The Labour Party is being remarkably coy about releasing the actual result of its Scottish accounting unit leadership election, giving only a percentage. The entirely complacent unionist media is complicit in what amounts to a deception. The stunning truth is that in a one person, one vote election among the entire membership of the Labour Party in Scotland plus trades union supporters, Dugdale won with 5,217 votes (out of a claimed electorate of 21,000, many of whom do not exist or could not be arsed to choose between two right wing numpties).
UPDATE: A second Labour figure just rang me to assure me my information – which was from a good source – is wrong. She would not give the actual figure and only said it was “higher”. I offered to take down the post and publish an accurate figure if she would give it, but this was declined.
Macky, I think you have it in the wrong order. Anyone who voted for the Iraq war should be tried for war crimes first, and then ejected from the party if found guilty. Thus, they cannot be ejected until tried. I support Corbyn’s wish that there is such a trial, though I am afraid I find the possibility of it happening remote.
Meanwhile I would rather we didn’t make uncivil remarks about each other – we are, I think, both on the Left.
@Robert Crawford, 8.32pm.
Thanks for that. I found the Scottish independence one much more witty than the Corbyn one, and for those who haven’t seen Hitler on Scottish independence…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pULblkS5uZI
You talk about your ‘next’ CAT scan?! I wish you a good recovery and assume that you’ve researched investigative procedures like CAT scans and treatments like chemo.
I have to hold fire on all this stuff, because it would be improper for me to let lose. I’ll just say that there are complimentary, alternative treatments for cancer, probably the best known being turmeric (the effective component of which is curcumin), which scores of scientific studies have shown to be an effective treatment, particularly with regard to shrinking tumours. Here’s the UK Cancer Research’s measured take on it…
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/can-turmeric-prevent-bowel-cancer
I don’t have the time or energy at the moment to cite academic studies about turmeric. This populist article does cite references…
http://www.lifeextension.com/Magazine/2011/3/How-Curcumin-Protects-Against-Cancer/Page-01
(On war crimes, there are some practical problems about pressing charges in a fair manner. The central case would likely involve premeditation, in which case Blair’s secret meeting with Bush – and any of Blair’s inner circle who knew the contents of that meeting – may be the only ones who are chargeable in practice. I want justice of course just like the wider anti-war movement – but that does not mean I am willing to support a court that declares people guilty on a whim).
Macky
What right do you have to say who should or shouldn’t be in the Labour Party – the only think that is abundantly clear from your nasty and unpleasant utterances is that you shouldn’t even be in civilised company let alone the Labour Party.
According to the Whitehall gazette, aka the Telegraph newspaper Jihadi Johnny leader of the beheady beatles has revealed his face for the first time.
Jihadi Johnny has also vowed to return to Britain according to reports, he will return alongside the Khalifa who the leader of the gang.
Jihadi Johnny has promised to keep up his head chopping antics with his pen knife, the video of Johnny boy was obtained by the Free Syrian army, but is thought to be of poor quality.
Of course the FSA are fighting against Johnny and his beheady beatles, so how they obtained the grainy video is well dubious at best.
Meanwhile the Americans has offered a reward of £6 million quid for thd capture of Johnny boy, that should be easy to collect just wait till he lands at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, with his Khalifa in tow.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11819279/Jihadi-John-reveals-his-face-for-the-first-time.html
@Jon, I don’t know whet-ever to credit you for that piece of sophistry, or to shake my head in disbelief if that was meant as an earnest response.
If you find my remarks uncivil, rest assured I find many of your remarks quite objectionable.
More interesting, perhaps, than the reduction of the savings deposit guarantee from £85k to £75 is the fact, little publicised as far as I can see, that Cyprus style bank ‘bail-ins’ will be coming to a bank near you come January 2016. Now I may have got this wrong—and I’m sure there are posters here who will put me right if I am wrong—but as of january 2016 if a bank threatens to go tits up they will be able to requisition the savings of depositors (amongst others) above the deposit guarantee limit of £75k to help shore up their liquidity. A rather fundamental violation, methinks, of a previously sacrosanct principle of trust. Anyone know about this?
“I’ll just say that there are complimentary, alternative treatments for cancer, probably the best known being turmeric (the effective component of which is curcumin), which scores of scientific studies have shown to be an effective treatment, particularly with regard to shrinking tumours. Here’s the UK Cancer Research’s measured take on it…”
And if you read Cancer Research’s measured take you will find that turmeric is not being claimed as a treatment for cancer – but as a preventative measure from stopping pre cancerous cells becoming bowel cancel – which I don’t think Robert Crawford has. Please stop your quackery it doesn’t help anyone – just direct people to what Cancer Research and Macmillan say and leave it to those who know what they are talking about.
Macky, so you would eject people from the LP before they are found guilty of crimes? On what basis? How would you use the party’s constitution or British legal system to achieve this? (It’s very easy to exit acrimoniously from a debate with a broad accusation of ‘sophistry’, but that’s not a reasonable replacement for clearly stating your opposition to a given opinion. I don’t know what it is you are objecting to.)
“Macky, so you would eject people from the LP before they are found guilty of crimes? On what basis?”
This is just a legal nicety for the Vyshinsky’s of this world I’m afraid.
Jon; “Macky, so you would eject people from the LP before they are found guilty of crimes?”
Dear Lord ! Ok, nice & easy;
You asked me if I was Leader of the LP, would I eject her ?
I replied ” I would have her tried for her role in the many crimes committed by New Labour”
I further added that in my opinion, ” if we had a free & fair Democracy, she & all the other warmongering dupes/criminals, at the very least would have been barred from Public Office for life.”
Note the past tense of “would have”, namely as soon as the deception for Iraq became undeniable, and I am also alluding to her likely knowledge & abetting of “Extraordinary Rendition”.
Now how on earth do you get from the above that I “would eject people from the LP before they are found guilty of crimes?” !!!
This really is troll-like reasoning/debating !
Very true because the Itraq war was accidentally started when Saddam broke wind loudly in his bathroom that was wire tapped by the NSA. The operatives eavesdropping mistook the loud fart (just like the Gulf of Tonkin) for the sound of firing the deadly and destructive swiss army missile; nuclear tipped, chemical weapon tipped with VX nerve gas, and Tabon and Sarin tipped with anthrax and ebola thrown in for good measures, and other things that as yet have not been invented. These missiles getting fired would have landed forty five minutes later in the middle of London and Washington and every other major city around the world, also would have knocked the Earth out of it’s orbit too!
Any court would really have difficulties without the proof of intent of the war mongers who were discharging their duties towards their sponsors and the shareholders thereof. The millions of Iraqi and Afghan dead and maimed and the same countries laid in ruin and destroyed are not proof enough and who knows Iraqis may have vandalized their place just to fit up the Saint Tonykins and his bumchum the cheer leading alcoholic and user of executive substances whom happened to have been selected to be the potus at the time.
We just cannot go around charging people and taking them to court on a whim, Milosevic and the rest of the war criminals were all brought to trial because their intent was with meticulousness documented. As was the case for Goering and the rest of his gang back in Nuremberg.
Macky has a point. It’s inconceivable that politicians’ who voted in favour of the criminal enterprise that was the Iraq invasion, were unaware of the facts on the ground as outlined by UNSCOM – namely that as long ago as 1998:
“90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability [had] been verifiably eliminated. This include[d] all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/19/iraq.features11
This was also reiterated during on the record press conference statements by both Powell and Rice in 2001/02. Their tune only began to change following the events on 9-11.
Now if a layman like me in 2001/02 was absolutely convinced that Saddam was no threat (which was the reality at that time), are we seriously to believe that the politician’s’ who voted for war, believed the contrary?
Macky – so we’re in agreement, then: you would only eject people from the LP after they have been found guilty of a crime. I am afraid it sounded like you would summarily eject a long list of people from the party, so I am glad to hear that is not the case.
I suspect the ICC would be the court that would hear these charges, though I think cases need to be referred by a member state (and it would take years). Thus, Corbyn would need to lead Labour to electoral victory for this to happen (possible, but the party may yet sabotage him). Alternatively Labour could hold an internal disciplinary process, though I doubt it could eject members for following party policy (however criminal it is regarded to be) and I don’t know the party’s constitution to say if this could be employed in such a fashion.
I would agree about legal action on the topic of extraordinary rendition if it is possible, but I am not sure what international legislation would apply. Whilst it represents a serious injustice, I am not certain it would pass the ‘war crime’ level of severity. Again, I am in favour of due process, even if that risks failing to get the convictions against the Iraq war cabinet that we generally want.
“@ Macky, not only would I send you back to Squonk where you belong, I would have you tried for your role in the many attempts to diminish Craig’s blog and your crimes against the English language.”
Squonk is now dominated by Trowbridge and his theories. Perhaps Macky could ‘reside’ over there and fight with Trowbridge instead of people here. Fighting is what keeps her going, her bread of life, so to speak. If she wasn’t fighting online she’d be fighting with next door’s cat.
Whatever Cancer Research say, it’s a good idea to take turmeric in small amounts every day.
Heated, with oil and a little black pepper. Massively improves absorption.
Daniel – I certainly think a case should be brought. How it should be brought in practical terms is a key question though, since the UK is not presently going to refer itself to the ICC!
The defence that some politicians will employ will be that they were lied to about the intelligence, and I think that needs to be tested in an open court. I earnestly hope that this happens, for at least a core set of politicians on both sides of the pond. There will probably be a public-interest test as to who is included in the charges.
“Macky, so you would eject people from the LP before they are found guilty of crimes?”
There is precedent for this, as Atlanticist Labour ejected leftists from the party during the 80s and since.
Let’s be honest. We wouldn’t be losing much would we.
Most of the Blair intake are no more than robotic clones, including Burnham, Cooper and Kendall.
The Labour Party today, at the top level, is composed of careerists and neocon entryists.
Of course, get rid of them.
Their righful home is in the Lib Dems or the Conservative Party.
They’ve absolutely nothing to do with the values of the Labour movement, in any way.
That at least should have been obvious for about 20 years now.
Jon; “I suspect the ICC would be the court that would hear these charges”
Why can’t they be prosecuted under British Law ?! Lying to commit this Country into committing the ultimate crime under International Law of an illegal war to carry favour with another country’s leader, and for personal vested interest paybacks & spin-off material benefits to themselves & associates, is by all definitions Treason, plus a whole host of other inherent criminality I would have thought.
As to extraordinary rendition, here’s Liberty documenting the sorry saga of Government cover-ups of the complicit criminality involved.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/no-torture/extraordinary-rendition
Resident Dissident, here’s a more academic paper about turmeric/curcumin…
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/761608/
I cited Cancer Research UK’s take on it by way of balance, because just about anyone in Robert’s situation will, quite naturally, be in a fragile state of mind (and also by way of balance I should perhaps add that half my family have been wiped out by cancer).
Cells are produced in organisms, and they are programmed to die, to be replaced by new cells. With cancer the cells don’t die as pre-programmed, which results in tumours and all kinds of other problems. That’s why if you’re unfortunate enough to have cancer you will see an oncologist, and oncology is the study of cells (although you have to look hard to find a clear definition of ‘oncology’ thesedays).
The mechanism of cancer is well-understood, yet the cure alludes us, despite the billions spent on research. In fact we’re told that the gobsmacking cancer pandemic we’ve had since the mid-20th century is going to get much, much worse:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/03/worldwide-cancer-cases-soar-next-20-years
(and I have to say that the total lack of public outrage when this news came out last year was also quite gobsmacking)
We’re told that this cancer plague is because we all have wonderful lives and live much longer; but actually cancer-ville is mostly for people in their sixties and early seventies, and, increasingly, much younger people. Also it’s just as prevalent, if not more, in the developing world.
Now I’m sure you’ll know where I’m going with this, because there is only one scientifically proven cause for wide spread cancer, that being manmade radionuclides.
I would say that the quacks are the likes of Cancer Research UK, who totally deny the cause and effect whilst taking huge sums of money from a deluded public.
“I’m sure that there are many who will rejoin Labour if JC became leader, yet are reluctant to resign from “Left Unity, the Green Party or similar” just in case he doesn’t win.”
Yes I’d be one of them. I would work to get rid of the Blairites, especially people like Resident Dissident, who as well as supporting Blair and his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, also supports the fascist coup government in Kiev.
Mary Got ya Re The Charity Trip..it was just a thought… I coul not mind if you weny on Sundays..Cleared up…
Ta for Twitter Doune… it has been so amazing….
One from my own –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGBLRiEspo
“Yes I’d be one of them.”
Yes John, I thought so !
I wonder what Galloway would do ? I reckon he might go back.
Macky, I would not be opposed to using British law if that were possible. I have always thought the supreme crime needed a competent international court to prosecute it, but I would be happy to be wrong. I don’t think treason would be sufficient since that is about someone acting against the UK’s self-interest in very narrow terms (e.g. selling official secrets).
In any case, we are still stuck with needing someone to initiate this process, and the Establishment isn’t likely to do it! I don’t know what the scope is for a private prosecution – I would expect that this has been considered and rejected already, probably on grounds of prohibitive cost.
I have a lot of time for Liberty; if they can aid future prosecutions in relation to international kidnapping I would be very happy to see that happen.
If somebody like this can be rejected, expect the worse !
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206781931042423&set=a.1069018361249.2011666.1099783801&type=1
@Jon, you don’t think causing the needless deaths of 179 servicemen and women, & wasting approx $5 billion on a phony war not enough grounds for treason charges ? That all this was done for the LAWFUL national interest ?
Macky – if treason will work as a legal basis within the British legal system then I am for it.
However, laws have a very specific meaning and I am not in favour of changing a particular meaning in order to make a prosecution more likely using that law. We would need an opinion from a lawyer as to whether treason could be used as the basis for a prosecution.
The neo-liberalism of Corbyn’s three opponents is hardly in doubt. In fact it would be unfair to them to suggest that their economic policies are not perfectly consistent with those which, over 13 years, the New Labour governments practised. All three of them were, after all, members of that government and supporters of its policies.
And those policies were essentially anti-socialist, neo-liberal and City friendly. All of them supported the retention of Thatcher’s anti-union legislation, all of them supported New Labour’s privatisation of the NHS, all of them supported the prioritising of war expenditure over social programmes. All of them supported the monumental scam of Private/Public Financing. All of them supported massive state surveillance (compared with which Stasi’s rudimentary efforts were libertarian). All of them support the renewal of Trident while pretending to lament the taxpayer’s inability to fund education, pensions or incomes for the unemployed.
None of them actually supports the reason for Labour’s existence- the defense of the living standards of those who rely on selling their labour power to live.
Far from being a threat to Labour’s electoral prospects Corbyn represents the only chance, and it is a slim one, of Labour surviving in an era in which only the old and the very old can recall when a vote for Labour was anything more than a protest against Thatcherism, warmongering and the humiliation of living under a government which is merely an agent of Washington.
As to Russia, it’s interest in the Ukraine, and particularly the eastern New Russia part thereof, is, as the NATO warmongers trying to provoke a war are aware, equivalent to those of the US, hemmed in behind the Alleghanies, when Spain and France dominated the Mississippi basin and the Gulf.
I am not inclined to the view that Russophobes like Ba’al Devul are paid to post their nonsense but it is difficult to believe that anyone who has been following events in the Ukraine and Russia over the past decade or so can seriously claim that Russia has acted with anything but discretion and restraint or that Ukrainian “nationalists” are anything more than agents of the CIA who are ready to work cheaply provided that they can act like the Nazi collaborators from whom they are directly descended. Perhaps then he is motivated either by neo-nazi sympathies or simply a desire to warm his hands besides the fire consuming continental Europe that Mrs Nuland and the State Department’s arsonists are determined to start. “Fuck the EU” she was once heard to tell the US Ambassador “let it burn” she might as well have added.
Typo s/be £5 billion not U$D !
Jon; “I have a lot of time for Liberty; if they can aid future prosecutions in relation to international kidnapping I would be very happy to see that happen.”
So going back to square one, you would make an alliance with somebody who has a strong possibility of being found guilty of being complict in criminality, if we had a free & fair democracy ?
Or at least without your support until the person was cleared by due process of likely/possible crimes ?
Jon,
My apologies. I misunderstood thinking that you were opposed to the principle. You are right to suggest that while the case against Blair is strong, the means are weak. In order to prosecute, it’s necessary for states’ to incorporate the crime of aggression into their own laws. There are at least 25 that have done so, but unfortunately, Britain isn’t one of them:
http://www.uni-graz.at/~reisiast/d_Lebenslauf.html
Perhaps Blair’s lawyers are now working through the list and cancelling a few speaking gigs.