Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

1,377 thoughts on “Andy Myles”

1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 46
  • John Goss

    Mary @ 2.05 pm

    I’ve absolutely no idea what all the fuss is about Maria Miller stealing a mere £45,000. After all it’s part of the Neocon credo to rob the masses. She’s doing what comes naturally to these bloodsuckers. After all she’s apologised. You don’t get that very often.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !

    “The spin doctor Craig Oliver featured above is married to the BBC News presenter Joanna Gosling.”
    _________________

    Would you say that anyone who works for the BBC should not be married to someone who works for a political party (or, conversely, that anyone who works for a political party should not be married to someone who works for the BBC?

    If so, which one of the two should give up their job? And would such a solution not be a violation of the couple’s human rights (freedom of marriage)?

  • Mary

    Last night on BBC News, a David Schenker of the Washington Institute can be heard to describe the 1200 Palestinian prisoners as ‘killers with blood on their hands’. He was not corrected or questioned and the lie was allowed to stand.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABBDrnBZ_xg#t=168

    He is: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/experts/view/schenker-david

    Its board of advisors includes Kissinger, Perle, Lieberman, Rice, McFarlane, etc http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/about/board-of-advisors

    The directors are http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/about/board-of-directors

  • Ben-Scot NON-collaborator

    This is not awe-inspiring.

    “According to the Kyiv Post, Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network (part of the Omidyar Group which owns First Look Media and the Intercept) provided 36% of “Center UA”’s $500,000 budget in 2012— nearly $200,000. USAID provided 54% of “Center UA”’s budget for 2012. Other funders included the US government-backed National Endowment for Democracy. In 2011, Omidyar Network gave $335,000 to “New Citizen,” one of the anti-Yanukovych “projects” managed through the Rybachuk-chaired NGO “Center UA.” At the time, Omidyar Network boasted that its investment in “New Citizen” would help “shape public policy” in Ukraine…

    – See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/03/01/pando-expose-glenn-greenwalds-boss-billionaire-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government/#sthash.SWxTSzZs.dpuf

  • John Goss

    Thanks for that link Ben-Scot. It is quite dated but nothing surprises me over the Ukraine issue especially after the BBC yesterday shamelessly reported on the findings of the illegal Yakunyets regime that Yanukovich’s police were responsible for the February shootings in Kiev, having failed to report at all the leaked phone call from Paet to Ashton. Has Greenwald responded on behalf of Omidyar do you know?

  • BrianFujisan

    Rest in Peace Margo MacDonald’

    A beautiful Light in Scottish politics goes out

  • technicolour

    Is anyone going to notice that ESLO (shrieks of tr*ll) also disagreed with the forced deportation of a young woman in the middle of her studies? No?

  • technicolour

    Poor Habbakuk. I can’t see why people would block someone who, by putting in a different viewpoint, is practically begging them to make whatever point they have with reasoned arguments. Seems counterproductive and fingers in ears to me.

  • technicolour

    But then, in personal arguments, the weight of the evidence gets lost. And there is so much on this board that it can do anyway. I’ve often wondered about a blog which would compile the research done in the comments section into manageable chunks.

  • Clark

    Technicolour:

    11:18 pm; yes, I’d noticed.

    11:36 pm; I agree that Habbabkuk creates opportunities to present reasoned arguments, and I do wish people wouldn’t respond with insults. I don’t have much sympathy though, because Habbabkuk goes to great lengths to wind up and belittle other contributors, sometimes submitting nearly as many comments as everyone else put together.

    11:45 pm:

    “…the evidence gets lost. And there is so much on this board that it can do anyway. I’ve often wondered about a blog which would compile the research done in the comments section into manageable chunks.”

    Yes, the evidence becomes very difficult to find again after a while; some sort of indexing would be a fine thing, but difficult to automate. Even better would be if contributors were to “graduate” to become Wikipedians. But many of the hot-heads here wouldn’t be able to abide by the rules at Wikipedia for more than a day or two.

  • technicolour

    “I don’t have much sympathy though, because Habbabkuk goes to great lengths to wind up and belittle other contributors, sometimes submitting nearly as many comments as everyone else put together.”

    yeah but, yeah but. The belittlement and viciousness against him at the beginning were astonishing. And generally, if you don’t know that person personally, then it’s not personal? I mean, I don’t care if anyone on this board calls me names, unless they’re someone I have actually previously ‘related’ to. It’s a forum for political debate and questioning, innit (?) But also an opportunity to use typing to cross a divide, which is jolly important, for us typists.

    As for submitting loads of comments – well, many of us are guilty of that (me in the last half an hour) and occasionally Habbakuk does this, but occasionally he doesn’t. It’s interesting that the strife and trouble has happily, at times, continued quite without him, and with ESLO and RD taking the ‘troll’ flack, quite wrongly, I think.

    Moving onto wiki would indeed be a super thing. I’ve just had a look back at previous threads and just moving those on Africa to a central point would be a serious work. OK (deep breath) will try when I have a free couple of hours – and thank you.

  • Clark

    A lot of the sources cited on this blog would be challenged at Wikipedia, and would be deemed insufficiently rigorous. PressTV, for instance. Craig’s own assertions and testimony would probably be inadmissible under the “no original research” and/or “no primary sources” rules. Maybe the best thing would be a wiki specifically associated with this blog, with references linking back to the articles and comments.

  • technicolour

    well, no, everything should have to satisfy those rigorous criteria (my personal rule is 6 sources, btw)

  • technicolour

    But yes, you’re right: primary testimony (among others) is vital and should be included – so a wiki associated with this blog could be a very good thing

  • technicolour

    Aargh – agreeing and disagreeing: I’m turning into Macky 🙂 Don’t let it mess up anyone’s head, please.

  • MH370

    So the pilot signed off Malay ATC unaware TWO tracking devices had been turned off 15min earlier. Next minute the plane makes a turn, then rises to 45k feet, then down to 22k and disappears. But Rolls Royce and Inmarsat continued to receive signals for a further 6 hours, until the final good engine landing and cryptic double pings?!! The plane is in Diego Garcia, they tried telling us it was Iranian with 911 boxcutters. Nobody is buying, the Maersk deaths, the one-off 72 hour air curfew over DG, etc are not coincidences. Once again they want us to believe some cave dwellers brought down 110 story WTCs.

  • Mary

    Not threatening. Just flagging it up. Quite so Ms Hindley.

    ‘Maria Miller expenses report: Listen to Telegraph reporter’s phone call with special adviser Joanna Hindley
    The Telegraph releases an audio recording of a call between Joanna Hindley, Maria Miller’s special adviser, and Telegraph reporter Holly Watt made as the newspaper prepared to publish a story about the Culture Secretary’s expenses claims’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/us-politics-video/10745952/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-Listen-to-Telegraph-reporters-phone-call-with-special-adviser-Joanna-HIndley.html

  • Mary

    The cat is finally out of the bag

    Apr 5th 2014

    Tory-in-disguise Lord Warner has confirmed what campaigners knew all along – the plan to end our NHS as a service free at the point of use

    So now we know the latest steps being proposed to make the NHS into a full-blown private health service, just like it was before 1948.

    The various steps to achieve this supreme goal of the private marketeers have been prepared right from the start with great care.

    First, Tony Blair encouraged and then pressured NHS hospitals to become foundation trust hospitals, with more independence and financial self-reliance – the first nudge towards becoming self-standing suppliers within a competitive market.

    David Cameron took this further by announcing that all health services would be open to tender by any qualified provider.

    That began the massive process of privatising and outsourcing every chunk of the NHS that the free marketeers, nearly always a very small cabal of the biggest healthcare multinationals, could get their hands on – or rather teeth into.

    Meanwhile the Lansley plan for the wholesale privatisation of the NHS had been hatched in deepest secrecy between the Tory high command and the big private healthcare companies before the election, with not a word about it in the Tory 2010 manifesto because if it had been known it would have blown the Tories away.

    But all the time the mantra was repeated that the NHS would remain free at the point of service.

    But now the cat has been let out of the bag – that the Tories and their big corporate friends had in fact intended all along that it would become a fully paid-for service. Only they didn’t dare say so before now.

    Norman Warner, an ex-civil servant Tory Blairite camouflaged as a Labour health minister, let it be known in the Guardian that the NHS is “an outdated, cosseted and unaffordable healthcare system … which no longer meets the country’s needs … and is often poor value for money.”

    We now see why the Tories, especially Jeremy Hunt, have been so keen to demean and vilify the NHS on every occasion they can over the last several months – cue the need to junk the old, failing NHS and to announce the dawn of a brand-new burnished private healthcare system and – what a surprise – you’re going to have to pay for it if you want to get any medical attention.

    Oh yes, they’ve fixed the initial fee at the loss leader level of £10 a month, but don’t be taken in by that.

    Remember tuition fees. Originally we were assured they’d be held at £3,000, but then as soon as the Tories got in, they tripled them to £9,000 to “market-clearing” levels.

    If every adult in the country paid the £10 a month, this new tax would raise £5.4 billion. If that were tripled, it would offer serious money for the healthcare privateers.

    It is incredible that Warner has the gall to claim the NHS is “unaffordable” without mentioning that the Tories have deliberately imposed a £20bn cut on the NHS over the current five-year period to put it under intolerable strain and potential breakdown in order to pave the way for a fully paid-for private service, which has always been their secret aim.

    But then the Tories would never put profit at risk by telling the truth.
    ~~~
    Michael Meacher is Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton.
    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-ff0b-The-cat-is-finally-out-of-the-bag

  • Resident Dissident

    @JOhnGss

    “Thanks for that link Ben-Scot. It is quite dated but nothing surprises me over the Ukraine issue especially after the BBC yesterday shamelessly reported on the findings of the illegal Yakunyets regime that Yanukovich’s police were responsible for the February shootings in Kiev, having failed to report at all the leaked phone call from Paet to Ashton. ”

    Lie

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26444747

    Don’t you think that there is just a possibility that your friends might ever resort to spreading misinformation and bugging phone calls – because of course they are not capable of such things are they, having the same high standards of honesty as yourself.

  • Resident Dissident

    I should also add that the BBC TV News at 10 on the 3 April when reporting on the Government enquiry very clearly referred to the Paet-Ashton conversation.

  • John Goss

    Resident Dissident, 5 Apr, 2014 – 9:09 am

    Absolute tosh. And you know it. It mentioned the conversation in a marginalised world news report without giving any proper details, and to my knowledge never made the mainstream UK news. Unlike the load of bollocks from Yakunyets investigating his friends and finding them innocent. A balanced news report would have mentioned Catherine Ashton’s conversation with Urmas Paet in the same report to show there are two sides. It’s you Resident Dissident (or whatever your name is) that does not agree with balanced reporting. You just accept everything the BEEB says. I’ve already pointed you to two reports that show it was the demonstrators that did the sniping. You’re so full of it you can’t see the wood for the trees.

1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 46

Comments are closed.