Mr. Jonathan, so was King John. Sadly, ambition and competence do not necessarily coincide.
When I walked through King's Lynn at the end of the Ouse Valley Way on Wednesday, I was surprised to see a statue of King John in the centre of town. There cannot be too many of him about.
It turns out it's because he granted them a town charter, and in return they gave him the dysentery that killed him.
Not a fan of rising that early. Not least because the dog needs walking before anything else is done.
Incidentally, I checked the markets and nothing stood out. If the forecast remains wet, that's good for Verstappen, Ricciardo, Alonso and maybe Hulkenberg. However, as the Red Bull almost certainly has a qualifying mode deficit and qualifying may be dry as well, that's something to keep an eye on rather than back now. Verstappen could easily start on the third row, and one would expect the odds to lengthen (currently 5 for him, 7.5 for Ricciardo to win).
I am not deflecting. I am giving an opinion. An institutional bias is a very different thing to a personal bias in my view. I have not at any stage said that the BBC does not have biases. It is undoubtedly pro-monarchy and pro-capitalism, for starters. However, that is very different to believing that as an institution the BBC has specific political biases that lead it to deliberately report news stories in a certain way (or to overlook them).
"An institutional bias is a very different thing to a personal bias in my view."
Yes, but there are also many similarities, particularly in the way it affects behaviour.
WRT your last sentence, I fear that you are giving the BBC far too much credit.
As I've said before many times, the BBC should have figures to who they are politically unbiased, to support their claims that they are. It'd be good to see them. If they don't have them, then they've no way of knowing if they're politically biased and their assurances are worthless. If they have figures and are not releasing them, then we need to ask why.
A big problem with your position is that the biases you mention - e.g. being pro-monarchy and pro-capitalism - impinge on political beliefs, and therefore on politics directly.
Yep, to the extent that people complain the BBC is pro-monarchy and pro-capitalism they undoubtedly have a point. But if everyone is biased - as you and I agree they are - what would be the value of figures on bias that have been compiled by human beings to parameters set by human beings?
That same argument can be used for many things, and is bogus. It is at least a step up from just blindly claiming they are unbiased, which is what they are doing (and appears to be a lie).
It also allows you to check for biases in the methodology, and improve it.
Why a lie? Are you saying they are biased, know they are biased and are covering this up?
The BBC’s remit is to be impartial. It is subject to Ofcom regulation. As a non-BBC body, I’d argue Ofcom is in the best position to judge these things; though, of course, all those who staff it will each have their own biases, too.
How exactly was it photoshopped to make more Russian? There is hardly any difference between the two images, apart from the shadow on his forehead being more saturated.
Whatever happened.. its hilarious. MP's have been lampooned since time immemorial.. as ye sew so shall ye reap...
Owen Bennett - @owenjbennett: Oh my god I’ve just realised it’s a dead hat strategy to distract from Corbyn’s position on Russia. Genius.
Durr. It’s straight out of the Trump playbook, designed only for the true believers.
I do wonder occasionally if people notice an irony in being part of a small group of people repeating lines to themselves accusing others of just being 'true believers'...
Then instead I start thinking how I am thankful these people aren't in power in the labour party anymore.
Mr. Jonathan, so was King John. Sadly, ambition and competence do not necessarily coincide.
When I walked through King's Lynn at the end of the Ouse Valley Way on Wednesday, I was surprised to see a statue of King John in the centre of town. There cannot be too many of him about.
It turns out it's because he granted them a town charter, and in return they gave him the dysentery that killed him.
It was Bishops Lynn, before it was Kings Lynn.
Presumably when King John lost the crown jewels in The Wash, at least a few Lynnites might have had aspirations of finding a fortune, and perhaps did!
Not a fan of rising that early. Not least because the dog needs walking before anything else is done.
Incidentally, I checked the markets and nothing stood out. If the forecast remains wet, that's good for Verstappen, Ricciardo, Alonso and maybe Hulkenberg. However, as the Red Bull almost certainly has a qualifying mode deficit and qualifying may be dry as well, that's something to keep an eye on rather than back now. Verstappen could easily start on the third row, and one would expect the odds to lengthen (currently 5 for him, 7.5 for Ricciardo to win).
Looking at the Betfair market (singular, they only have the race winner up so far), Vettel at 4.4 to win the race he won last year doesn’t seem too bad, possibly also with a cover on Lewis who’s odds against (2.5) if the Mercs really are streets ahead.
OT - clearly TSE short of creative juices this morning as evidenced by almost all the comments being off-piste. Right of Centre Catholics in Britain have more in common with those in NI in the DUP than the leftie SDLP.
How exactly was it photoshopped to make more Russian? There is hardly any difference between the two images, apart from the shadow on his forehead being more saturated.
Whatever happened.. its hilarious. MP's have been lampooned since time immemorial.. as ye sew so shall ye reap...
Owen Bennett - @owenjbennett: Oh my god I’ve just realised it’s a dead hat strategy to distract from Corbyn’s position on Russia. Genius.
Durr. It’s straight out of the Trump playbook, designed only for the true believers.
I do wonder occasionally if people notice an irony in being part of a small group of people repeating lines to themselves accusing others of just being 'true believers'...
Then instead I start thinking how I am thankful these people aren't in power in the labour party anymore.
Instead we just have a bunch of people who will sell out denocrats and dissidents under every anti-Western regime. Brilliant.
Very few things show the power of democracy as clearly as a murderous dictator such as Putin feeling the need to put himself through this sort of farce to give himself some notional legitimacy.
OT - clearly TSE short of creative juices this morning as evidenced by almost all the comments being off-piste. Right of Centre Catholics in Britain have more in common with those in NI in the DUP than the leftie SDLP.
Right of Centre Catholic Ultras have plenty of social views in common with Islamists, but it doesn't make them a political match. There is more to politics than homophobia and misogyny even for these.
On topic, while nothing is impossible, I cannot see the DUP supporting a Corbyn Premiership. It is not inconceivable that they could collapse the May government and indirectly bring Corbyn to power unintentionally.
If Corbyn doubled the tory danegeld to 2bn or 4bn or whatever the DUP would put him in No. 10 in a trice.
How exactly was it photoshopped to make more Russian? There is hardly any difference between the two images, apart from the shadow on his forehead being more saturated.
Whatever happened.. its hilarious. MP's have been lampooned since time immemorial.. as ye sew so shall ye reap...
*Grammar Nazi Cap On*
As ye sow so shall ye reap...
*Grammar Nazi Cap Off*
Or to be unnecessarily charitable and slightly obtuse did the original mean Sew appertaining to MPs:
How exactly was it photoshopped to make more Russian? There is hardly any difference between the two images, apart from the shadow on his forehead being more saturated.
Whatever happened.. its hilarious. MP's have been lampooned since time immemorial.. as ye sew so shall ye reap...
*Grammar Nazi Cap On*
As ye sow so shall ye reap...
*Grammar Nazi Cap Off*
Or to be unnecessarily charitable and slightly obtuse did the original mean Sew appertaining to MPs:
As ye stitch up so shall ye reap?
How about, 'as ye stitch up, so shall ye be undone?'
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
Funnily enough, I think this is the first time I've seen him on TV since he stormed off the Sky News set. I don't think Hatgate is going to be covered.
OT - clearly TSE short of creative juices this morning as evidenced by almost all the comments being off-piste. Right of Centre Catholics in Britain have more in common with those in NI in the DUP than the leftie SDLP.
Right of Centre Catholic Ultras have plenty of social views in common with Islamists, but it doesn't make them a political match. There is more to politics than homophobia and misogyny even for these.
Right of centre Catholics outside Northern Ireland can work with the DUP easily enough, and vice versa. In Northern Ireland, the constitutional issue trumps other considerations.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
Hat-gate rolls on. The anti-BBC right are getting the chance to peer into the Looking Glass. Some might pause to consider that the way Corbynistas are coming across now over Jezza’s hat is how they come across when they cry conspiracy over the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. But they won’t, of course. https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/975143798186696704?s=21
As Jimmy Saville and other scandals show, the people who put the BBC on a pedestal and absolve and deflect it of any criticism frequently look very silly.
I think the Jimmy Savile case was symptomatic of a willingness of those in authority to look the other way and not rock the boat when it suited them. It's happened time and time again (e.g. Weinstein). My wife worked at Stoke Mandeville in the early 80s and there were plenty of rumours of, shall we say, inappropriate behaviour on Savile's part. But he was also raising a shedload of money for the hospital and seen as a bit of a 'national treasure'. I met him a couple of times and he was definitely a bit weird but he was a 'celebrity'. You'd have to have been very brave to call him out at the time.
On topic, while nothing is impossible, I cannot see the DUP supporting a Corbyn Premiership. It is not inconceivable that they could collapse the May government and indirectly bring Corbyn to power unintentionally.
If Corbyn doubled the tory danegeld to 2bn or 4bn or whatever the DUP would put him in No. 10 in a trice.
Lab + DUP + (presumably) SNP+ Plaid + Green still only gets to 312 MP's.
The only reason the DUP went into government with Sinn Fein was as that was the only opportunity for them to get power in NI under the GFA and crucially because of the personal chemistry between Paisley and McGuinness. Now both have passed away the NI executive has collapsed as Foster's DUP seems incapable of working with O'Neill's DUP.
It is highly unlikely the DUP will support any government other than a Tory led one, if the concern is the Tories are aligning NI too closely to the Republic in order to get a Brexit deal, Corbyn will inevitably do that even more and in any case May has effectively promised enough regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK to resolve the NI issue.
As for Rees Mogg's Catholicism he is a staunch Unionist and of course John McDonnell is a Catholic even going so far to once train to be a Catholic priest as well as being a Republican, so I highly doubt the DUP will ever want to form a deal with a party led by Republicans and with a Catholic the power behind Corbyn's throne
Hat-gate rolls on. The anti-BBC right are getting the chance to peer into the Looking Glass. Some might pause to consider that the way Corbynistas are coming across now over Jezza’s hat is how they come across when they cry conspiracy over the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. But they won’t, of course. https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/975143798186696704?s=21
As Jimmy Saville and other scandals show, the people who put the BBC on a pedestal and absolve and deflect it of any criticism frequently look very silly.
Everyone criticises the BBC. Only the loons of the left and right claim it is biased.
(Snip)
Of course the BBC are biased. I'm biased; you're biased, and organisations are biased one way or another. This can be by design or accident, and can infect culture
The keys are in recognising that bias, and understanding whether that bias *matters*.
The BBC claim that their output is unbiased over the full output. That means individual programs or interviews can display a bias, but that will be countered elsewhere in the output. As they say this, then they must have studies and figures that show it is the case, and processes to ensure it. AFAIAA they've never released any such information, which makes me suspect the claim is b/s.
I am an individual, you are an individual. Institutions are not. Claiming institutional bias is a very different thing to accepting individuals have biases.
A very poor attempt at deflection. If you're claiming any institution is free of all bias then you're being ridiculous. They can only try to be. Plenty of BBC insiders - e.g. Marr - have spoken of a cultural bias at the BBC.
The odd thing is that I don't think we're too far apart in our positions. I utterly agree that many people go too far in their criticisms of the BBC (I for one do not regret a penny of the licence fee - I get more than my money's worth). However I'd argue that you go too far in blindly defending them, when the people complaining might have a point.
I am not deflecting. I am giving an opinion. An institutional bias is a very different thing to a personal bias in my view. I have not at any stage said that the BBC does not have biases. It is undoubtedly pro-monarchy and pro-capitalism, for starters. However, that is very different to believing that as an institution the BBC has specific political biases that lead it to deliberately report news stories in a certain way (or to overlook them).
The BBC is also pro EU and pro Union and socially liberal
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
A friend of mine who was an SDLP press officer said much the same thing. He always found Paisley perfectly friendly and approachable - and apparently, possessed of a nice sense of humour - right up until a microphone was dangled in front of him, when he suddenly flipped.
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
The most interesting side of Paisley Snr was in this Ronson Documentary on their trip to Africa:
On topic, while nothing is impossible, I cannot see the DUP supporting a Corbyn Premiership. It is not inconceivable that they could collapse the May government and indirectly bring Corbyn to power unintentionally.
If Corbyn doubled the tory danegeld to 2bn or 4bn or whatever the DUP would put him in No. 10 in a trice.
Lab + DUP + (presumably) SNP+ Plaid + Green still only gets to 312 MP's.
Would need the LDs too and of course SF don't take their seats but would support Corbyn if they did.
A Lab+DUP+SNP+Plaid+Green+LD government with the Tories still comfortably largest party would be a dream come true for the next Tory leader with the Tories having the opposition benches effectively all to themselves but it will never happen, at least as far as the DUP is concerned
In reference to Jones given it was a discussion specifically on Corbyn I imagine they had to have a pro Corbyn journalist there, or you know Trump or Trump like or some kind of conspiracy if you are of a certain mindset...
Being scientific, we have to accept we all have biases, and this applies to science too. That's why we attempt to reduce them by, for example, using double-blind studies where possible. Incidentally, randomness needs to be worked at, it doesn't just occur in real life.
Of course, the BBC will be biased, its staff selection will be biased. The 'like us' tendency. You can introduce quotas (be they ethnicity, class, sex) but that will remove one bias (possibly only) and ignore many more.
The aim should be to be aware that bias is present - known and unknown.
One of the unusual issues the BBC faces is that (rightful) attempts to be less biased ethnically and regionally tends to accentuate the philosophical bias. I imagine their South Eastern white men still lean left, and attempts to diversify with more views from northern cities and ethnic minorities adds more left leaning voting blocs.
If you are on the right you imagine the BBC leans left; if you are on the left you know that it leans right.
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
The most interesting side of Paisley Snr was in this Ronson Documentary on their trip to Africa:
Right of Centre Catholics in Britain have more in common with those in NI in the DUP than the leftie SDLP.
That’s right. Even in Northern Ireland, the DUP are making an explicit pitch to devout Catholics on subjects like abortion and gay marriage.
Preventing a united Ireland is the DUP’s overriding objective. It’s hard to see Jeremy Corbyn ever being able to outbid the Conservatives on that, or even neutralise it to the point where other considerations become relevant.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
I am proud of you Ben - get you to vote for Theresa yet !!!!!
Right of Centre Catholics in Britain have more in common with those in NI in the DUP than the leftie SDLP.
That’s right. Even in Northern Ireland, the DUP are making an explicit pitch to devout Catholics on subjects like abortion and gay marriage.
Preventing a united Ireland is the DUP’s overriding objective. It’s hard to see Jeremy Corbyn ever being able to outbid the Conservatives on that, or even neutralise it to the point where other considerations become relevant.
Although you are correct, can I point out that's not quite the way they would see it? Rather than 'preventing a united Ireland' they see their role as 'preserving the Protestant Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.'
Although it amounts to the same thing in practice there are theoretically other options Corbyn has signalled a willingness to consider - dual sovereignty, devolved rule within the Irish rather than British state, independence etc. - that wouldn't necessarily run afoul of the first proposition but would the second. The fact these options (with the possible exception of the middle one) would all be ridiculous and unworkable wouldn't of course bother Corbyn, who likes things to be ridiculous and unworkable (look at his policies on paying for renationalisation).
So that's another reason in addition to the rather simpler problems I outlined above as to why they will not prop him up.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
Only another 303,208 to see this as well and his position might be vulnerable...
On topic, it should also be pointed out Corbyn's wife, Laura Alvarez, is a practising Catholic and Corbyn himself has taken Catholic communion, although he annoyed traditional Catholics by doing so as non-Catholics when attending a Catholic Eucharist Mass should only have a blessing under Catholic Church law and not accept communion, except in specific circumstances such as when they are in danger of death.
I'd ask if these people have gone insane, but I don't think there was much sanity there in the first place.
I do think this manufactured row is there to deflect from Jez's extremely unpopular opinions on Russia and Putin.
No problem, if I'm going to waste up to 10 minutes of my time figuring this stuff out I may as well put it to some use.
In fairness that is just as much a conspiracy as the one their peddling.... Which isn't to say it isn't true...
My hunch, possibly driven by my own bias, is there is possibly some small justified complaint, there has been a lot of media against Corbyn right back to 2015, which means a lot of people are more jumpy about this kind of thing so given valid* cause for complaint they will complain.
It probably doesn't help that they might feel there has been a media driven agenda regarding the attack, mainly right wing press, which they expect but having the BBC add to it, even in a small way causes complaints.
*Valid in so much that the image was altered in a way that could add to a perception but it was a relatively small thing, although relatively small things do add up over time.
Also I would also argue what is unpopular is some of the perception of Corbyns opinions rather than his actual opinions. If you polled the tougher measures he proposed they would probably poll quite well what has been unpopular is the idea that some have that Corbyn is somehow linked with or defending Putin.
Although personally I'm not too worried for a few reasons, plenty of don't knows in the polls, this will be mostly forgotten soon enough, come election time the left seems to be a lot closer to the right in its ability to get its message out there so advantages over stories like are smaller come crunch time.
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
The most interesting side of Paisley Snr was in this Ronson Documentary on their trip to Africa:
BoJo happy to take £160k from the wife of a former Putin Minister for a game of tennis.
Says all you need to know about the hypocrisy of the FS
I’m not sure I understand your point. Is your concern that Britain should be more pliant to Russian interests as a consequence, that Boris Johnson has given bad value for his forehand smash?
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
A friend of mine who was an SDLP press officer said much the same thing. He always found Paisley perfectly friendly and approachable - and apparently, possessed of a nice sense of humour - right up until a microphone was dangled in front of him, when he suddenly flipped.
I had heard this too. However, it makes his inflammatory demagoguery even worse to my mind.
Thanks to TSE for the header. Good to be reminded of the vile anti-Catholic prejudice which was too widespread until recently in these isles and that it was not really called out by many, shamefully.
I’d be surptised if the DUP were to put Corbyn in power unless he were to give them something they wanted. But given how politics has been upended in recent years it would be foolish to say that it could never happen. Both the DUP and Corbyn are shameless enough.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
I am proud of you Ben - get you to vote for Theresa yet !!!!!
Er, no - I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory. (Mind you if she keeps adopting Labour policies, who knows!)
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
I am proud of you Ben - get you to vote for Theresa yet !!!!!
Er, no - I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory. (Mind you if she keeps adopting Labour policies, who knows!)
It is not reasonable to expect left wingers to vote for the Tories. However, anyone with a firm commitment to supporting the most vulnerable can not support a Labour Party that, at best, turns a blind eye to the victims of Russia, Iran, Hezbollah etc
Hat-gate rolls on. The anti-BBC right are getting the chance to peer into the Looking Glass. Some might pause to consider that the way Corbynistas are coming across now over Jezza’s hat is how they come across when they cry conspiracy over the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. But they won’t, of course. https://twitter.com/jamin2g/status/975143798186696704?s=21
Go on, give us the right wing equivalent of hat gate...
It is very easy to find right wing overreaction to the bbc at any time. It's one reason criticism of it often does not work, because the extreme people react to near everything with the same outrage and suggestions it's gone too far. But because that criticism is the same no matter the scale of bbc error, it undermines itself.
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
I see your logic AM but I don't think that's the case here. If Russia wasn't involved there would have been very vocal outrage about this attack on British soild of a Russian citizen (i.e. Yulia). That's a clincher for me.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
I am proud of you Ben - get you to vote for Theresa yet !!!!!
Er, no - I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory. (Mind you if she keeps adopting LAbour policies, who knows!)
I detect a slight move there. Seriously I do expect movement on NHS and Social care funding and student fees and it looks as if TM is going to announce jail sentences for bosses who prejeudice pension funds.
We will see how this pans out but this has been the crisis that has shown Corbyn's wholly unsuitable to lead our Country
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
I see your logic AM but I don't think that's the case here. If Russia wasn't involved there would have been very vocal outrage about this attack on British soild of a Russian citizen (i.e. Yulia). That's a clincher for me.
The better evidence relates to the means of attack.
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
Who supposedly has the reach and motive to using Russian radioactive and chemical weapons when Russia does not? Clearly dozens of regional powers have the reach to murder people in Western cities. The only thing stopping them is motive, a sense of decency or a fear of the international reaction. Clearly Moscow has none of them.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
I am proud of you Ben - get you to vote for Theresa yet !!!!!
Er, no - I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory. (Mind you if she keeps adopting LAbour policies, who knows!)
I detect a slight move there. Seriously I do expect movement on NHS and Social care funding and student fees and it looks as if TM is going to announce jail sentences for bosses who prejeudice pension funds.
We will see how this pans out but this has been the crisis that has shown Corbyn's wholly unsuitable to lead our Country
Yes, I think you're right on that last point. I have never bought (and still don't) all that crap about how he will turn us into Venezeula / Stasiland / a marxist state, that some expound on here but I think he has shown himself as too weak and lacking judgement on this issue.
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
Who supposedly has the reach and motive to using Russian radioactive and chemical weapons when Russia does not? Clearly dozens of regional powers have the reach to murder people in Western cities. The only thing stopping them is motive, a sense of decency or a fear of the international reaction. Clearly Moscow has none of them.
I agree with you. I was simply pointing out that an argument that’s being much-aired is not as compelling by itself as some seem to believe.
Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. But he acted as though he did, for strategic reasons.
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
I readily accept that Putin’s modus operandi is entirely about making him and Russia (to the limited extent he differentiates) seem more powerful, more threatening and more worthy of respect than he and it actually are and he would have no problem at all in implying that he was responsible for favourable events even if he wasn’t. But killing traitors in extravagant ways is something he has so much previous on that I think there is little doubt in this case.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
That is an excellent article. I've got to say, much as I would like to see the policies embodied in Labour's 2017 manifesto implemented, that can't happen and won't happen with Corbyn as leader. There, I have said it.
I am proud of you Ben - get you to vote for Theresa yet !!!!!
Er, no - I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote Tory. (Mind you if she keeps adopting LAbour policies, who knows!)
I detect a slight move there. Seriously I do expect movement on NHS and Social care funding and student fees and it looks as if TM is going to announce jail sentences for bosses who prejeudice pension funds.
We will see how this pans out but this has been the crisis that has shown Corbyn's wholly unsuitable to lead our Country
Yes, I think you're right on that last point. I have never bought (and still don't) all that crap about how he will turn us into Venezeula / Stasiland / a marxist state, that some expound on here but I think he has shown himself as too weak and lacking judgement on this issue.
He is not only unsuitable as the leader of our Country he is influenced by Seamus Milne and members of the communist party in his own Office and is considered such a risk to National security that he has not been given all the information presented to TM. Says it all really
That list isn't convincing. Switzerland and Luxembourg are both on it, which is dubious. Given the amount of dirty money washing through both of them, they should be at our level. But the suggestion Singapore isn't corrupt is up there with the suggestion that Russia wasn't behind the Salisbury attack.
I do find it slightly amusing that Corbyn can be simultaneously denied the evidence and then castigated for not falling into line and believing what the government have decided....
I understand for some this is a reason to trust the government more but I'm not really a fan of the idea. I wonder if people would demand the same trust from the Conservative benches in the reverse scenario?
BoJo happy to take £160k from the wife of a former Putin Minister for a game of tennis.
Says all you need to know about the hypocrisy of the FS
Surely the Foreign Secretary should be expected to mix with foreigners of all types. He would be expeced to meet with Putin himself for example.
Should a Foreign Secretary avoid all Russians?
He is a money grubbing chancer. How can the fat buffoon pontificate about Russia after trousering £160K for a game of tennis. These Tories have no shame , no principles and sh** for brains.
Very few things show the power of democracy as clearly as a murderous dictator such as Putin feeling the need to put himself through this sort of farce to give himself some notional legitimacy.
Indeed. It even happens in far more authoritarian regimes. Are there still many governments which don't even pretend to have some level of democracy? Even the absolute monarchy of North Korea does.
The first race is today and the championship finishes on 18 November.
Marquez qualified second yesterday, behind Johan Zarco on the Yamaha (not the factory bike). His teammate isn't a threat and the factory Yamahas qualified 8th and 12th. Perhaps Dovizioso on the Ducati has a chance but I think the only real danger to Marquez is if he bins it and gets and injury.
That list isn't convincing. Switzerland and Luxembourg are both on it, which is dubious. Given the amount of dirty money washing through both of them, they should be at our level. But the suggestion Singapore isn't corrupt is up there with the suggestion that Russia wasn't behind the Salisbury attack.
Lux is our level, joint 8th.
It's based on "the level of public sector corruption" which probably doesn't capture dirty money unless they attempt to bribe someone in the country.
It's still interesting that people criticise Russia for having no opposition also demand unity at home.
Amusing, but a call for unity on one issue, while everyone is permitted not to be unified, is not the same as having a weak or absent opposition on everything. It's why we have a comcept of the loyal opposition.
It's one reason Russian claims about thus being a distraction from Brexit are farcical - labour and others will go easy on the government on it now? Hardly
Incidentally, all logical decductions about Russian culpability based on its reaction to the accusations are far from cast iron. Terrorist groups regularly claim responsibility for attacks they haven’t committed because it suits their aims. That could conceivably be the case here: Russia has every interest in giving the impression of global reach against those it sees as traitors.
I readily accept that Putin’s modus operandi is entirely about making him and Russia (to the limited extent he differentiates) seem more powerful, more threatening and more worthy of respect than he and it actually are and he would have no problem at all in implying that he was responsible for favourable events even if he wasn’t. But killing traitors in extravagant ways is something he has so much previous on that I think there is little doubt in this case.
Plus we've not heard of any evidence for any other culprits for this that would make logical sense.
Occam's Razor alone suggests it would be the Russians.
Having just watched last night's interesting documentary on Putin the unanswered question about the alleged poisoning is motive? By the accounts on the documentary Putin is ruthless with his enemies but they fall into a single category. Those who pose a threat to him personally. This couldn't be the case here. Putin like the British ambassador is unlikely to have even heard of this particular spook.
That list isn't convincing. Switzerland and Luxembourg are both on it, which is dubious. Given the amount of dirty money washing through both of them, they should be at our level. But the suggestion Singapore isn't corrupt is up there with the suggestion that Russia wasn't behind the Salisbury attack.
Given the amount of tax havens we run with London as the hub we should be down among the banana republics , at the bottom rung.
That list isn't convincing. Switzerland and Luxembourg are both on it, which is dubious. Given the amount of dirty money washing through both of them, they should be at our level. But the suggestion Singapore isn't corrupt is up there with the suggestion that Russia wasn't behind the Salisbury attack.
Lux is our level, joint 8th.
It's based on "the level of public sector corruption" which probably doesn't capture dirty money unless they attempt to bribe someone in the country.
Couldn't see us on that list.
Still a bit perturbed Luxembourg is so high given that it's less than five years since Luxembourg's Prime Minister was forced to resign after it emerged his security services were spending all their time spying on his political opponents. But the Singapore figure is utterly daft.
My father had contact with Ian Paisley with the British army in the 1970s and on occasion was a guest at his house. He was a charming host apparently and had Catholic friends. He was also a diligent constituency MP who represented his Catholic constituents as well as the Protestants. None of which stopped him from being a demagogue and inflammatory speaker who could inflame real hatred amongst his supporters. Quite a complicated man really.
Otoh Paisley Jr seems more uncomplicatedly stupid.
He's youthful, passionate and reasonably articulate. I'm not a fan of most of his views, but I've seen pieces of his which were thoughtful and we'll written.
I do think some pundits really want to be firebrands more than reporters and commentarors though. They want to be part of the action.
Comments
Not a fan of rising that early. Not least because the dog needs walking before anything else is done.
Incidentally, I checked the markets and nothing stood out. If the forecast remains wet, that's good for Verstappen, Ricciardo, Alonso and maybe Hulkenberg. However, as the Red Bull almost certainly has a qualifying mode deficit and qualifying may be dry as well, that's something to keep an eye on rather than back now. Verstappen could easily start on the third row, and one would expect the odds to lengthen (currently 5 for him, 7.5 for Ricciardo to win).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/watch/nikki-lilly-meets-jeremy-corbyn
Hatgate about to be superseded by Trackie-gate!
The BBC’s remit is to be impartial. It is subject to Ofcom regulation. As a non-BBC body, I’d argue Ofcom is in the best position to judge these things; though, of course, all those who staff it will each have their own biases, too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43445816
Edit - that should have been 'swingometer'...
Then instead I start thinking how I am thankful these people aren't in power in the labour party anymore.
Presumably when King John lost the crown jewels in The Wash, at least a few Lynnites might have had aspirations of finding a fortune, and perhaps did!
As ye sow so shall ye reap...
*Grammar Nazi Cap Off*
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28112127/market?marketId=1.138777728
70+% 1/3 (1.33)
60-70% 3/1 (4)
50-60% 24/1 (25)
Which is the value, the 1/3?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/18/jeremy-corbyn-sergei-skripal-attack-putin
Sew appertaining to MPs:
As ye stitch up so shall ye reap?
https://youtu.be/v9YnDirqwT4
The 5 on 80-90% looks value too, perhaps even the 26 on 90% plus.
"Russia ceased to be a communist state nearly three decades ago and is now better categorised as gangster capitalist. Yet the old muscle memory of wanting to defend Russia against the west still kicks in at defining moments."
Perhaps TV studios like having a pundit on who looks 14.
And sounds it.
It is highly unlikely the DUP will support any government other than a Tory led one, if the concern is the Tories are aligning NI too closely to the Republic in order to get a Brexit deal, Corbyn will inevitably do that even more and in any case May has effectively promised enough regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK to resolve the NI issue.
As for Rees Mogg's Catholicism he is a staunch Unionist and of course John McDonnell is a Catholic even going so far to once train to be a Catholic priest as well as being a Republican, so I highly doubt the DUP will ever want to form a deal with a party led by Republicans and with a Catholic the power behind Corbyn's throne
Higher, higher.....
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/jon-ronson-right-time-to-work-up-a-good-pulpit-sweat-1.1927044
Now I am going outside and may be some time!
A Lab+DUP+SNP+Plaid+Green+LD government with the Tories still comfortably largest party would be a dream come true for the next Tory leader with the Tories having the opposition benches effectively all to themselves but it will never happen, at least as far as the DUP is concerned
If you are on the right you imagine the BBC leans left; if you are on the left you know that it leans right.
I'd ask if these people have gone insane, but I don't think there was much sanity there in the first place.
I do think this manufactured row is there to deflect from Jez's extremely unpopular opinions on Russia and Putin.
'That was a direct lie then'
'You will get that'
Preventing a united Ireland is the DUP’s overriding objective. It’s hard to see Jeremy Corbyn ever being able to outbid the Conservatives on that, or even neutralise it to the point where other considerations become relevant.
Although it amounts to the same thing in practice there are theoretically other options Corbyn has signalled a willingness to consider - dual sovereignty, devolved rule within the Irish rather than British state, independence etc. - that wouldn't necessarily run afoul of the first proposition but would the second. The fact these options (with the possible exception of the middle one) would all be ridiculous and unworkable wouldn't of course bother Corbyn, who likes things to be ridiculous and unworkable (look at his policies on paying for renationalisation).
So that's another reason in addition to the rather simpler problems I outlined above as to why they will not prop him up.
Says all you need to know about the hypocrisy of the FS
https://www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Jeremy-Corbyn-irks-Catholics-by-taking-communion
In fairness that is just as much a conspiracy as the one their peddling.... Which isn't to say it isn't true...
My hunch, possibly driven by my own bias, is there is possibly some small justified complaint, there has been a lot of media against Corbyn right back to 2015, which means a lot of people are more jumpy about this kind of thing so given valid* cause for complaint they will complain.
It probably doesn't help that they might feel there has been a media driven agenda regarding the attack, mainly right wing press, which they expect but having the BBC add to it, even in a small way causes complaints.
*Valid in so much that the image was altered in a way that could add to a perception but it was a relatively small thing, although relatively small things do add up over time.
Also I would also argue what is unpopular is some of the perception of Corbyns opinions rather than his actual opinions. If you polled the tougher measures he proposed they would probably poll quite well what has been unpopular is the idea that some have that Corbyn is somehow linked with or defending Putin.
Although personally I'm not too worried for a few reasons, plenty of don't knows in the polls, this will be mostly forgotten soon enough, come election time the left seems to be a lot closer to the right in its ability to get its message out there so advantages over stories like are smaller come crunch time.
Thanks to TSE for the header. Good to be reminded of the vile anti-Catholic prejudice which was too widespread until recently in these isles and that it was not really called out by many, shamefully.
I’d be surptised if the DUP were to put Corbyn in power unless he were to give them something they wanted. But given how politics has been upended in recent years it would be foolish to say that it could never happen. Both the DUP and Corbyn are shameless enough.
Should a Foreign Secretary avoid all Russians?
We will see how this pans out but this has been the crisis that has shown Corbyn's wholly unsuitable to lead our Country
Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. But he acted as though he did, for strategic reasons.
https://twitter.com/wef/status/975311357905162240
I understand for some this is a reason to trust the government more but I'm not really a fan of the idea. I wonder if people would demand the same trust from the Conservative benches in the reverse scenario?
Marquez qualified second yesterday, behind Johan Zarco on the Yamaha (not the factory bike). His teammate isn't a threat and the factory Yamahas qualified 8th and 12th. Perhaps Dovizioso on the Ducati has a chance but I think the only real danger to Marquez is if he bins it and gets and injury.
It's based on "the level of public sector corruption" which probably doesn't capture dirty money unless they attempt to bribe someone in the country.
It's one reason Russian claims about thus being a distraction from Brexit are farcical - labour and others will go easy on the government on it now? Hardly
Occam's Razor alone suggests it would be the Russians.
Still a bit perturbed Luxembourg is so high given that it's less than five years since Luxembourg's Prime Minister was forced to resign after it emerged his security services were spending all their time spying on his political opponents. But the Singapore figure is utterly daft.
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/975124025088397313
https://twitter.com/ianpaisleymp/status/975126324409925632
I do think some pundits really want to be firebrands more than reporters and commentarors though. They want to be part of the action.