Saturday 30th and Sunday 31st July 2016

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:14 pm

Maybe the few people at Smith's rally weren't even really there, just holograms beamed in by the elite to fool everyone but the awakened ones ?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:16 pm

: proxy.jpg (104.98 KiB) Viewed 10242 times

Curious ‏@myviewontopic 52m52 minutes ago
BUSTED! THE “NO APPETITE FOR INDEPENDENCE” MYTH

http://atrueindependentscotland.com/bus ... ence-myth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:17 pm

It feels like the whole world is on the march...

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:24 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Stilton. Just the thought of it makes my mouth water. And nutty vintage cheddar .... Stilton with apricots ....

Stilton with apricots is my favourite cheese.I buy it in Lidl.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:27 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
yahyah wrote:& if you were involved in campaigning for yourself or someone else OhSo, which pic would you recommend was used ?

What would Ed's media advisor have suggested ?
Of course, they will suggest the most flattering shot. The issue is surely the media going along with it?

(remember last years GE - more than once there were shots of Cameron looking like he was speaking to a huge crowd when he actually, erm, wasn't)

At least Smith won't need to hire himself a pr man,should save some money.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:43 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Stilton. Just the thought of it makes my mouth water. And nutty vintage cheddar .... Stilton with apricots ....

Oh, yes! Wensleydale with cranberries

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:48 pm

If the 172 MPs who don't want Corbyn went to Smith's rally, the crowd would be a bit bigger.....

However you choose the photos, it's pretty obvious that there are big crowds at the Corbyn events. As Ohso mentioned, there don't seem to be armies of cult people waving big red banners - I think she's right, and some of those people are going along to see what he has to say.

To be fair, Corbyn has been doing these things for a while; perhaps once Smith gets going he'll attract more people.

I have to ration cheese these days. I am very fond of Colliers Cheddar, Caerphilly, and little shavings of Parmesan on anything except pudding.
Parmesan isn't English, obvs, and neither is Roquefort, which is my fave blue cheese.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:53 pm

Roquefort is scrumptious but I prefer dolcelatte. I can't stand cheese with bits of debris in it (stilton and apricot etc), though. The same goes for icecream.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:54 pm

Rare albino squirrel pictured in Sussex garden

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36919221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 6:54 pm

PorFavor wrote:@tinybgoat

Whoops! I've just seen your "99" post. My only excuse is that I'm trying to catch up and, for some reason, have opted to do so by reading the posts in backwards order.

Edited to add -

More commonly known as reverse order.

Arrgh, Have just realised he was speaking at Liverpool Pride & my post could possibly be misconstrued.
Hope not and If so I apologise too anyone offended, it was genuinely unintended.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 7:42 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
PorFavor wrote:@tinybgoat

Whoops! I've just seen your "99" post. My only excuse is that I'm trying to catch up and, for some reason, have opted to do so by reading the posts in backwards order.

Edited to add -

More commonly known as reverse order.
Arrgh, Have just realised he was speaking at Liverpool Pride & my post could possibly be misconstrued.
Hope not and If so I apologise too anyone offended, it was genuinely unintended.

I didn't make the connection, if that helps at all.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 8:32 pm

Jess Phillips MP ‏@jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the police

Rosie R. ‏@yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.

Is it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 8:39 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn’s dangerous friends: debunking the myths

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

I thought the show of loyalty was quite sweet if a little tortuous but listing all those things does Mr Corbyn no favours about the big question - why?

However, as I continued to read I was fascinated and slightly bemused at seeing Gilligan's name! I was gobsmacked and incredulous that after the refutations, (instead of merely not mentioning it?) I saw this:

Gilligan’s unusual trajectory after being sacked by the BBC for (as it turns out accurately) reporting Blair’s sexing-up of the famous WMD dossier has not passed unnoticed. But his role in generating many of the above rumours needs greater public reckoning with. <my emphasis>

It seems our correspondent could not help himself (probably posts 'Bliar' below the line @ Guardian?). Yet, while trying to impeach everything that Gilligan had said, the established evidence that Gilligan is a liar is used to repeat a 'lie' as being 'accurate'. The truth and facts are that Dr Kelly favoured the war, Gilligan favoured war but still went 'out of his way' to attack Labour and Campbell for doing something that Dr Kelly never said and Gilligan now admits it - whatever his weasel form of words!

For any 'youngsters' who weren't around at the time, I include the following:
Hutton Inquiry: Alistair Campbell, Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke look back 10 years on | UK Politics | News | The Independent

... He admits that the suggestion that the Government "probably knew" its dossier was wrong had not come from Dr Kelly but was the journalist's own invention.

We have pretty well known from Campbell's reaction and practically confirmed this via Hutton when he had not yet come clean about it but his PDA and refusal to supply proper access to the back-ups condemned him. There were two recorded accounts of his meeting with Dr Kelly - one dated for the day before the day he met him without the word 'Campbell', and one correctly dated, with the word 'Campbell' (he claimed that the PDA's date had been wrong). Of course, Mr Wilding found five anomolies with the PDA - including:

Lord Hutton asked how the clock going forward could explain the omission of the word Campbell.

Mr Wilding said: "That concerned me."

The computer expert told the hearing: "I also discovered some experimentation when somebody was looking at creating memorandums and seeing if dates and times could be changed."

Gilligan's solicitors had refused 'unlimited access' to the laptop that Gilligan used for backups and downloaded the 'relevant files' to a standard PC instead. As another tech. witness said:

Professor Sammes then told the hearing that the best evidence "almost certainly" was still within the laptop and that forensic examination of the original handheld computer would provide information "very valuable to the inquiry"

The truth is that Gilligan would be willing to misportray and torture the facts about ANY Labour leader or politician (I'm sure we all remember Ken Livingstone). Please don't use him as someone who can indeed easily be refuted and dismissed, then believe him! This was probably the most divisive single piece of misinformation that probably did more (coming from the BBC) to undermine the trust in and damage the integrity of a Labour Government than Sky's leak of bigot-gate.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 8:49 pm

90+2 mins: Nope, there's the whistle and United beat Galatasaray 5-2 with what was a fantastic second half performance
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 64141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cheered me up anyway.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 8:57 pm

Rashford looks the real deal, alright

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 9:06 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Rashford looks the real deal, alright

Indeed.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 9:18 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Jess Phillips MP ‏@jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the police

Rosie R. ‏@yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
Is it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?

The answer to that is the same as usual, I think.

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 9:43 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:
90+2 mins: Nope, there's the whistle and United beat Galatasaray 5-2 with what was a fantastic second half performance
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foot ... 64141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cheered me up anyway.

United? They were playing Arnhem and won 3-2. http://www.nufc.com/

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 9:46 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
proxy.jpg
Curious ‏@myviewontopic 52m52 minutes ago
BUSTED! THE “NO APPETITE FOR INDEPENDENCE” MYTH

http://atrueindependentscotland.com/bus ... ence-myth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the link:

Thousands of people took to the streets of Glasgow today...

From the Scotsman:

Police said around 2,000 marchers had joined the procession by 10.30am.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/v ... -1-4190212

Not a great turnout for one of the three or four LA areas that voted 'yes'! A bit like the Cameron crowds - slightly exaggerated

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 10:03 pm

Following on from the Glasgow march story - it's been an interesting week for the Scotnats.

A SENIOR judge has given the go ahead for “selfish” and “arrogant” independence campers to be evicted from the grounds of the Scottish Parliament.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/court-orde ... -1-4187625

Next an unusually blunt comment in the Court judgement on 'named persons':

Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial Named Person scheme was yesterday ruled unlawful by the UK’s highest court in a judgment that is deeply embarrassing for the Scottish Government.
...The 48-page document... issued a general warning, noting: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/court-rule ... -1-4188345

Co-incidentally(?), on the same day as the 'named person' legislation was declared illegal, Police Scotland released this:

More than 500 children have been identified as potential victims of online sexual abuse during a major police investigation.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/523-childr ... -1-4189657

Now, if I had a tinfoil hat, I might wonder who was responsible for the timing of the release of the abuse story.

And finally:

A NEW poll has found “no real shift” in opinion towards Scottish independence in the wake of the Brexit vote.
The YouGov poll found Scots would vote to remain in the UK by 53% to 47% if another referendum on the issue were held now.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/no-real-sh ... -1-4190220

Ms Sturgeon has been unusually quiet for the last few days.

TR'sGhost · Post by **TR'sGhost** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 10:41 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote:Next an unusually blunt comment in the Court judgement on 'named persons':
Nicola Sturgeon’s controversial Named Person scheme was yesterday ruled unlawful by the UK’s highest court in a judgment that is deeply embarrassing for the Scottish Government.
...The 48-page document... issued a general warning, noting: “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/court-rule ... -1-4188345

I've only scanned the Supreme Court judgement, but I think it says something rather different than the Scotsman implies. It's complex and densely argued, taking in UN stuff, ECHR, the Data Protection Act and more.

The stuff about totalitarian regimes is not the key to the judgement, by the way, nor is it anything said by a party to the case but a comment by the court on the findings of a US case regarding the requirements of UN treaties and declarations. I suppose it makes better copy for a newspaper than "Court finds law technically unlawful after a lot of closely argued complicated legal nit-picking and consideration of complex legal matters"

At a glance, the Court concluded the Scottish Parliament Act in question is unlawful as it stands basically because they consider it disproportionate in some ways, too loose in some ways and goes further regarding derogation of powers from the UK Parliament Data Protection Act 2014 than the court considers lawful.

The Court concludes by inviting the Scottish Parliament to seek to amend the law in such a way as to make it lawful, and in part suggests how this might be done without the disapproval of the courts.

The full judgement is at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; should anyone require a cure for insomnia.

Edited to add - the chief party opposing the Scots government in the case was The Christian Institute, who are US-style conservative biblical literalists who, according to their Wiki entry are most noted for campaigning vigorously against homosexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 11:35 pm

TR'sGhost wrote: I've only scanned the Supreme Court judgement, but I think it says something rather different than the Scotsman implies. It's complex and densely argued, taking in UN stuff, ECHR, the Data Protection Act and more.

The stuff about totalitarian regimes is not the key to the judgement, by the way, nor is it anything said by a party to the case but a comment by the court on the findings of a US case regarding the requirements of UN treaties and declarations. I suppose it makes better copy for a newspaper than "Court finds law technically unlawful after a lot of closely argued complicated legal nit-picking and consideration of complex legal matters"

At a glance, the Court concluded the Scottish Parliament Act in question is unlawful as it stands basically because they consider it disproportionate in some ways, too loose in some ways and goes further regarding derogation of powers from the UK Parliament Data Protection Act 2014 than the court considers lawful.

The Court concludes by inviting the Scottish Parliament to seek to amend the law in such a way as to make it lawful, and in part suggests how this might be done without the disapproval of the courts.

The full judgement is at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; should anyone require a cure for insomnia.

Edited to add - the chief party opposing the Scots government in the case was The Christian Institute, who are US-style conservative biblical literalists who, according to their Wiki entry are most noted for campaigning vigorously against homosexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Institute" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that the comment on a totalitarian state is not the key - but it's a strange comment in what would normally be a fairly conservative (small 'c') document.

From the summaries, I get the impression that it is the sharing of data on children and their families (without the consent or knowledge of the parents) that is the sticking point. It would appear that the right to privacy under EU/ECHR (both enshrined in the Scotland Act which set up the devolved parliament) and the UK DPA are, in the opinion of the court, being breached. As the sharing of personal data is fundamental to the operation of 'named persons', I doubt whether the legislation can be re-hashed in the 42 days allowed by the court.

As to the Christian Institute - just because they're wrong on some subjects doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong all the time! While it's true that they are taking the lead, they are not acting alone.
http://no2np.org/supporters/

ChrisDean · Post by **ChrisDean** » Sat 30 Jul, 2016 11:45 pm

Bon soir, mes amis

.

Now back in dear old Blighty after 8 days in Brittany and very enjoyable it was too.

Read a few pages here, whilst away; my husband has an ongoing medical condition which meant a couple of evenings were spent catching up on posts.

@hobiejoe...very smooth crossings each way and I waved to you each time. Outward bound we had a meal in the restaurant and we were agreed that we may as well have been eating cardboard. Roscoff itself is, indeed, a lovely place and St Pol de Leon was charming and very friendly. Mr Dean, (no, that's not really our surname!) loved the crepes.

As to matters political, I joined the Labour Party the day after the last election, as a measure of support for what Ed Miliband had tried to achieve, and rightly or wrongly, I am going to stick with what Jeremy Corbyn stands for. My children, my grandchildren and their friends support him wholeheartedly, and they are not abusive or militant people...they are well educated people, full of love and compassion.

ChrisDean · Post by **ChrisDean** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:21 am

It's getting late/early, so goodnight to all and as Mr Dean often says, "life is NOT a bowl of cherries"...

.

But may your tomorrow be one.

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:27 am

RobertSnozers wrote:... a reference to Chilcott finding that the UK government had exaggerated some evidence and presented some details that it knew were false. But badly phrased in the context. Gilligan was sort of right, by mistake, ...

That's interesting. I haven't read much of Chilcott as I really only looked for information that was unknown until after the initial military victory. I have looked at 'a lot' of the US revelations over the years (some excellent investigative US journalism as well - apropos your last point) into what went wrong and how they got the 'framing' of their intel wrong and found their NSA reporting and assessments a lot more open in their exposition of the duty to understand this. [For example: They also accounted very well for some preconceptions I had about various individuals and how they seemed to 'mispeak'. I had kind of assumed (like many others) that Colin Powell, for example, had probably known that the mobile labs was wrong when he described their designs but it turns out he was (almost certainly?) not deliberately and knowingly misleading. That the story of how the mobile labs (that were found and assessed) came about was down to the modus operandi of the investigation into the creative aspect of type of design needed to work and then misreported as factual]

Perhaps you could point me to where (how & who?) in Chilcott the 'UK Gov't' presented 'false' information?

extankie · Post by **extankie** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 2:54 am

Maeght wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Corbyn’s dangerous friends: debunking the myths

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Many thanks Ohso for the link to this excellent article and also for the photos today.

That big crowd can't all be young members of Momentum can they?

I live in Hull & didn`t even know this was happening!..jeez...got to take less medication:)

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 3:03 am

PorFavor wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:
PorFavor wrote:@tinybgoat

Whoops! I've just seen your "99" post. My only excuse is that I'm trying to catch up and, for some reason, have opted to do so by reading the posts in backwards order.

Edited to add -

More commonly known as reverse order.
Arrgh, Have just realised he was speaking at Liverpool Pride & my post could possibly be misconstrued.
Hope not and If so I apologise too anyone offended, it was genuinely unintended.

I didn't make the connection, if that helps at all.

I don't think anyone else did either, it's just me.
and as it turns out, it was giving out free ice creams,
and guess what Owen's was.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... s-11684642

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 7:58 am

ChrisDean wrote:It's getting late/early, so goodnight to all and as Mr Dean often says, "life is NOT a bowl of cherries"....

But may your tomorrow be one.

Off to pick some currants for breakfast!

Bonjour all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 8:15 am

More from Wren-Lewis today for those who didn't understand the first post

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: hadn't seen already posted, so Paola.

frog222 · Post by **frog222** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 8:33 am

SpinningHugo wrote:More from Wren-Lewis today for those who didn't understand the first post

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted at the top of page2 by maeght , yesterday .

Liked this bit

What makes me really sad is the contempt that some members seem to have for Labour MPs. I can think of some that fit the caricature frequently painted of diehard triangulating Blairites, but they are far from the majority. I agree that collectively Labour MPs became embroiled in a failing electoral strategy before 2015, but you change that by persuasion through evidence and hopefully example, not by casting them as the enemy or as forever ‘lost’. Most of all, they are not some kind of inconvenience that can be ignored or who will collectively come to their senses if the membership continues to vote for Corbyn. They are an essential part of the means of achieving a mass social democratic party: that is why 2016 is not 2015.

And for a reminder that some people are capable of learning/evolving

http://www.organizedrage.com/2016/07/ma ... t.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even Mandy , I was going to say, but he was one of the brighter Blairites .

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 10:30 am

Good comments beneath that piece, too.

The reality is that both sides have a point. That, as so often, is why this dispute is so intractable.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:09 am

ohsocynical wrote:
Jess Phillips MP ‏@jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the police

Rosie R. ‏@yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
Is it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?

A little restraint of tongue, pen, and keyboard wouldn't go amiss.

For someone who claims to be telling it like it is, she spends an inordinate amount of time yelling it like she thinks it is.

Hopefully, she'll take a little holiday at some point. Lord knows we need one.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:24 am

Re. the Simon Wren-Lewis article - "for those who didn't understand the first post".

In this one, he expresses the view that he would like to see the evidence that "...we are rebuilding a mass social democratic party..."

This is very reasonable, and as he says, his response requesting evidence is the same as that of any decent social scientist. Quite right.

He then opines that "what Corbyn has done is build an activist base made up in large part of mostly idealistic, mostly young political activists" - then provides zero evidence that this statement is true.

Those who demand to see evidence have no business doing so unless they provide their own.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:27 am

I really, really don't see attracting lots of young people as a bad thing anyway. Wasn't the complaint that they were apathetic and shunned party politics?

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:32 am

frog222 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:More from Wren-Lewis today for those who didn't understand the first post

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Posted at the top of page2 by maeght , yesterday .

Liked this bit

What makes me really sad is the contempt that some members seem to have for Labour MPs. I can think of some that fit the caricature frequently painted of diehard triangulating Blairites, but they are far from the majority. I agree that collectively Labour MPs became embroiled in a failing electoral strategy before 2015, but you change that by persuasion through evidence and hopefully example, not by casting them as the enemy or as forever ‘lost’. Most of all, they are not some kind of inconvenience that can be ignored or who will collectively come to their senses if the membership continues to vote for Corbyn. They are an essential part of the means of achieving a mass social democratic party: that is why 2016 is not 2015.
And for a reminder that some people are capable of learning/evolving

http://www.organizedrage.com/2016/07/ma ... t.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even Mandy , I was going to say, but he was one of the brighter Blairites .

I wouldn't question their ability to learn/evolve,
It's whether in the meantime they're able/willing to accept/play by the rules of whatever group they've seen fit to grace with their presence.

Also from quoted bit "They are an essential part of the means of achieving a mass social democratic party". This may be true, but maybe the best way some MPs could contribute to this at this moment would be from outside the Labour party, or changing their position within it.

Michelle Shocked song springs to mind,
"The secret of a long life is knowing when it's time to go".

(Sorry, I feel I'm blurbling, now)

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:32 am

I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.

It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.

I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.

I am not impressed.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:51 am

The (Piss) Artist Formerly Known As OGRPPFGTCC is waiting to have his list of people he wants to honour approved.

This is taking some time, because as well as bestowing knighthoods on the likes of Fallon and various rich pals, the committee is having to consider lesser gongs for two very important personages.

SamCam's personal assistant in the outfit-choosing department is up for an OBE. I am inclined to think it will be a no for her. That harlequin frock she wore outside Number Ten when TPAFKAOGRPPFGTCC told us he was running away was not the thing at all. Waaay too much red. RED!!!!!

Baron Gidiot's stylist will most likely get his fancy little ribbon in a box, however. He is, after all, responsible for the Caligula-esque hairdo, the cadaverous post-diet attenuated look, and the "go on I dare you to kick me in the goolies" legs akimbo hard-man stance.

I wouldn't like to be on that committee. Imagine! You'd spend days on end working out how to make the undeserving deserving, fretting that Brenda might not be impressed, and debating the merits of assistance with frocks vs. wads of cash and tragic haircuts.......

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:52 am

The Wren-Lewis quote in full, with the important part in bold is

"if you still think Corbyn can succeed in forming a mass social democratic party without the support of MPs, show me your plan of how it will be done and the evidence that it will work."

It may be that for some the answer is "he can't, therefore we need new MPs".

As some were denying that his earlier post constituted an endorsement of Smith, I hope the new one clarifies any ambiguity (I didn't think the previous one was ambiguous).

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 11:53 am

ephemerid wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Jess Phillips MP ‏@jessphillips 4m4 minutes ago
While the idea that #WeAreHisMedia is I suppose charming. The Corbyn power on social media has at times meant I've had to call the police

Rosie R. ‏@yorkierosie 16s16 seconds ago
.@jessphillips You have had some awful abuse, but I defy you to find any directed against you on this hashtag. I'll apologise if wrong.
Is it me, or was Jess Philips Tweet necessary or wise?

A little restraint of tongue, pen, and keyboard wouldn't go amiss.

For someone who claims to be telling it like it is, she spends an inordinate amount of time yelling it like she thinks it is.

Hopefully, she'll take a little holiday at some point. Lord knows we need one.

This will probably get me in trouble, and I do not condone threats under any circumstances, but why stick your hand in a wasps nest just to assert your right to do so?
And being forthright and outspoken is okay but it sets the tone for the sort of replies you're likely to get.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:02 pm

ephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.

It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.

I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.

I am not impressed.

I got one of those, with the option to reply
YES,NO,NOT SURE, or STOP, (am currently a member of said tufty club, so suppose I shouldn't be too surprised), but I tried replying and message won't send.
Could get really irritating, but think there's a blocking filter somewhere on phone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:05 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
ephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.

It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.

I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.

I am not impressed.
I got one of those, with the option to reply
YES,NO,NOT SURE, or STOP, (am currently a member of said tufty club, so suppose I shouldn't be too surprised), but I tried replying and message won't send.
Could get really irritating, but think there's a blocking filter somewhere on phone.

Ah - the Tufty Club! And the Felix Cat Club.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:05 pm

Good morfternoon.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:05 pm

ephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.

It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.

I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.

I am not impressed.

Or you get an email saying why you should vote for Owen Smith. Then: Please indicate if you are going to vote for Owen Smith. Yes. No. or Don't know.
I clicked No and also the 'please don't send me information about Owen in future'[or similar] box. It then took me to a page that said [again roughly] "Thank you for supporting Owen". Then you had to click a confirmation email to activate. I didn't, but I didn't like the way it carried on even though I'd clicked NO. I don't like pushy.

I don't know whether it has counted me as a supporter or not, not that I care, but he needs someone who can design a questionnaire that accepts what you click.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:14 pm

Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sputnikkers · Post by **sputnikkers** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:16 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:...
Well known to the Germans that 'Curveball' (whence came the mobile labs etc) was probably lying through his teeth even before they relented and let the Americans and British talk to him. The mobile labs are a case in point - para 168-9 of Chilcott exec summary

168. Mr Blair responded that “even German and French intelligence were sure that there was WMD in Iraq”. Dr Blix said they seemed “unsure” about “mobile BW production facilities”: “It would be paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 men were to invade Iraq and find very little.”

169. Mr Blair responded that “our intelligence was clear that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programme”.

And para 172

On 25 February, Mr Blair told the House of Commons that the intelligence was “clear” that Saddam Hussein continued “to believe that his weapons of mass destruction programme is essential both for internal repression and for external aggression”. It was also “essential to his regional power”. “Prior to the inspectors coming back in”, Saddam Hussein “was engaged in a systematic exercise in concealment of those weapons”. The inspectors had reported some co‐operation on process, but had “denied progress on substance”.

Blair seriously overselling the evidence and presenting things as certain that were known not to be.

Thanks for the reply. Well yes, the CURVEBALL episode is what I was referring to as causing great consternation in the US IC with a systemic problem of the different services having to operate and come up with a report as 'we'. From my readings I don't think your/Chilcott's(?) characterisation reflects the way that those agencies were behaving if they were 'suspicious' let alone 'certain' they were dealing with a 'fabricator' - though many of them did and they were dismayed and appalled at hearing Powell's speech! The CIA's Tenet seemed to have to shoulder the blame for that though he does have a decent opportunity to defend himself in the NSA archive:
The Record on CURVEBALL with a lot of interesting pdf documents accompanying down the page - Tenet's is towards the end @ Document 5. Certainly, the poor interactions with Berlin described elsewhere give him a little room for ignorance of Curveball as a fabricator as an out? Cock-up in complex circumstances to some extent but conspiracy - no evidence if the US are truly trying to use the damaging parts of what happened to learn from them.

168 Not false at all to me. It seems clear that French, German and Russian intelligence did believe that there were WMDs - that was never a contention at the UN. There was an enormous amount of material "missing" from the various changed/incompatible Iraqi declarations to the UN. (see here 1996 - for example: Iraq’s Disclosure of Chemical Weapons Findings to U.N. - The New York Times). The context was that there were Iraqi claims to have unilaterally "destroyed" all their WMD - itself just as serious a breach of the resolutions - but could not, would not, refused (don't remember which) to show UNSCOM where to even attempt to assess confirmation.

Of course 250,000 men were not in the ISG but it is unfortunately true that some of them mostly, rather than WMD experts, found enormous amounts of WMD (and many rockets) - but only after the DUELFER REPORT-1.pdf [warning! very large 453 pages pdf] (misreported?).

Once again this goes to some excellent US journalism, in this case via the NY Times:
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons - The New York Times
This is a series of articles (with links to many other related worthwhile pieces) that concludes with:

The United States had invaded Iraq to reduce the risk of the weapons of mass destruction that it presumed Mr. Hussein still possessed. And after years of encountering and handling Iraq’s old chemical arms, it had retroactively informed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2009 that it had recovered more than 4,500 chemical weapons.
But it had not shared this data publicly. And as it prepared to withdraw, old stocks set loose after the invasion were still circulating. Al Muthanna had still not been cleaned up.
Finding, safeguarding and destroying these weapons was to be the responsibility of Iraq’s government.
Iraq took initial steps to fulfill its obligations. It drafted a plan to entomb the contaminated bunkers on Al Muthanna, which still held remnant chemical stocks, in concrete.
...
The Iraqi troops who stood at that entrance are no longer there. The compound, never entombed, is now controlled by the Islamic State.

It is important to note that these WMD (almost) all dated from before the Gulf War and deemed a failure of intelligence rather than legitimising previous errors. They are not evidence of an extant WMD programme - but dispersed, buried (and forgotten about? Though some insurgents clearly knew where?) rather than destroyed as claimed (though with illegal missiles found elsewhere - and still being bought on the black market by US (IC?) I don't know if date is a concern?)

What this does show is the context that Saddam had two incompatible objectives:
1 to bring about an end to sanctions
2 to portray to the world that he had WMDs and in sufficient amounts to defend himself
with two different audiences - the rest of the world & Iran.
He believed that Iran was a greater threat to his regime's existence than the United Nations and played them even willing to accept some military hits to accomplish this. A lot of the 'certainty' about WMD derives from how well Saddam deceived to succeed in the deceit. This applied to much of his own military as well as our Intelligence services. Mutual trust or knowledge about overall strategy never a strong point in his fragmented military structure?

169 Yes! Seems rather damning as a strong 'statement of fact' but that might depend on the context of 'time frames'. Robin Cook made essentially the same point in his HoC speech - Desert Fox '... we face ... the capacity and potential' to produce ...Iraq (Hansard, 17 December 1998) but again he might have intended his words to portray more the import of 'beliefs' rather than as 'facts' (which are also obviously 'theory-laden').
However, I see how this one can be read as quite damning in isolation.

172 Is that seriously in doubt by Chilcott? Unless Saddam had mellowed, didn't we have recordings of him saying as much - I think Duelfer even refers to these for context but I have to finish there. I'll have a look later and get back on that one either way - my memory might be going faster than I thought!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:25 pm

Welfare Central #1 ‏@Welfare_Central 3h3 hours ago

Like @LabourEoin #WeAreHisMedia and we demand to know why @OwenSmith_MP is waking voters up in the early hours with unwanted text messages!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:31 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this another instance where a company has employed people with not too many questions asked, and for very low wages, hears they're going to be raided, and if found to be illegally employing staff will face stiff fines, so they 'co-operate' with Border Control and avoid the fines.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:32 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Totally against shutting restaurants and probably depriving staff of their day's pay...but I'd query this:

Byron was unaware that any of our workers were in possession of counterfeit documentation until the Home Office brought it to our attention, despite carrying out rigorous ‘right to work’ checks

I could understand them being fooled by one or two staff with fake documents but 35 or more? That, to me, smacks of turning a blind eye. Might be wrong but I reckon they got caught out and had no option but to go above and beyond merely co-operating.

Edit - snap Ohso!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:34 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Byron Burger Insect Protest Sees Cockroaches And Locusts Released In Two London Branches
4,000 cockroaches, 2,000 locusts and 8,000 crickets, apparently.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 9aae5d73bc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is this another instance where a company has employed people with not too many questions asked, and for very low wages, hears they're going to be raided, and if found to be illegally employing staff will face stiff fines, so they 'co-operate' with Border Control and avoid the fines.

Meant to add, it's wrong to allow companies to get away with it.

55DegreesNorth · Post by **55DegreesNorth** » Sun 31 Jul, 2016 12:41 pm

tinybgoat wrote:
ephemerid wrote:I was asleep at 02.30 this morning, unusually for me as insomnia is a constant thing in my life, when I got a text message.

It was from the Owen Smith campaign. At 02.30 in the morning. I gather from Twitter that a few people have had these untimely messages.

I would like to know where they got my mobile number from. I am not a Labour Party member.
I have never had a single communication from Corbyn's campaign or from Momentum.

I am not impressed.
I got one of those, with the option to reply
YES,NO,NOT SURE, or STOP, (am currently a member of said tufty club, so suppose I shouldn't be too surprised), but I tried replying and message won't send.
Could get really irritating, but think there's a blocking filter somewhere on phone.

There is, if it's an iPhone. I blocked him yesterday.