FlyTheNest

Morning.

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


Ofsted uncovers 500 suspected illegal schools in England

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk


Ofsted uncovers 500 suspected illegal schools in England

The link's a bit generic . . .

Good morfternoon.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... in-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is that better for Madam ?(sheesh)

Sky last night, speaking for all of us.

So unless they contrive some magic way to get rid of her we're stuck with May.

And even if they oust her and end up with some brexiter fool as Prime Minister they'll still be faced with a recalcitrant parliament.

Who fucking knows?

EP elections?
Anyone think May's going to get something through Parliament in time to stop them? Only way I could see that happening is tied to another ref and she's still nowhere near there.

If we go ahead the outcome could change the political climate, one way or another.

HindleA wrote:Is that better for Madam ?(sheesh)

Ha! Thanks. (I've just seen it on the "generic" page - couldn't see it at first. Bit late, though, as I'd already read it via your second go.)

Paints a very Dickensian (apart from the electrics) picture.

Wren-Lewis
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... wrong.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The paper he links to looks very interesting but is paywalled.
Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem

Allen notes a kind of epistemic snobbery “‘whereby people who do not meet the above criteria of political inclusion are not seen as worthy participants or contributors in political discussions, or whereby their political opinions are devalued in some way”.

AK flagged this up yesterday, I think.

Patrick Joyce
‏

@pforpaddy
Following Following @pforpaddy
More
For my Labour supporting friends,and I genuinely mean friends, in England check last night's Leith Walk council by election result. Labour loss to SNP, 60%+ vote for the 2 pro independence parties,Labour 3rd behind SNP &Greens. Time for Labour to change stance on independence?

Alternatively, time for Labour to change stance on the EU.

Making sweeping conclusions from a single council byelection result is a pet hate of mine, and this is no exception.

Polls generally show that Scottish independence has less support than in 2014 (which may surprise some who just get their impressions from social media)

Brexit may be *a* reason why SLab currently languishes, but is far from the only one.

Further to comments last night I'd just like to say that in my opinion Julian Assange deliberately collaborated with others to smear Hilary Clinton and get Donald Trump elected. He also jumped bail when faced with a serious sexual assault allegation rather than face trial and prove his innocence, if innocent he is.

These are not the selfless acts of some hero of freedom of speech and I have no sympathy with him whatsoever.

Having said that, although I would be pleased to see him returned to Sweden to face the allegations there, I would not be in agreement with him being extradited to the US on hacking charges if he was in the UK when the alleged offence happened, as it's not a practice I agree with generally. Most importantly, the decision on extradition should be a legal, not a political one. As such Corbyn's gushing support for Assange rather undermines his request to May not to bow to US political pressure, his own partiality in the case appearing to be a mirror image of hers.

Oliver Norgrove
‏
Verified account

@OliverNorgrove
Follow Follow @OliverNorgrove
More
I can't emphasise this enough. Farage was the first political figure ever to inspire me, around 4 years ago. As I grew older and watched so many of his pronouncements crumble at the feet of reality, I realised what an ignorant charlatan he really is.

I can't imagine anyone thinking this, let alone saying it in a public forum. God help us.

Willow904 wrote:Further to comments last night I'd just like to say that in my opinion Julian Assange deliberately collaborated with others to smear Hilary Clinton and get Donald Trump elected. He also jumped bail when faced with a serious sexual assault allegation rather than face trial and prove his innocence, if innocent he is.

These are not the selfless acts of some hero of freedom of speech and I have no sympathy with him whatsoever.

Having said that, although I would be pleased to see him returned to Sweden to face the allegations there, I would not be in agreement with him being extradited to the US on hacking charges if he was in the UK when the alleged offence happened, as it's not a practice I agree with generally. Most importantly, the decision on extradition should be a legal, not a political one. As such Corbyn's gushing support for Assange rather undermines his request to May not to bow to US political pressure, his own partiality in the case appearing to be a mirror image of hers.

Any sympathy I have for Julian Assange stems from my objections to the skewed extradition arrangements that we have with the USA. I'd feel sorry for anyone in that position.

(And, as an aside - if PaulfromYorkshire is tuned in, my comments about finding Julian Assange "creepy" were not based on any rape\sexual misconduct allegations. I just find him (Julian Assange - not PaulfromYorkshire!) generally creepy. I find his motives suspect and some of his actions were very heedless of the safety of others. Amoral, even.)







Edited - tidy up

Good-afternoon, everyone. I've not been feeling well but I'm better now. Thank you for keeping me informed.

A rat skydived disastrously calling Corbyn's Assange Tweet "shameful" (5,7).

Assange *may* be a sexual predator.

There are also, it may be recalled, some allegations about Trump in this regard.

Corbyn is quite correct not to see JA being placed in the latter's tender mercies as a good thing. That substance matters to me rather more than tone ("gushing" or otherwise)

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's a lot of data from c7k votes.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Assange *may* be a sexual predator.

There are also, it may be recalled, some allegations about Trump in this regard.

Corbyn is quite correct not to see JA being placed in the latter's tender mercies as a good thing. That substance matters to me rather more than tone ("gushing" or otherwise)

Corbyn isn't just asking for correct procedure in law to be followed in a neutral tone (I don't disagree with opposition to the extradition request), he is also enthusiastically supporting and praising a person who is known, as a fact, to have jumped bail on serious sexual assault charges. There is no *may* about what I'm accusing Assange of, he has incontrovertibly done so. This isn't about whether he is guilty of what he is charged, how can any of us possibly know the answer to that. It's about him evading justice on a serious matter. That might not mean much to you but it does to me.

That Corbyn can gloss over all of this and talk of Assange in such sweeping positive terms is a little more than just "tone".

And I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about Trump, I can't see how it's relevant.

As I see it, JC praised certain things that he had done (not everything)

This is a perfectly legitimate position, even if you don't like Assange as a person.

Squirrels again!

gilsey wrote:Wren-Lewis
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... wrong.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The paper he links to looks very interesting but is paywalled.
Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem

Allen notes a kind of epistemic snobbery “‘whereby people who do not meet the above criteria of political inclusion are not seen as worthy participants or contributors in political discussions, or whereby their political opinions are devalued in some way”.

Immediately following is this quote from Wren-Lewis.

It was a kind of “othering” that I felt personally when I joined Labour’s Economic Advisory Council.
I was told, by people who I respect, that my academic standing would be harmed if I joined the group.

(cJA emphasis)
I'm not surprised but it doesn't make it any less god-awful.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:As I see it, JC praised certain things that he had done (not everything)

This is a perfectly legitimate position, even if you don't like Assange as a person.

Jeremy Corbyn tweeted last night: "The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.

The extradition request is not for exposing atrocities, it's for hacking. To suggest Assange is being pursued by the US for revealing the truth may be reasonable but it isn't grounds for refusing an extradition request for hacking and to call on the government to block such a request because of his previous "good deeds" leaves Corbyn on dubious moral grounds as such an argument could apply to other extradition requests that are also not strictly about "exposing evidence of atrocities". I think there are good reasons to refuse the extradition request over hacking without the need to bring Assange's past deeds as part of Wikileaks into it, either for or against him. Those that do are being partial.

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Assange *may* be a sexual predator.

There are also, it may be recalled, some allegations about Trump in this regard.

Corbyn is quite correct not to see JA being placed in the latter's tender mercies as a good thing. That substance matters to me rather more than tone ("gushing" or otherwise)

Corbyn isn't just asking for correct procedure in law to be followed in a neutral tone (I don't disagree with opposition to the extradition request), he is also enthusiastically supporting and praising a person who is known, as a fact, to have jumped bail on serious sexual assault charges. There is no *may* about what I'm accusing Assange of, he has incontrovertibly done so. This isn't about whether he is guilty of what he is charged, how can any of us possibly know the answer to that. It's about him evading justice on a serious matter. That might not mean much to you but it does to me.

That Corbyn can gloss over all of this and talk of Assange in such sweeping positive terms is a little more than just "tone".

And I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about Trump, I can't see how it's relevant.

Willow can you link to the "gushing" things Corbyn said please?

Diane Abbott is spot on with this. She says the extradition request is only about Wikileaks and the rights and wrongs of the rape charges and anything else are irrelevant.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Diane Abbott is spot on with this. She says the extradition request is only about Wikileaks and the rights and wrongs of the rape charges and anything else are irrelevant.

Not entirely irrelevant. The surrender of Assange by the Ecuadorian embassy over breaking of asylum rules to UK police who arrested him over jumped bail was communicated in advance to the US but not Swedish authorities. This is the partiality of May's government of which I spoke earlier. It's certainly not as above board as it should be. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Sweden re-issues their extradition request. This is why it should be left as a legal rather than political matter as legally many would argue Sweden would have precedence while the hacking case is relatively weak. Far from downplaying the rape charges, Labour should be asking why, in such a serious case, Swedish authorities weren't kept informed of developments.

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Diane Abbott is spot on with this. She says the extradition request is only about Wikileaks and the rights and wrongs of the rape charges and anything else are irrelevant.

Not entirely irrelevant. The surrender of Assange by the Ecuadorian embassy over breaking of asylum rules to UK police who arrested him over jumped bail was communicated in advance to the US but not Swedish authorities. This is the partiality of May's government of which I spoke earlier. It's certainly not as above board as it should be. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Sweden re-issues their extradition request. This is why it should be left as a legal rather than political matter as legally many would argue Sweden would have precedence while the hacking case is relatively weak. Far from downplaying the rape charges, Labour should be asking why, in such a serious case, Swedish authorities weren't kept informed of developments.

Sure but isn't that essentially what Abbott is saying?

And I still can't find anything Corbyn has that said that is any way "gushing". Link please!

Some of Corbyn's critics on this (not referring to anybody here, to be clear) seem to think that being seen as Trump's lapdog would somehow be a popular position.

Even at the time, the extradition treaty we agreed with the US around a decade ago was widely - and correctly - seen as a one sided disgrace.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Diane Abbott is spot on with this. She says the extradition request is only about Wikileaks and the rights and wrongs of the rape charges and anything else are irrelevant.

Not entirely irrelevant. The surrender of Assange by the Ecuadorian embassy over breaking of asylum rules to UK police who arrested him over jumped bail was communicated in advance to the US but not Swedish authorities. This is the partiality of May's government of which I spoke earlier. It's certainly not as above board as it should be. It'll be interesting to see what happens if Sweden re-issues their extradition request. This is why it should be left as a legal rather than political matter as legally many would argue Sweden would have precedence while the hacking case is relatively weak. Far from downplaying the rape charges, Labour should be asking why, in such a serious case, Swedish authorities weren't kept informed of developments.

Sure but isn't that essentially what Abbott is saying?


And I still can't find anything Corbyn has that said that is any way "gushing". Link please!

In his tweet quoted above:
“The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.”

I thought it "gushing" in the way it seeks to support and praise Assange as a persecuted "good guy" by framing it as his being extradited for "exposing atrocities" rather than the more criminal activity of hacking that he is actually accused of and by completely glossing over why he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. I don't know why "gushing" came to mind exactly, it just did.

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

Willow904 wrote: In his tweet quoted above:
“The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.”

I thought it "gushing" in the way it seeks to support and praise Assange as a persecuted "good guy" by framing it as his being extradited for "exposing atrocities" rather than the more criminal activity of hacking that he is actually accused of and by completely glossing over why he was in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. I don't know why "gushing" came to mind exactly, it just did.

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

Thanks for the reply.

I thought it was a pretty objective account of the situation. Assange did expose those atrocities.

Perhaps Corbyn could have mentioned hacking. But in reality, do you believe all this would have happened with regard to a "normal" hacking incident? The extradition is surely because he exposed evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ying-bitch" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Goodnight, everyone
love,
cJA

gilsey wrote:Wren-Lewis
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2019/0 ... wrong.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The paper he links to looks very interesting but is paywalled.
Political science, punditry, and the Corbyn problem

Allen notes a kind of epistemic snobbery “‘whereby people who do not meet the above criteria of political inclusion are not seen as worthy participants or contributors in political discussions, or whereby their political opinions are devalued in some way”.

He has been essential reading for a while now. And I say that as somebody who doesn't see entirely eye to eye with him on Brexit.