat of force in 2013, Assad would be using chemical weapons even more extensively than he has done.

Deforestation and climate change are longstanding problems. Assad butchering thousands more Syrians is news (ie new).

Freedland is right.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 6:12 pm**

Andrew Neil ripped Baker a new one, over the Corbyn smears.

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

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 6:17 pm**

That is the same old stuff from Corbyn.

His "solution" is always the same: peace and a political settlement.

That is willing the nice ends we all agree with, whilst proposing no means. It is a denial of responsibility, a negation of leadership.

Maybe inaction is the right choice between two hard options. Just don't give me bullshit like that, which Corbyn does over and over again. Assad and Russia will not be taking the ceasefire peaceful route.

Without the threat of force in 2013, Assad would be using chemical weapons even more extensively than he has done.

Deforestation and climate change are longstanding problems. Assad butchering thousands more Syrians is news (ie new).

Freedland is right.

So you contend the solution will be military then - perhaps you could propose how we would have achieved that in Syria - massive ground operation?

Dictators have been butchering civilians for years and we have sometimes supported them, sometimes fought them and sometimes ignored them

The contention about the use of chemical weapons is just that a contention but as normaly you make it sound as though it is a 'truth' when it is anything but

The people who we should look at are the ones who supply the arms - I am afraid the UK and US have been at the forefront of this - should people who have been slaughtered by British and US allies be justified in attacking us as well'

I don't remember us being too impressed with Libya when they supplied the IRA with arms - surely they were in the right to do so - supporting their ally 'freedom fighters'

You try to treat all this in isolation as though the Syrian situation has no links to geopolitics and we in the West are players in that game and so should take responsibility..........

Freedland's piece was weak

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 6:45 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Jeremy Corbyn
@jeremycorbyn
·
4h
The suffering of Syrians must end. I fully support the UN’s demand for an immediate ceasefire. And I urge all countries to support these efforts. There can be no long-lasting peace in Syria and the region without an inclusive agreement, negotiated through the UN.
For SpinngHugo, who was worried people aren't interested.

Of course people are interested, but as with the Rohingya crisis, if the regime responsible is uncooperative what exactly can be done but to try to keep lines of communication open and try to keep pressure on them to desist?

These things don't tend to be discussed on forums because discussions tend to revolve around disagreement and there tends to be little disagreement that targeting civilians and hospitals is wrong.

Just because people aren't talking about it, it doesn't mean they are not aware or don't care. I care about deforestation and melting ice caps. I care about a lot of things I don't necessarily raise on social media on a daily basis. If people who care can't stop the UK government from taking money away from terminally ill cancer patients I'm at a loss as to how they are supposed to prevent a foreign dictator from killing his own people.

That is the same old stuff from Corbyn.

His "solution" is always the same: peace and a political settlement.

That is willing the nice ends we all agree with, whilst proposing no means. It is a denial of responsibility, a negation of leadership.

Maybe inaction is the right choice between two hard options. Just don't give me bullshit like that, which Corbyn does over and over again. Assad and Russia will not be taking the ceasefire peaceful route.

Without the threat of force in 2013, Assad would be using chemical weapons even more extensively than he has done.

Deforestation and climate change are longstanding problems. Assad butchering thousands more Syrians is news (ie new).

Freedland is right.

Freedland wrote this:

If we want the killing to stop, we need to say so.

I merely pointed out that Corbyn has, indeed, said so.

To be even-handed, I believe Theresa May has said so, too. As has the UN. Freedland is wrong, people do care, they are aware the war is ongoing and are appalled at its escalation.

The reluctance to intervene militarily is based on there being no clear military solution. Removing Assad would simply create a power vacuum for Isis to fill as happened in Libya.

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 6:48 pm**

Who benefits from this war? Who's arming the combatants? How is it funded?

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 8:26 pm**

I'll look out the oil gas and sectarian map some time

Posted: **Wed 21 Feb, 2018 8:29 pm**

Being still engaged in my fifty-year clearout that may be some time ....

pto perhaps ?

FlyTheNest

Wednesday 21st February 2018

Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018

Re: Wednesday 21st February 2018