Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the DUP can make Martin McGuinness Deputy First Minister of

13

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    If that gave us the climate of a banana republic I'm thinking lots of people would accept that after this month!

    How are things in Ayrshire?
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357
    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,352

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    Didn’t their entire government not resign because of corruption in 2013, a government led by that oh so trustworthy Mr Junker?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,036

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!

    When you’re in a moral swamp, criticising others for their less than perfect stance is not a good look.

    I think Corbyn made some perfectly valid points about the Tories’ eagerness to accept Russian money and about proceeding based on evidence. But his points would be much stronger if one could seriously believe that:-

    - he is genuinely open-minded and would accept the evidence. I do not because his authorised spokesman made it clear that he does not believe anything the intelligence services say so his claim that he is waiting for evidence is at best disingenuous;
    - he is not in reality seeking any excuse to avoid blaming Russia;
    - he did not have a record as long as your arm of accepting money from Russia Today and Press TV not to argue Britain’s case but to agree with his hosts, even when their actions are so blatantly in conflict with the principles he so loudly proclaims;
    - he has consistently argued against increased defence spending and against the organisation (Nato) which has proclaimed its solidarity with Britain and which has been one of the reasons Russia has not dominated more of Europe in the last 70 years.

    We all want a fairer society but a morally bankrupt leader who favours dictatorial, authoritarian and unfree countries is not the way to get there.


  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,237

    Mr. 86, cheers. Quite a while for money to be tied up. D'you mean Alex Marquez? Ladbrokes are only offering 2.5...

    Alex is his brother in Moto2.

    It is a long time to have money tied up for, but I think Marc should be odds on for the Motogp championship.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,621
    calum said:
    The ten least corrupt nations:

    1. New Zealand
    2. Denmark
    3. Finland/Norway/Switzerland (joint)
    4. Singapore/Sweden (joint)
    5. United Kingdom/Canada/Luxembourg/ Netherlands
    6. Germany
    7. Australia/Hong Kong/ Iceland (joint)
    8. US, Austria, Belgium,
    9. Ireland
    10. Japan

    And the most corrupt:

    1. Somalia
    2. South Sudan
    3. Syria
    4. Afghanistan
    5. Yemen/Sudan (joint)
    6. North Korea/Equatorial Guinea/Guinea Bissau/ Libya (joint)
    7. Iraq/Venezuela (joint)
    8. Angola/Turkmenistan (joint)
    9. Eritrea/Chad (joint)
    10. DRC/Congo/Cambodia/Tajikistan (joint)

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    I thought the banana republics were mostly ok now?

    Also, with the banana in crisis over a blight we may need a new term.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,621

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    Luxembourg government is being investigated by the EU for systematically doing deals with multinationals to avoid tax by locating in Luxembourg.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    Roger said:

    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.

    There has yet to be a credible theory as to who else though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    Cyclefree said:

    ;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism

    Have you ever read this book Cyclefree? If not you may find it interesting:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Soviet_Empire.html?id=M-2_QgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en

    Be warned there are two different books out there with the same title but that deal with the Soviet Union as 'The Continuity Russian Empire' so are not as relevantly to your point.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,352
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    If that gave us the climate of a banana republic I'm thinking lots of people would accept that after this month!

    How are things in Ayrshire?
    I mainly voted the B word because I was told that the UK was going to be dragged mid Atlantic, near Bermuda IIRC, in the event of success. Double the cricket season, rum based cocktails, decent fast bowlers, it was just irresistible.

    It’s snowing quite hard here (again) and our lights are flickering ominously. But we haven’t left yet...
  • EmptyNesterEmptyNester Posts: 47
    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!

    When you’re in a moral swamp, criticising others for their less than perfect stance is not a good look.

    I think Corbyn made some perfectly valid points about the Tories’ eagerness to accept Russian money and about proceeding based on evidence. But his points would be much stronger if one could seriously believe that:-

    - he is genuinely open-minded and would accept the evidence. I do not because his authorised spokesman made it clear that he does not believe anything the intelligence services say so his claim that he is waiting for evidence is at best disingenuous;
    - he is not in reality seeking any excuse to avoid blaming Russia;
    - he did not have a record as long as your arm of accepting money from Russia Today and Press TV not to argue Britain’s case but to agree with his hosts, even when their actions are so blatantly in conflict with the principles he so loudly proclaims;
    - he has consistently argued against increased defence spending and against the organisation (Nato) which has proclaimed its solidarity with Britain and which has been one of the reasons Russia has not dominated more of Europe in the last 70 years.

    We all want a fairer society but a morally bankrupt leader who favours dictatorial, authoritarian and unfree countries is not the way to get there.

    +1


  • kjhkjh Posts: 280
    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652

    calum said:
    The ten least corrupt nations:

    1. New Zealand
    2. Denmark
    3. Finland/Norway/Switzerland (joint)
    4. Singapore/Sweden (joint)
    5. United Kingdom/Canada/Luxembourg/ Netherlands
    6. Germany
    7. Australia/Hong Kong/ Iceland (joint)
    8. US, Austria, Belgium,
    9. Ireland
    10. Japan

    And the most corrupt:

    1. Somalia
    2. South Sudan
    3. Syria
    4. Afghanistan
    5. Yemen/Sudan (joint)
    6. North Korea/Equatorial Guinea/Guinea Bissau/ Libya (joint)
    7. Iraq/Venezuela (joint)
    8. Angola/Turkmenistan (joint)
    9. Eritrea/Chad (joint)
    10. DRC/Congo/Cambodia/Tajikistan (joint)

    At risk of pedantry, those are not lists of ten. If there are joint numbers, then the next one down is not one forward but more. So, at present, your lists give the 20 'least' corrupt and 20 'most' corrupt, not ten. But the list has very little credibility. After all, it even includes Somalia which has no government!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 280
    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    there!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358
    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!

    When you’re in a moral swamp, criticising others for their less than perfect stance is not a good look.

    I think Corbyn made some perfectly valid points about the Tories’ eagerness to accept Russian money and about proceeding based on evidence. But his points would be much stronger if one could seriously believe that:-

    - he is genuinely open-minded and would accept the evidence. I do not because his authorised spokesman made it clear that he does not believe anything the intelligence services say so his claim that he is waiting for evidence is at best disingenuous;
    - he is not in reality seeking any excuse to avoid blaming Russia;
    - he did not have a record as long as your arm of accepting money from Russia Today and Press TV not to argue Britain’s case but to agree with his hosts, even when their actions are so blatantly in conflict with the principles he so loudly proclaims;
    - he has consistently argued against increased defence spending and against the organisation (Nato) which has proclaimed its solidarity with Britain and which has been one of the reasons Russia has not dominated more of Europe in the last 70 years.

    We all want a fairer society but a morally bankrupt leader who favours dictatorial, authoritarian and unfree countries is not the way to get there.


    +1
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,446
    Mr. 86, ah, whoops :pensive:

    Blimey. That's just 1.66 with Ladbrokes. If I had a PP account I'd back 11/4.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    If that gave us the climate of a banana republic I'm thinking lots of people would accept that after this month!

    How are things in Ayrshire?
    I mainly voted the B word because I was told that the UK was going to be dragged mid Atlantic, near Bermuda IIRC, in the event of success. Double the cricket season, rum based cocktails, decent fast bowlers, it was just irresistible.

    It’s snowing quite hard here (again) and our lights are flickering ominously. But we haven’t left yet...
    Damn it, that's unanswerable. If I had been told that I'd have voted Leave and sod the economic damage! :smiley:
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,621
    malcolmg said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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.

    The £160k was a donation to the Conservative party not to Boris personally..


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,534
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    If that gave us the climate of a banana republic I'm thinking lots of people would accept that after this month!

    How are things in Ayrshire?
    Morning ydoethur, been lovely morning up till now , but sun gone and a flutter of snowflakes now so may be in for it. Apart from that all is well in chez Malc
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,630
    Trump used the White House official spokesperson to deny the Daniels affair only last week:
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377246-white-house-denies-trump-had-affair-with-adult-film-actress
    He has now legally admitted it in the filing of his court action against Daniels:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/17/trump-mccabe-stormy-daniels-spotlight-469114

    I know it's hardly news that Trump is a liar and adulterer, but it's interesting to see it set out so brazenly.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,352
    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Like Russia, their secret service is living on the reputation of past glories. They are a pale shadow of what they were when they had Corbyn’s unequivocal support in the 1970’s and 80’s.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,091
    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    Interestingly a YouTube channel was created a week before the nerve agent was used which uploaded all the Russian TV news coverage relating to Skripal's original arrest and trial along with other double agents.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,549
    Cyclefree said:



    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!

    When you’re in a moral swamp, criticising others for their less than perfect stance is not a good look.

    I think Corbyn made some perfectly valid points about the Tories’ eagerness to accept Russian money and about proceeding based on evidence. But his points would be much stronger if one could seriously believe that:-

    - he is genuinely open-minded and would accept the evidence. I do not because his authorised spokesman made it clear that he does not believe anything the intelligence services say so his claim that he is waiting for evidence is at best disingenuous;
    - he is not in reality seeking any excuse to avoid blaming Russia;
    - he did not have a record as long as your arm of accepting money from Russia Today and Press TV not to argue Britain’s case but to agree with his hosts, even when their actions are so blatantly in conflict with the principles he so loudly proclaims;
    - he has consistently argued against increased defence spending and against the organisation (Nato) which has proclaimed its solidarity with Britain and which has been one of the reasons Russia has not dominated more of Europe in the last 70 years.

    We all want a fairer society but a morally bankrupt leader who favours dictatorial, authoritarian and unfree countries is not the way to get there.


    There are people on both sides who have convinced themselves the other side are the bad guys and they are the good guys... the problem is their big list of half truths and spin about why the other side are evil convince approximately nobody and therefore I presume are just written to make themselves feel good...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,534

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357
    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    The death of Glushkov on the way 12th of March was originally thought to be natural, until a more thorough investigation was put in place due to the Salisbury case. Yet, still not as much publicity for a definite "Wet Op", beginning to wonder why...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nikolai-glushkov-russia-exile-murdered-london-neck-compression-alexander-litvinenko-boris-berezovsky-a8259611.html
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,352
    OchEye said:

    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    The death of Glushkov on the way 12th of March was originally thought to be natural, until a more thorough investigation was put in place due to the Salisbury case. Yet, still not as much publicity for a definite "Wet Op", beginning to wonder why...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nikolai-glushkov-russia-exile-murdered-london-neck-compression-alexander-litvinenko-boris-berezovsky-a8259611.html
    It looks like there may be a dozen or more such murders in the U.K. in recent years. Putin must have been wondering what he had to do for us to notice!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,534
    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    Yes and having them linger for a long period in critical state prolongs it nicely and will keep it in the news.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358
    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,534
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    If that gave us the climate of a banana republic I'm thinking lots of people would accept that after this month!

    How are things in Ayrshire?
    I mainly voted the B word because I was told that the UK was going to be dragged mid Atlantic, near Bermuda IIRC, in the event of success. Double the cricket season, rum based cocktails, decent fast bowlers, it was just irresistible.

    It’s snowing quite hard here (again) and our lights are flickering ominously. But we haven’t left yet...
    You will live on the wrong side of the country David.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,036
    Foxy said:

    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.
    Catholics do not believe that gay people should be killed. They do not think that women should be stoned for adultery or beaten by their husbands or that men have the right to rape their wives. Catholic theology says that homosexuality is a sin but that the sinner should be loved. (I do not share the first part of this view. Homosexuality is not a sin: it is part of our nature, of how we are made and, if you believe that man is made in the image of God, that he has a touch of the divine, then gay people are as beloved of God and entitled to love and live their life to the fullest extent as anyone else.)

    Islamists are not just exotic ultra-conservatives. Their views - on gays, women (and much else besides) - are simply beyond the pale. In any civilized society anyway.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989

    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    Interestingly a YouTube channel was created a week before the nerve agent was used which uploaded all the Russian TV news coverage relating to Skripal's original arrest and trial along with other double agents.
    That’s certainly rather interesting if it were a week before he was attacked. I wonder if someone might be so kind as to ask Google for the IP address associated with that account?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,071
    Hmm
    Lots of people might well support Corbyn over Mogg. Arlene, Ian Paisley Jr and the DUP are not amongst that group.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,036
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism

    Have you ever read this book Cyclefree? If not you may find it interesting:

    https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Soviet_Empire.html?id=M-2_QgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en

    Be warned there are two different books out there with the same title but that deal with the Soviet Union as 'The Continuity Russian Empire' so are not as relevantly to your point.
    Thank you.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,989
    Nigelb said:

    Trump used the White House official spokesperson to deny the Daniels affair only last week:
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377246-white-house-denies-trump-had-affair-with-adult-film-actress
    He has now legally admitted it in the filing of his court action against Daniels:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/17/trump-mccabe-stormy-daniels-spotlight-469114

    I know it's hardly news that Trump is a liar and adulterer, but it's interesting to see it set out so brazenly.

    There was a rumour mentioned in the US last week that the affair was continuing even as late as last year, while Trump was President. He’s desperate to make it sound like an old story and really doesn’t want her talking.

    Penny for Melania’s thoughts...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358
    McDonnell on ITV unequivocably supporting TM.

    Are we seeing a power battle between Corbyn and McDonnell
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,178
    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    The death of Glushkov on the way 12th of March was originally thought to be natural, until a more thorough investigation was put in place due to the Salisbury case. Yet, still not as much publicity for a definite "Wet Op", beginning to wonder why...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nikolai-glushkov-russia-exile-murdered-london-neck-compression-alexander-litvinenko-boris-berezovsky-a8259611.html
    It looks like there may be a dozen or more such murders in the U.K. in recent years. Putin must have been wondering what he had to do for us to notice!
    Time maybe to reopen the ~14 investigations and not pretend they were all 'suicides'. Suicide could be a convenient excuse for a police force that's short of money and doesn't want to go further.

    Incidentally, among those supporting Corbyn's scepticism/wanting to know more are Peter Hitchens and Rachel Johnson. I don't think it can be dismissed as the view of lefty Russophiles.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,177
    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358

    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.

    Agreed
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    edited March 18

    McDonnell on ITV unequivocably supporting TM.

    Are we seeing a power battle between Corbyn and McDonnell

    While Guido and the like seem to think so, I'd have thought it just more an example of how McDonnell is a sharper operator

    I see that Russia is suggesting it is all false flag stuff. Of course. (Though people in this country have suggested the same with all the 'conveniently close to Porton Down' stuff some have said).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.

    I am not keen would prefer Emily
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,352

    Cyclefree said:



    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:
    (snip)
    When you’re in a moral swamp, criticising others for their less than perfect stance is not a good look.

    I think Corbyn made some perfectly valid points about the Tories’ eagerness to accept Russian money and about proceeding based on evidence. But his points would be much stronger if one could seriously believe that:-

    - he is genuinely open-minded and would accept the evidence. I do not because his authorised spokesman made it clear that he does not believe anything the intelligence services say so his claim that he is waiting for evidence is at best disingenuous;
    - he is not in reality seeking any excuse to avoid blaming Russia;
    - he did not have a record as long as your arm of accepting money from Russia Today and Press TV not to argue Britain’s case but to agree with his hosts, even when their actions are so blatantly in conflict with the principles he so loudly proclaims;
    - he has consistently argued against increased defence spending and against the organisation (Nato) which has proclaimed its solidarity with Britain and which has been one of the reasons Russia has not dominated more of Europe in the last 70 years.

    We all want a fairer society but a morally bankrupt leader who favours dictatorial, authoritarian and unfree countries is not the way to get there.


    There are people on both sides who have convinced themselves the other side are the bad guys and they are the good guys... the problem is their big list of half truths and spin about why the other side are evil convince approximately nobody and therefore I presume are just written to make themselves feel good...
    I am not sure you will find @Cyclefree elbowing Big_G out of the road to get to the front of the fan line for the current government and not just because she is so ladylike. It is a mistake for Labour supporters to disregard such chronic weakness in the current leadership. The country deserves a credible and competent choice and Labour is not providing it.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    Roger said:

    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.

    Putin has killed plenty of journalists that do not pose a personal threat. The documentary made clear Putin regards his interests and Russian interests as one and the same. He also has a thin skin and hates being made to look weak. It is ridiculous apologism to pretend Putin does not have a motive here.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358
    kle4 said:

    McDonnell on ITV unequivocably supporting TM.

    Are we seeing a power battle between Corbyn and McDonnell

    While Guido and the like seem to think so, I'd have thought it just more an example of how McDonnell is a sharper operator

    I see that Russia is suggesting it is all false flag stuff. Of course. (Though people in this country have suggested the same with all the 'conveniently close to Porton Down' stuff some have said).
    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent. Hope Corbyn doesn't agree
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    calum said:
    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.
    If that gave us the climate of a banana republic I'm thinking lots of people would accept that after this month!

    How are things in Ayrshire?
    Morning ydoethur, been lovely morning up till now , but sun gone and a flutter of snowflakes now so may be in for it. Apart from that all is well in chez Malc
    If you get what we're getting you're in for a slightly irritating time. Not as bad as a fortnight ago but still not good. Will not be taking the car out.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,771
    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    The death of Glushkov on the way 12th of March was originally thought to be natural, until a more thorough investigation was put in place due to the Salisbury case. Yet, still not as much publicity for a definite "Wet Op", beginning to wonder why...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nikolai-glushkov-russia-exile-murdered-london-neck-compression-alexander-litvinenko-boris-berezovsky-a8259611.html
    It looks like there may be a dozen or more such murders in the U.K. in recent years. Putin must have been wondering what he had to do for us to notice!
    This is a bit like Tom Knox 3.

    I wonder if there were any deaths recorded as 'accidents' or 'suicides'.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,630
    Elliot said:

    Roger said:

    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.

    Putin has killed plenty of journalists that do not pose a personal threat. The documentary made clear Putin regards his interests and Russian interests as one and the same. He also has a thin skin and hates being made to look weak. It is ridiculous apologism to pretend Putin does not have a motive here.
    Not least as he's stood up in public and said in so many words that traitors should be killed.

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,621

    McDonnell on ITV unequivocably supporting TM.

    Are we seeing a power battle between Corbyn and McDonnell

    Corbyn is a Russian Communist supporter whilst McDonnell is a Chinese communist supporter.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358

    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.

    I am not keen would prefer Emily
    If it was a choice between the two I would agree
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652

    kle4 said:

    McDonnell on ITV unequivocably supporting TM.

    Are we seeing a power battle between Corbyn and McDonnell

    While Guido and the like seem to think so, I'd have thought it just more an example of how McDonnell is a sharper operator

    I see that Russia is suggesting it is all false flag stuff. Of course. (Though people in this country have suggested the same with all the 'conveniently close to Porton Down' stuff some have said).
    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent. Hope Corbyn doesn't agree
    Well, he might because after all that is a simple statement of fact.

    But why the British government would wish to carry out a reckless, haphazard and bungled poisoning on a Russian exile and his daughter is another question. They clearly wouldn't. But Putin might.

    Leaving out the French and the Americans, who have neither motive nor opportunity...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    edited March 18
    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Like Russia, their secret service is living on the reputation of past glories. They are a pale shadow of what they were
    And even if they were still at the height, people still mess up. I won't bore people (again) on that, but whether or not Russia was indeed behind this as we believe, that it so far hasn't taken out the target doesn't speak to their innocence. Litvenko lingered for quite some time, it still achieved its aim (which was more than merely killing one man).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,534

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
    Someone used it G and it may have come from Russia. I have not seen any evidence as to who used it yet, lots of hot air and dire utterences from our Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary making us look like idiots.
    However yet to see any hard evidence.
    It most likely came from Russia and given the Tories are up to their necks in Russian money etc , who knows whether it was one of their friends or their friends enemies. They do not seem capable of governing anything and have no clue to real world. I would not trust our lot to run a bath. They have sucked up to various Russians for 20 years , pocketed all the cash , allowed them to do as they wish, launder all the stolen money etc , taken in double agents , spies , crooks etc and are now trying to pretend that they are shocked at what was likely a Russian action.
    I am not convinced we are much better , we send drones every day to murder innocent people, have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq , meddled in many countries affairs and so we are reaping what we sowed and are so weak we can do nothing about it.
    Putin will just do double what these nomarks put in place, he has a backbone and is ruthless. We choose the dictators we like .
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
    Which Westminster Party has benefited the most financially from Russia and Russians? Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script? Why is so much dirty money flowing through London, some of which sticks to hands that signs cheques made payable to the Tories?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,630

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
    No, because it wasn't a gas.
    (Non military grade nerve gas being what, exactly ?)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,534
    edited March 18
    Someone used it G and it may have come from Russia. I have not seen any evidence as to who used it yet, lots of hot air and dire utterences from our Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary making us look like idiots.
    However yet to see any hard evidence.
    It most likely came from Russia and given the Tories are up to their necks in Russian money etc , who knows whether it was one of their friends or their friends enemies. They do not seem capable of governing anything and have no clue to real world. I would not trust our lot to run a bath. They have sucked up to various Russians for 20 years , pocketed all the cash , allowed them to do as they wish, launder all the stolen money etc , taken in double agents , spies , crooks etc and are now trying to pretend that they are shocked at what was likely a Russian action.
    I am not convinced we are much better , we send drones every day to murder innocent people, have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq , meddled in many countries affairs and so we are reaping what we sowed and are so weak we can do nothing about it.
    Putin will just do double what these nomarks put in place, he has a backbone and is ruthless. We choose the dictators we like .




  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,732
    edited March 18
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    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.

    There has yet to be a credible theory as to who else though.
    That's true. But I can well understand the Russian's reluctance to accept the story particularly when it's being peddled around the world by the proven liar Boris Johnson.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    edited March 18
    OchEye said:

    Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script?

    Lord Mandelson, Labour...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,071
    OchEye said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
    Which Westminster Party has benefited the most financially from Russia and Russians? Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script? Why is so much dirty money flowing through London, some of which sticks to hands that signs cheques made payable to the Tories?
    Sir sir please sir,
    Is it the Baroness of Hartlepool and New Labour :D
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    Pulpstar said:

    OchEye said:

    Which Westminster Party has benefited the most financially from Russia and Russians? Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script? Why is so much dirty money flowing through London, some of which sticks to hands that signs cheques made payable to the Tories?

    Sir sir please sir,
    Is it the Baroness of Hartlepool and New Labour :D
    Don't be ridiculous.

    It was the Baron of Foy, not Hartlepool...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 510
    OchEye said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
    Which Westminster Party has benefited the most financially from Russia and Russians? Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script? Why is so much dirty money flowing through London, some of which sticks to hands that signs cheques made payable to the Tories?
    Clearly Comrade Corbyn's Quisling Party!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    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.

    There has yet to be a credible theory as to who else though.
    That's true. But I can well understand the Russian's* reluctance to accept the story particularly when it's being peddled around the world by the proven liar Boris Johnson.

    *general population
    Well few people want to accept their government perpetrates such acts, we don't like it when our government has done shady things, and then of course you get into the 'my country, right or wrong' mentality. I'd have thought all that matters to the Russia state, whether it was behind it directly or not, is that the right people back home believe they did it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,071

    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.

    I think McDonnell will talk Corbyn round on this - he is his closest ally.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358
    Nigelb said:

    malcolmg said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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
    Are you saying that the money was given to the FS personally? No. Well then stop making a fool of yourself.

    Your party’s leader:-

    - repeats Russian excuses and diversionary stories;
    - now wants the British government to prove a negative (an impossibility of course) ie that it was not the Russian mafia (and how possible is it to distinguish between them and Putin’s gang is hard to say) who attacked British citizens on British soil;
    - has appointed as Labour’s spokesman a man who admires Stalin and who has spoken at rallies in support of Putin (once sharing a stage with him);
    - has repeatedly spoken at rallies in front of flags of Marx and Lenin;
    - did not celebrate the passing of Soviet Russia but moaned that it would no longer be available for the anti-imperialist cause, seemingly oblivious to the millions of Eastern Europeans and East Germans celebrating their freedom from Soviet/Russian imperialism;
    - travelled to Syria with a Holocaust-denying group to visit President Assad, another dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on civilians.

    And his supporters are now clutching their pearls over a picture of a hat while pointing at the faulty moral compasses of others. FFS!




    +1
    G , that does not hide the fact that the Tories have been sucking at the Russian teat and have now been outed. They have more faces than the town clock , especially that buffoon Johnson. How can anyone trust these lying cheating toerags.

    Also the mince about NATO and wasting more money on Admirals and Generals renders the previous post to just being drivel. Hard to see a fairer UK with our current morally bankrupt , dictatorial , authoritarian leader.
    Morning Malc from snowy North Wales - straight question

    Did Russia use military grade nerve gas on our streets
    No, because it wasn't a gas.
    (Non military grade nerve gas being what, exactly ?)
    I meant agent not gas - my error
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358
    malcolmg said:

    Someone used it G and it may have come from Russia. I have not seen any evidence as to who used it yet, lots of hot air and dire utterences from our Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary making us look like idiots.
    However yet to see any hard evidence.
    It most likely came from Russia and given the Tories are up to their necks in Russian money etc , who knows whether it was one of their friends or their friends enemies. They do not seem capable of governing anything and have no clue to real world. I would not trust our lot to run a bath. They have sucked up to various Russians for 20 years , pocketed all the cash , allowed them to do as they wish, launder all the stolen money etc , taken in double agents , spies , crooks etc and are now trying to pretend that they are shocked at what was likely a Russian action.
    I am not convinced we are much better , we send drones every day to murder innocent people, have murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq , meddled in many countries affairs and so we are reaping what we sowed and are so weak we can do nothing about it.
    Putin will just do double what these nomarks put in place, he has a backbone and is ruthless. We choose the dictators we like .




    Honest opinion Malc - agree with some of it
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,732
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    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.

    There has yet to be a credible theory as to who else though.
    That's true. But I can well understand the Russian's* reluctance to accept the story particularly when it's being peddled around the world by the proven liar Boris Johnson.

    *general population
    Well few people want to accept their government perpetrates such acts, we don't like it when our government has done shady things, and then of course you get into the 'my country, right or wrong' mentality. I'd have thought all that matters to the Russia state, whether it was behind it directly or not, is that the right people back home believe they did it.
    I saw a vox pop with some bright University students in Moscow and they generally seemed sceptical.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357
    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script?

    Lord Mandelson, Labour...
    Oh Dear, such poor memories by PBtories and yes, many have wondered why the Dark Lord was there, but really, even Zac Goldsmith was embarrassed by the now Editor of the Standard (amongst many other well paid jobs) George Osborne.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,006

    malcolmg said:

    Marr to Boris on Russian Ambassador to EU

    'That was a direct lie then'

    'You will get that'

    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.

    The £160k was a donation to the Conservative party not to Boris personally..


    Oh that’s alright then.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,880
    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,454
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Like Russia, their secret service is living on the reputation of past glories. They are a pale shadow of what they were
    And even if they were still at the height, people still mess up. I won't bore people (again) on that, but whether or not Russia was indeed behind this as we believe, that it so far hasn't taken out the target doesn't speak to their innocence. Litvenko lingered for quite some time, it still achieved its aim (which was more than merely killing one man).
    I might be misremembering, but didn't the report suggest that Litvinenko was a cock-up in more than one way? Firstly, they bodged an initial attempt to poison him. And when they finally succeeded, his lingering death forced medics to address why he was ill; if he'd just died no-one may have investigated too deeply.

    But that would go against the accusation that they were sending messages.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358

    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.

    +1
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    OchEye said:

    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script?

    Lord Mandelson, Labour...
    Oh Dear, such poor memories by PBtories and yes, many have wondered why the Dark Lord was there, but really, even Zac Goldsmith was embarrassed by the now Editor of the Standard (amongst many other well paid jobs) George Osborne.
    Both of them were there. Both were soliciting money. One for a political party (which donation was not in the end forthcoming) and one for a private charitable foundation (I have no idea whether that was paid or not).

    It seems as though you have forgotten this minor point. Rather like Corbyn did when he denied taking money from the Iranian government...

    And I am not a Tory, in case you had forgotten that minor point as well. But don't worry, I make allowances for OEOD.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,178
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OchEye said:

    Which Westminster Party has benefited the most financially from Russia and Russians? Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script? Why is so much dirty money flowing through London, some of which sticks to hands that signs cheques made payable to the Tories?

    Sir sir please sir,
    Is it the Baroness of Hartlepool and New Labour :D
    Don't be ridiculous.

    It was the Baron of Foy, not Hartlepool...
    He's named after both but, good for Foy, they've disowned him ...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3416769/Villagers-disown-Lord-Mandelson-of-Foy.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,454

    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.

    No. The BBC claim that their output is unibiased across their output. To be able to make such a claim, they should have metrics to prove it. If they do not have such metrics, then the claim is a lie.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652

    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.

    And that of course is why it is highly unlikely we will see meaningful financial action taken against Russia, particularly given the economic outlook is so uncertain at the moment. It's Bismarckian 'art of the possible' politics.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,368



    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent.

    If that's all he suggested that would have the virtue of being true, unless the 8 miles part is a vile calumny?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Like Russia, their secret service is living on the reputation of past glories. They are a pale shadow of what they were
    And even if they were still at the height, people still mess up. I won't bore people (again) on that, but whether or not Russia was indeed behind this as we believe, that it so far hasn't taken out the target doesn't speak to their innocence. Litvenko lingered for quite some time, it still achieved its aim (which was more than merely killing one man).
    I might be misremembering, but didn't the report suggest that Litvinenko was a cock-up in more than one way? Firstly, they bodged an initial attempt to poison him. And when they finally succeeded, his lingering death forced medics to address why he was ill; if he'd just died no-one may have investigated too deeply.

    But that would go against the accusation that they were sending messages.
    I'll take your word for it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 17,358



    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent.

    If that's all he suggested that would have the virtue of being true, unless the 8 miles part is a vile calumny?
    He inference was - we did it
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    OchEye said:

    Which Westminster Party has benefited the most financially from Russia and Russians? Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script? Why is so much dirty money flowing through London, some of which sticks to hands that signs cheques made payable to the Tories?

    Sir sir please sir,
    Is it the Baroness of Hartlepool and New Labour :D
    Don't be ridiculous.

    It was the Baron of Foy, not Hartlepool...
    He's named after both but, good for Foy, they've disowned him ...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3416769/Villagers-disown-Lord-Mandelson-of-Foy.html
    Lovely village (well, hamlet). Very difficult to get to though because it's in a meander of the Wye, so the road is a dead end. I think I only ever went there once, while I was an organist in the Ross Team Benefice and had to fill in at a service.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,077
    edited March 18

    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.

    McDonnell and Corbyn have a symbiotic relationship I think. Each needs the other. McDonnell doesn’t have the personality cult of furrowed-brow, concerned man of the people Jeremy. JC obviously needs McDonnell for the brains and the strategic smarts.

    When one goes, I suspect the other will similarly depart and leave the door open for one of their young apprentices.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    edited March 18



    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent.

    If that's all he suggested that would have the virtue of being true, unless the 8 miles part is a vile calumny?
    Unless he's implying something nefarious about it, why would be bring up that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury? That isn't secret information, so pointing it out is along the lines of the conspiracy theorists talking of how 'convenient' that it is so close...and it would only be convenient for us if we were behind it (and if we were, why use real nerve agent at all, just do it somewhere else and claim it was nerve agent).
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357

    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.

    There goes the Great British reputation for honesty, legality and truth that we have been so keen to uphold and shine like a beacon to the rest of the planet.. Instead, we are just as much a gangster economy as the Russians. Don't it make you proud!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    OchEye said:

    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.

    There goes the Great British reputation for honesty, legality and truth that we have been so keen to uphold and shine like a beacon to the rest of the planet.. Instead, we are just as much a gangster economy as the Russians. Don't it make you proud!
    'Just as much as'. That we are not whiter than white does not mean we must be exactly the same, that is false equivalence.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,982
    edited March 18
    poor old John Owls - spent all last night pushing mad conspiracy theory to toe the Corbyn line

    Today John McDonnell agrees Putin responsible

    Better late than never John
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,723
    edited March 18

    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    kjh said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Surely it is not the killing of them that is important to the Russians (assuming it was them) but the message. Using a nerve agent or Polonium is so extravagant and difficult that the method is more important than the result. These people could have been bumped off by other means which would have been much simpler and reliable yet their would have been practically no coverage or fall out.
    The death of Glushkov on the way 12th of March was originally thought to be natural, until a more thorough investigation was put in place due to the Salisbury case. Yet, still not as much publicity for a definite "Wet Op", beginning to wonder why...
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/nikolai-glushkov-russia-exile-murdered-london-neck-compression-alexander-litvinenko-boris-berezovsky-a8259611.html
    It looks like there may be a dozen or more such murders in the U.K. in recent years. Putin must have been wondering what he had to do for us to notice!
    This is a bit like Tom Knox 3.

    I wonder if there were any deaths recorded as 'accidents' or 'suicides'.
    Perhaps we weren't inclined to give Putin the publicity he wanted for his killings. So he ups the ante to the point we can't ignore the hits: using a nerve agent.

    Certainly the Russian TV now seems to be more than happy to trumpet the earlier "accidental deaths", nudge nudge, wink wink......
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357
    kle4 said:

    OchEye said:

    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.

    There goes the Great British reputation for honesty, legality and truth that we have been so keen to uphold and shine like a beacon to the rest of the planet.. Instead, we are just as much a gangster economy as the Russians. Don't it make you proud!
    'Just as much as'. That we are not whiter than white does not mean we must be exactly the same, that is false equivalence.
    If the mud sticks, it doesn't matter how much faecal matter is or isn't involved, it is still a stain....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    Floater said:

    poor old John Owls - spent all last night pushing mad conspiracy theory to tow the Corbyn line

    Today John McDonnell agrees Putin responsible

    Better late than never John

    My understanding had been that the Corbyn official line was already 'Russia did it' but with the caveat 'but let us not overreact' (silly in itself when there has not been an overreaction), not the Murray line that it was not them.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,462
    edited March 18
    DavidL said:

    OchEye said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    There is one thing which worries me, is that there's so much on record concerning "wet operartions" by Russian services from the Cheka, NKVD, KGB, GRU and now FSB is that if they want you dead, then you are. At the moment, the Russian "traitor", his daughter and a British Police officer are still alive, in a very messy, seemingly poorly planned and executed operation... .
    Like Russia, their secret service is living on the reputation of past glories. They are a pale shadow of what they were when they had Corbyn’s unequivocal support in the 1970’s and 80’s.
    It's not true that the Russians "always get their man". There have been many failed assassinations - people have survived attacks with cyanide, ricin, and thallium - but obviously they are less well known than when Russia has succeeded.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,446
    Mr. Eye, that's no counter to Mr. kle4's entirely correct point. Being morally imperfect doesn't make the UK as bad as a state that participates in murdering political opponents in other countries with chemical weapons.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 27,177
    Pulpstar said:

    McDonnell is so much smarter than Corbyn and understands just how damaging his leader’s foreign policy are for Labour. McDonnell wants to win above all else. Corbyn is less interested in that. Labour would be a greater danger to the Tories if McDonnell were in charge.

    I think McDonnell will talk Corbyn round on this - he is his closest ally.

    I am not so sure. This is what it’s all about for Corbyn.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    OchEye said:

    kle4 said:

    OchEye said:

    The biggest single recipient of Russian "dirty" money is of course the British taxpayer.

    They pay SDLT, stamp duty, and capital gains. They keep lawyers and accountants in jobs.

    But for as long as "someone else" benefits from Russian corruption, nothing will be done.

    Russian wealth won off the backs of the dirt poor will be instead paying down Britain's debts.

    There goes the Great British reputation for honesty, legality and truth that we have been so keen to uphold and shine like a beacon to the rest of the planet.. Instead, we are just as much a gangster economy as the Russians. Don't it make you proud!
    'Just as much as'. That we are not whiter than white does not mean we must be exactly the same, that is false equivalence.
    If the mud sticks, it doesn't matter how much faecal matter is or isn't involved, it is still a stain....
    Yes it does matter. There is a difference between a shit stain and being covered in shit. You still need a wash, but one more thoroughly the other.

    This isn't Game of Thrones for christ's sake (if half an onion is black with rot it is a rotten onion; people are either good, or they are evil), sins are not all equal, and not all sinners are equal in the amount and type of sins they have committed. Do you believe that all crimes are equal, and we should punish shoplifting the same way we do murder, because it 'doesn't matter how much faecal matter is involved, it is still a stain'? I will presume not, because that would be idiotic.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,982

    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.

    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. As for Jimmy Saville, he fooled a lot of people for a long time. God knows how, though.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-jimmy-saviles-close-friendship-with-margaret-thatcher-8432351.html
    BBC reports and bbc staff admit bias - you however refuse to accept any criticism of the beeb at all
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    Anyway, time to enjoy a bracing walk in the show. I best not get any mud on my trousers, as OchEye tells me that means I may as well just throw away my entire outfit as caked in mud.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,368



    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent.

    If that's all he suggested that would have the virtue of being true, unless the 8 miles part is a vile calumny?
    He inference was - we did it
    In the noble cause of pedantry, you inferred that that was his implication.
  • The afternoon thread features a discussion about AV and voting systems.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,357
    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    ydoethur said:

    OchEye said:

    Which senior member of which Political Party was cadging donations from Russian oligarchs on their palatial yachts, on a well rehearsed and probably practised script?

    Lord Mandelson, Labour...
    Oh Dear, such poor memories by PBtories and yes, many have wondered why the Dark Lord was there, but really, even Zac Goldsmith was embarrassed by the now Editor of the Standard (amongst many other well paid jobs) George Osborne.
    Both of them were there. Both were soliciting money. One for a political party (which donation was not in the end forthcoming) and one for a private charitable foundation (I have no idea whether that was paid or not).

    It seems as though you have forgotten this minor point. Rather like Corbyn did when he denied taking money from the Iranian government...

    And I am not a Tory, in case you had forgotten that minor point as well. But don't worry, I make allowances for OEOD.
    I can only apologise for associating your good self with the Tories, understandably, I can appreciate the horror and disgust that you must be feeling at this time. May I humbly ask for your forgiveness?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652
    edited March 18

    Mr. Eye, that's no counter to Mr. kle4's entirely correct point. Being morally imperfect doesn't make the UK as bad as a state that participates in murdering political opponents in other countries with chemical weapons.

    I shouldn't bother. As we saw above, OchEye is a slightly more articulate version of Wisemann. If the facts don't fit the ideology the facts must be wrong (or, when they're clearly right, quietly ignored). He(?) also gets pretty unpleasant when challenged in my experience.

    In fact a very typical member of the hard left - convinced of their own self-righteousness and without a scrap of self-awareness.

    Edit - and bang on cue, Ocheye puts up another post that is presumably meant to be sarcastic but is actually rather amusing showing all those traits in full abandon.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,652



    The Russian Ambassador to the EU suggested this morning that Porton Down is only 8 miles from Salisbury which has the ability to produce the nerve agent.

    If that's all he suggested that would have the virtue of being true, unless the 8 miles part is a vile calumny?
    He inference was - we did it
    In the noble cause of pedantry, you inferred that that was his implication.
    TUD, I protest! I'm meant to be the pedant in these parts.
This discussion has been closed.