Tonight I am appearing at a panel discussion following the screening of the long-awaited film by George Galloway, The Killings of Tony Blair. I shall have the dubious pleasure of debating with John McTernan, who has never lacked brass neck but does deserve some credit for appearing to represent the forces of darkness before what I imagine will be a very hostile audience. The other panel members are Michael Mansfield and Lauren Booth.
The film has been predictably lambasted by the mainstream media. But it does include some very essential first hand evidence – myself apart, two other British Ambassadors tell what they themselves witnessed, as do Cabinet members. Noam Chomsky adds some important perceptions. This cannot just be dismissed by cries of “Oh look! George Galloway’s in a hat!! Remember when he was on Big Brother!!” The mainstream media’s response to this film has been unanimously puerile.
The Blair-loving Guardian gave the film two stars and called it “sanctimonious”. If one cannot express moral condemnation of a man who forced through an aggressive war, directly killing hundreds of thousands and destabilising both the Middle East and communities in Europe, and who then went on to make multiple millions of pounds promoting vicious dictatorships, then are we to suspend the very idea of ethics itself?
The Guardian subscribes to the world view propounded weekly by Nick Cohen, that to appear on an Iranian government TV channel is a far greater sin than to promote a war which killed and maimed countless thousands of small children. None of the many contributors appeared in the film under a mistaken belief that George Galloway is perfect. That George (whom I first met in Dundee in 1977) is not perfect in no way detracts from the evidence stated against Tony Blair. On Iraq, George was both right and brave. I would add that I did not for one moment consider refusing to take part on the grounds that George is a unionist.
Getting cinema screenings for an independent documentary film is extremely difficult. This is what is available so far.
I assume there are plans to make it available on wider platforms later.
The Killing$ Of Tony Blair – Official Trailer from The Killing of Tony Blair – Film on Vimeo.
I’ll watch the film with interest, and if there’s a sequel, ‘The Killing of Tony Blair’, I’d pay for a front row seat.
Yes. And the DNC emails and voice mails released by Wikileaks are more evidence that a criminal gang is running the Democratic party and it is headed by a couple running an enterprise -The Clinton Foundation- financed by shakedowns of sovereign states.
In comparison Trump is a minor scam artiste, a grifter opposed by organised criminals who have revived the alliance between Jim Crow Dixiecrats-with a Solid South through the Primary season- and big city machines like the one which has long ruled Chicago, fixed the 1960 Presidential election and sponsored Barack Obama.
I wouldn’t vote for either but those who have to vote would be advised to choose Mr Gonnorrhea over Mrs Ebola and the Four Horsemen she came in on.
Not that it is likely to matter: I suspect that the “results” of the November Election are already tabulated and the explanatory scripts all written. When the “fix” begins in the primaries it is not likely to end before the general election.
Those watching the NEC of the Labour Party checking off the Democratic Party tactics- disqualifying large numbers of voters, removing individual ‘trouble makers’ from the Register, breaking up meetings, etc etc- will understand what the Blairites meant when they talked of making NewLab more like the Democrats.
This Riley Waggaman piece is republished by Russian Insider.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/obama-tells-democrats-vote-yeah-we-tried/ri15933
Yesterday I posted a comment, with regards to EU nations, and the “terrorist” events, that may led, to restrictions on civil freedoms at a later date. I used the USA’s Patriot act as an example.
However after reading several interesting articles, I now find that Britain has far more reaching powers than the US, in the form of the (RIPA) act, Regulation of Investigative Powers act.
The act itself put the onus on the person and not the business, for instance recently in the US, the FBI, tried and failed to force Apple to give them access to a suspected terrorists phone. If the same situation occured in the UK, no such request would be needed. The act forces people or businesses to hand over company or customer data, without any kind of criminal charges produced beforehand.
Unbelievably the person or business is then served with a S49 notice which forbids them or the firm from making a public statement, non compliance can lead to a prison sentence.
The so called “Snoopers charter” will only enhance the RIPA’s powers, the question is do we really trust the government of Britain, to act responsiblely with the data, that it effectively demands from its citizens and businesses?
Stuxnet, was a vicious malware worm that was thought to be created by two nations, I won’t name them, but googling Stuxnet, will probably give you the names of the notorious countries. (Or you can read the link to find out) It was thought that the worm, was created as a cyber weapon to infiltrate coroprate files and accounts.
If governments, and I just don’t mean Britain’s, gain access to corporate software’s back doors, or individuals private data, which it seems increasingly likely, then who’s to say what could be removed and what could be planted from cyberspace.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/77-of-scots-say-new-snooper-powers-will-be-abused.20539
“It was thought that the worm, was created as a cyber weapon to infiltrate coroprate files and accounts”
It was created to give an outside party control over the Siemens industrial operating systems as found in certain nuclear power stations.
You are completely right RoS, the Olympic Malware, introduced a new era into cyberwar and attacked not just PLC controllers. The family of worms were modular and flexible.
A related comment here is that the U.K. agencies have been hiding the extent of their spying since 2007, according to disclosures in court – http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2466411/privacy-international-investigatory-powers-tribunal-dismissed-secret-services-bulk-data-collection
and just for fun, a U.K. newspaper notices the CIA might have been ‘playing’ in Turkey
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/533698/turkey-coup-incirlik-ss-air-base-cia-general-John-Campbell-Erdogan-conspiracy-theory
I’d just assumed it. Filthy cow.
^reply to very-rapidly deleted post on Hillary Clinton’s adherence to the requirements of AIPAC
And see
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/killings-tony-blair/comment-page-3/#comment-615990
above, noting Bevin’s disappeared post, also with Democrat connections. Mods, can you illuminate this?
I think there may be a rogue mod who has hacked into the site.
Entirely credible. WordPress has several vulnerabilities.
Interesting. Though, on consideration and bearing in mind the long history of the libel laws in England, I might, had I been editing, have suppressed it myself. (Truth being no defence.)
I regret however, losing forever the chance of relishing once more certain choice phrases aimed at the Bonny and Clyde of US politics.
(Bonny and Clyde both being dead neither can sue me on the grounds that they were mere innocents by comparison with Mr and Mrs C.)
One point I did make was that Mr Trump was preferable for those who feel compelled to vote at all.
Its a view that seems to be shared by Brian Cloughley at Cpunterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/could-trump-be-good-for-peace/
I pray your inulgence again. The petition for the Government to intervene to try to win a reprieve for Lindesay Sandiford, who is awaiting execution in an Indonesian jail, where execution have recently been resumed, is now live. If you have already tried to sign, you were possibly rejected, but the approval of the petition has now been granted. Please please try again. If you did not see my original post above, please read it, and if you can find it in your heart to do so, please sign the position at this link
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/162973
Personally I am totally against the death penalty for any crime. But it seems that in this case, even the prosecution did not ask for the death penalty to be applied. I am told that this decision is contrary to International Law. in the recent past, the British Government have intervened in the affairs of various other countries, citing matters if International Law and Human rights. Isn’t, then this this just the sort of case where we should intervene again, albeit of behalf of just one person, one of our own?
dunnit
The Killing$ of the Clinton Foundation, aka “Clinton Cash” was released in the US last weekend. I’ve linked to it here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/02/an-apology/comment-page-31/#comment-615999
Less polemical, I think, but just as damning.
Vijay Prashad on this very subject:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/the-iraq-war-a-story-of-deceit/
After watching and listening to Bill Clinton reminisce, about Hillary’s younger days and her love for justice and a life long urge to help people, and juggle family commitments, this 7 minutes will come as a surprise to many, that Hillary, isnt the person Bill describes.
Well according to Dick Morris, she’s not.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=215&v=Bdg8Ab42l-c
So China and Russia are holding a joint naval exercise in the South China seas, on September. Apparently Russia and China have been doing so since 2012, as they become increasingly closer, on the military front.
In my opinion, it will negate other nations claims in the region, over contested seas, and allow China to carry on procuring territory unabated. However I can understand Russia’s motives, as Nato use Eastern European countries as possible staging posts against Russia, along with sanctions.
I doubt the US and its allies will want to go toe to toe with Russia and China, a kind of Mexican Stand-Off appears to be in the pipeline for now anyway.
It could’ve been all so different, and Russia could’ve been a formidable ally instead of a suspicious neighbour, if we’d only have welcomed them in a little bit more.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/07/28/477314/China-Russia-joint-naval-drill-South-China-Sea
This has all the hallmarks of a CIA production, as a anti-Assad rebel commander forgets his lines and is then prompted, by an American sounding man to start over.
http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/07/28/cia-productions-inc-syrian-rebel-commander-forgets-his-lines/
“..allow China to carry on procuring territory unabated.”
Has China actually acquired any new territory since the middle of the C18th, 250 years ago?
Bevin.
The bloody invasion of Tibet by China in the 1950’s which has led to the deaths of thousands of Tibetan’s is known in China as, the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, it couldn’t be further from the truth.
Is it any wonder China frowns on any nation who invites the Dalai Lama as a guest.
I suggest you read Tears of Blood.
By Mary Craig.
Tibet was precisely the acquisition, in the C18th, to which I was referring. China Marches West by Peter C Perdue is all about the Qing conquest of Central Asia.
You understand, I hope, that I am not justifying any nation’s territorial expansion, merely pointing out that, far from gaining new territory, China has been losing it in chunks since the mid Qing dynasty. For example China’s borders with its southern neighbours were defined by the European empires in order to maximise their colonial conquests.
Oh dear rewriting history again – lets just ignore the 1950s invasion and say the Chinese were invited back.
The US says China has no right to project its military into the South China Sea, and to reinforce that denial…the US projects its military into the South China Sea. But China must have more right to land it builds upon reefs than the US ever had to Hawaii, Britain ever had to the Falklands and either ever had to Diego Garcia.
With these provocations it’s just as likely WW3 will start against China as it will against Russia, and I think the Chinese response to a US action will be to sink the whole US fleet. I somehow get the feeling that while the US goads China it is hoping a Baltic nation will start the war against Russia so it seems as if the US may be losing the plot to its own play.
Mick.
In my opinion, the chest puffing, sabre rattling and posturing by both sides is down to trade.
“Each year, $5.3 trillion of trade passes through the South China Sea; U.S. trade accounts for $1.2 trillion of this total. Should a crisis occur, the diversion of cargo ships to other routes would harm regional economies as a result of an increase in insurance rates and longer transits. Conflict of any scale in the South China Sea would hamper the claimants from benefiting from the South China’s Sea’s proven and potential riches.”
http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/armed-clash-south-china-sea/p27883
Wikileaks e-mails, reveal, that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she did her best to undermine Hugo Chavez, and Venezuelan interests.
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160727/1043685783/clinton-emails-venezuela-sabotage.html
In my opinion, consecutive US governments have hampered the development and the prosperity of South America. European governments, did pretty much the same thing to African nations, over a longer and much bloodier period.
However, the American indigenous people’s, especially in North America, suffered greatly. Come to think of it , European nations shed much blood in South America, and Portugal alone stole 5 million black slaves from Africa, that ended up in Brazil.
https://blackwomenofbrazil.co/2013/12/29/25-curious-facts-about-slavery-in-brazil/
Who did Portugal steal 5 million black slaves from?
I was under the impression that Portugal bought slaves in Africa and transported them to Brasil. It is also my understanding that the Portuguese purchased these slaves from black African slave traders.
Looney.
This is quite interesting, I’d imagine that early slaves were stolen, however later, they may have been sold to slavers. It doesn’t however undermine the initial fact, that they were taken forcefully and against their will.
T”he first slave ships were brought by the Portuguese Martim Afonso de Sousa in 1532. The official account estimates that between that date and 1850, something like 5 million black slaves entered Brazil. However, some historians estimate that there could have been twice that number.”
https://blackwomenofbrazil.co/2013/12/29/25-curious-facts-about-slavery-in-brazil/
It’s official, yesterday North Korea declared war on the USA (the North Koreans had probably been watching the Democratic party convention)…
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0e800caf59dc419f873f2945442e6f1a/n-korea-us-has-crossed-red-line-relations-war-footing
I would venture that it’s a toss up between the North Koreans and the Americans as to who are the craziest.
Does anyone want to help the French Parliamentary droids with their latest windmill/project?
Website: http://www.senat.fr/commission/missions/islam_en_france/
They are asking the question “Mission d’information sur l’organisation, la place et le financement de l’Islam en France et de ses lieux de culte” basically which foreign state or states is/are funding the wahhabi-funded mosques in France?
Now I’m not an expert, just lived in wahabbi-land for a few years, they funded my Alfa Romeo sports car, my holiday in China (a day trip) and lots of other stuff. I even went to Macca, city limits, outside the actual town, but even that was pushing it. Somehow escaped alive.
I believe this might help the French “For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia’s dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran.” and finish off with a page from Le Courier Quotidian of Londres
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3242354/Saudi-offer-build-200-mosques-Germany-Syrian-migrants-slammed-cynical-Kingdom-not-offered-refugees-themselves.html
Any other radical mosque funding countries that Craig’s followers/frenemi-bots can think of? . . . . .
Saudi Arabia is the proximate sponsor of both wahhabi mosques and madrassas. However Saudi Arabia is itself largely funded by and sponsored by the US.
Thus Saudi supplies money to ISIS but it is the US that supplies the weaponry, and has in the past acted as the ISIS air force.
It is on record. It is documented and the conclusions are not controversial.
YKMN.
Thanks for the links.
I’m not surprised Saudi Arabia is offering to build mosques in Germany, they’ve been exporting their Wahhabist brain washing Madrassas for decades. In my opinion the root of modern terrorism, lies at the heart of Wahhabism.
The Saudi king, and his predecessors set up the schools throughout the world, and in my opinion, each one is a breeding ground for religious or fanatical terrorist’s. Who are sent to wherever they are needed, and even on the request of foreign allies, to carry out deeds.
Ridiculous question, YKMN. No other country in the World, leave alone the ME, is as heart-fully generous in their very peaceful nature as Saudi Arabia. After all its THE Religion of Peace DYNK (did you not know)?
so France 24 thinks that EDF is in debt to the tune of 37,000,000,000 Euros
if it could sell any of its “stuff” that “stuff” could be valued at 18,500,000,000 Euros
http://www.france24.com/en/20160728-france-edf-approves-hinkley-point-nuclear-reactor
to help finance the Hinkley Point C project a 4,000,000,000 Euros capitol injection will be made, 3/4 of this from the French State.
This leaves the French State very heavily levered in the nuclear world of EDF_AREVA
Or you could say “Many French State Eggs in one basket case”
The figure given for the Assets of EDF is probably a notional accountants figure, it would seem to be exactly half of the debts.
No doubt in FRANCE if your assets are less than half of your debts you are in rather deep water with some branch of state Regulator.
The French State is an 80% stake-holder of EDF.
Now if a further 4,000,000,000 euros are injected into the firm,
does this extra money ( 3/4 coming from the FRENCH STATE)
count as an asset of a debt?
I do not know but it would seem to me as the assets are probably vastly over estimated
most of the infrastructure is half a century old, that this conglomerate would fall off a cliff,
if it were not held up by the FRENCH STATE.
Some more on what’s happening in France…
http://theantimedia.org/biggest-protests-revolution-france/
https://fr.usembassy.gov/demonstration-in-paris-on-july-23-2016/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/16/frances-perpetual-state-of-emergency/
It’s only 20 miles or so across the Channel, but none of this ever gets reported by the UK media.
I wonder why…
Hardly a secret.
What is a secret is why do not the administration presently running FRANCE
tell their populace what dire financial straits FRANCE is in?
Continuing trouble in SYRIA
Syria has appealed to the UN claiming that 45 civilians were killed and 50 injured in US-led coalition airstrikes outside the city of Manjib near Aleppo on Thursday.
“In two letters addressed to head of the UN Security Council and the UN Secretary-General, the [foreign] ministry called for stopping attacks and atrocities committed against civilians, calling for bringing the perpetrators to justice,” stated the Syrian state news agency SANA.
“The letters went on to say that any counterterrorism efforts in Syria are doomed unless done in cooperation with the Syrian government in accordance with international law and the UN Charter.”
RT
SYRIA does have a good point.
If the U.S.A. coalition kept out of SYRIA,
it is quite likely the people of Syria aided by Russia could draw things to a conclusion.
BUT that is not what the U.S.A. want.
The U.S.A. want to be top dog everywhere and they do not want Russia to be top dog anywhere.
So the horrible mess in Syria will continue.
However perhaps if the Donald gets the job it might end, one thing is for sure the killing will go on and on if Clinton gets in.
I suspect that the origin of the war in Syria is the U.S.A. destabilizing Syria in an attempt to deny Russia the use of their leased naval base in Syria.
I posted this here this morning, but it was rapidly deleted, I know not why.
Clinton Email: “We Must Destroy Syria For Israel”
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email-we-must-destroy-syria-for-israel/
I have now read the “email” several times, and I strongly suspect it is a fake. It could almost have been written by somebody here at this blog – since it describes what many of us feel.
Itsy,
I don’t believe SYRIA has posed much of a problem to ISRAEL sine the war in 1967
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
They stole the Golan.
No its not a fake. It came, if I recall correctly from one of Hillary’s friends, the guy that Hitchens fell out with.
This article on the ‘understaffed’ JTRIG at gchq mentions attacks on Syria, ( but the main focus is the ancient Persia)
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/gchq-url-shortener-twitter-honeypot-arab-spring
In context it seems that JTRIG didn’t start the Syrian war, they were tweeting people to death quite early on, within two months of the start?. . .
The account was . . . active between May and June 2011, and only tweeted between 9 AM and 5 PM UK time on Monday to Friday. staff don’t get to leave early on Friday?? Whatever happened to the POETS – piss off early, tomorrow’s Saturday! – culture?
More from Vice on JTRIG habbas/jim’s
It seems bizarre that when managing fake personas, JTRIG is only capable of controlling a limited number of accounts, with exactly the same content, at limited times, and mainly using English. However, a page from the leaked JTRIG document provides some insight into the difficulties faced by JTRIG agents in conducting their operations, including difficulty in maintaining more than two or three aliases and limited access to language advisors.
They seem to have better PCs in 2016/2017!
Note to Ms. Nicola Sturgeon ( E.U. on the slide)
E.U. death knell: Eurozone growth HALVES as French economy grinds to a halt
EUROPE’s economic growth plunged by half in the second quarter of 2016, raising fears the outlook for the bloc is worsening.
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/694739/European-economic-growth-HALVES-as-France-grinds-to-a-halt
Across the eurozone, gross domestic product (GDP) increased by just 0.3 per cent, falling from 0.6 per cent in the previous quarter, figures from Eurostat showed.
Unemployment was also revealed to be standing at a worrying 10.1 per cent last month.
France shocked onlookers as its economy ground to a complete halt in the three months between between April and June.
Household spending in the eurozone’s second largest economy plunged in the second quarter.
Eurozone GDP growth halves as FRENCH economy stalls
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36922367
So Nicola are u still going for it?
Absolutely blatant political corruption in both the USA and the UK (not to mention France), but many on this board don’t seem particularly bothered by it.
I wonder why…
Perhaps because after your brilliantly insightful comments and analyses there’s nothing much left to say?
Of course!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130715/11210223804/anti-propaganda-ban-repealed-freeing-state-dept-to-direct-its-broadcasting-arm-american-citizens.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act
“We’re just 3 buzzwords away from success!” says Owen Smith’s inner circle:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/just-3-buzzwords-away-success-claim-owen-smith-camp/
‘onest Guv, we really are…’
Like this , you mean?
https://mondediplo.com/2016/07/03brexit
“UK: lost, divided and alone”
Oh Keerist Habba, why is it I just don’t feel “lost, divided and alone”?
Au contraire, Mon Ami, I feel as if we have found our way once more after forty years wandering in the wilderness.
Diane Abbott
“She attended Harrow County Grammar School for Girls, and then Newnham College, Cambridge, where she read history.[4] At Cambridge, she was tutored by historian Simon Schama.[5] She has since said that Cambridge was the making of her.[6] After university she became an administration trainee at the Home Office (1976 to 1978), and then a Race Relations Officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties (1978 to 1980).[7] Abbott was a researcher and reporter at Thames Television from 1980 to 1983 and then a researcher and reporter at the breakfast television company TV-am from 1983 to 1985. Abbott was a press officer at the Greater London Council under Ken Livingstone from 1985 to 1986 and Head of Press and Public Relations at Lambeth Council from 1986 to 1987.[7]”
____________________
One can imagine what sort of a meal many on here would make with that pre-parliamerntary background if Ms Abbott were a …..Conservative MP.
And is it true that King David bought a wife for 200 Philistine foreskins?
After David killed Goliath, Saul’s son, Jonathan, fell in love with him.
The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 1 Samuel 18.1
He loved him so much, in fact, that he stripped off all his clothes and gave them, along with his bow and sword, to David.
Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 18.4
Of course, Jonathan wasn’t alone in this. Everyone loved David because he behaved so wisely.
David … behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants. 18.5
One day when David was returning from slaughtering Philistines, the young women from all the cities of Israel came to greet him. They danced and sang a song that went like this:
Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. 18.7
Saul didn’t like the song, though, because he, like God, was proud of his killings. So it pissed him off when the dancing girls praised David for killing ten times more than him.
Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousand. 18.8
So Saul was after David from that day forward.
Saul eyed David from that day and forward. 18.9
Anyway, the next thing you know God’s evil spirit is back and is all over Saul again. And guess what he did this time: he prophesied. (That’s what happens when an evil spirit from God comes upon you.)
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied … and David played with his hand. 18.10
While Saul prophesied under the influence of God’s evil spirit, “David played with his hand” and Saul tried to kill him by throwing a spear at him. Twice. But he got away.
Saul cast the javelin; for he said, I will smite David even to the wall with it. And David avoided out of his presence twice. 18.11
Since Saul couldn’t kill David with his spear, he figured the next best thing would be to give David his oldest daughter as a wife.
Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife. 18.17
But David refused to take her.
David said unto Saul, Who am I … that I should be son in law to the king? 18.18
So he tried another daughter, Michal, who like everyone else “loved David.” But David refused her, too.
Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. And Saul said, I will give him her … And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say … be the king’s son in law … And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a king’s son in law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed? 18.20-23
Finally Saul came up with a deal that David just couldn’t refuse. He offered to sell Michal for 100 Philistine foreskins.
Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines. 18.25
And this “pleased David well.”
And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well. 18.26
He was so pleased, in fact, that he got a bit carried away and paid twice the asking price.
Wherefore David arose and went … and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife. 18.27
After David paid Saul the 200 foreskins, Saul knew for sure that “the Lord was with David.” (How else could David get so many foreskins?)
Oh dear, Habbakook has gone and Anon1 pops up, but that is by the bye.
Yahweh is a god who is deeply obsessed with foreskins. At least that was true for the first two thousand years or so after Abraham. In the New Testament God, changed his mind, according to Paul. Maybe God was just out-voted in one of those early church councils. Suddenly, foreskins were no longer a hot topic, at least for those pagans converting to that odd, Jewish sect, which later took the name of “Christianity.”
Greek culture, which had swept the ancient world by way of Alexander the Great, viewed circumcision as a mutilation of the body’s perfect form, and no self-respecting pagan was about to submit to that rite. Thus, Paul had to change God’s rules or forget about converting the multitudes of Greek-influenced pagans. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul makes his case–and stirs up a hornet’s nest whose details are not given to us.
Clearly, the matter of foreskins was serious business in the Old Testament:
God said to Abraham, “You also must agree to keep the covenant with me, both you and your descendants in future generations. You and your descendants must all agree to circumcise every male among you. From now on you must circumcise every baby boy when he is eight days old, including slaves born in your homes and slaves bought from foreigners. This will show that there is a covenant between you and me. Each one must be circumcised, and this will be a physical sign to show that my covenant with you is everlasting. Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people, because he has not kept the covenant with me.”
(Genesis 17:9-14 Today’s English Version)
The Egyptians were way ahead of God. Many of them were doing the foreskin thing as far back as 4000 BC, but that didn’t improve their standing with God. Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites later adopted the practice. It seems that a lot of people were sporting the mark of God’s covenant! Couldn’t God have chosen a rite that was a little more exclusive? Had God given the matter any thought?
Before Yahweh changed his mind, he was deadly serious about circumcision:
At a camping place on the way to Egypt, the LORD met Moses and tried to kill him. Then Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched Moses’ feet with it. Because of the rite of circumcision she said to Moses, “You are a husband of blood to me.” And so the LORD spared Moses’ life.
(Exodus 4:24-26 Today’s English Version)
That occurred after Yahweh had patiently explained to Moses everything he needed to do when he reached Egypt. Funny, that Yahweh didn’t also tell Moses that his son needed to be circumcised. On their way to Egypt, however, Yahweh comes within a hair’s breadth of terminating Moses’ career over that little misunderstanding. Zipporah does save the day by performing the circumcision rite on Moses’ son.
The working brain is not impressed by a god who is subject to such violent and unpredictable mood swings, whose actions are so poorly thought out. This god, for the sake of a foreskin, comes very close to pitching his own plans by killing Moses!
This obsession God has with circumcision is entirely beneath the dignity of an infinite being, but not unlike the views of primitive societies. Primitive societies often mutilate parts of the body to set themselves apart from others. One tribal group will insert increasingly large lip plugs until the lower lip is stretched around a considerable-sized disk. Another tribal group will do the same with their ear lobes. Various tattoos and scar patterns are popular in many places. Still another tribe will cram as many metal rings around the necks of their women as they can, to the point of elongating their necks. (The Guinness World of Records museum in Las Vegas has a model of the woman who holds the record in this last category.)
Circumcision may be more practical than lip plugs, but the working brain does not distinguish between a god obsessed with circumcision and a god obsessed with lip plugs. They are equally silly. How silly to think that a man needs to be circumcised to seal a covenant. How silly to think that a god’s memory needs jogging to identify his people. How silly this whole business! Such a requirement is the work of man, not God.
It was once thought, in our western society, that circumcision had medical benefits. However, the old claims have fallen with further research, including the theory about cervical cancer. Today there is no excuse for the operation except as a religious rite.
Please do free to take over comments from Habbakook Anon1.
Not only did ancient Egyptians practice circumcision, it seems that Egyptian priests were not suppose to eat pork. A lot of the Jews’ taboos seem to have come from the culture of the ancient Egyptians whom they despised.
supposed
Abbott went to Cambridge? I didn’t know that. Funny, because she’s thick as pig shit. Race relations officer makes more sense (“White people love playing divide and rule”).
Have you seen her on Daily Politics? Fucking stupid. I mean desperately fucking stupid. Though reputedly very well remunerated for her stupidity. So perhaps not so stupid.
Also wise not not to put her children through a Labour education. But yes, the hypocrisy is staggering.
Ms Abbott has done well for herself and well for her son and if I were to condemn or even criticise her for that I should be guilty of the meanness of spirit which characterises those on here who condemn or criticise Conservative (or Blairite Labour) politicians who have similarly done well.
Yes, they have done aall right for themselves while crapping on those who voted them in, from a great height. but then again, that is the way of the politician.
Could you tell us in which way Diane Abbott has “crapped on” the people who voted her in?
It’s a nice soundbite but is it beef?
I have seen Diane Abbot many, many times on “This week”,
she is a looney tune.
Yes it was This Week I meant. How Portillo, who is bright and articulate, suffers her, I do not know. Perhaps he is being polite. His gentle put-downs are legendary.
Anon 1 :
She’s far from being ‘thick as pig shit’, she’s a very bright and articulate woman, just a very annoying hypocrite who’s brought disgrace on herself and sullied the reputation of the cause she’s dedicated her life to. Selfish and idiotic.
Bright and articulate? You must be thinking of another Diane Abbott.
My Solomon-like judgement would be : bright enough but not terribly articulate.
No she really is thick as pig shit
Down is up if you’re Diane Abbott.
http://gb.imdb.com/title/tt0072196/
You seem overly interested in Diane Abbott – are you thinking of launching a Diane Abbott fan club?
The times they are a changing and you should try to keep up. Not too much prejudice is attached to the specific backgrounds of individual politicians. What people are looking for is honesty and integrity – qualities sadly lacking in most mainstream politicians.
It is this observation that explains the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Donald Trump in the US. It explains the collapse in support for the traditional left/right parties in Spain (PSOE/Partido Popular) and the rise of non traditional parties in much of the rest of Western Europe.
That the patience of the people is exhausted with regard to liars, dissemblers and media spin is evidenced by the recent Brexit vote. Many more surprises will be delivered via the ballot box in many jurisdictions in the coming months and years.
The horse that you are so carefully riding is in fact dead – and your seeming inability to appreciate that you sit astride a corpse makes you are marginal figure of either fun or despair.
‘You seem overly interested in Diane Abbott – are you thinking of launching a Diane Abbott fan club?’
I do believe Anon1 must be.
“Not too much prejudice is attached to the specific backgrounds of individual politicians.”
____________________
Quite agree with you.
Now tell that to your fellow far lefties on this blog (all that talk of Oxford PPE degrees… 🙂 )
Hah-ha-ha! We have a list of those:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees
and it includes the oft-mentioned Tony Benn, former Postmaster General who revealed his iron fist in1967.
And, of course, our very own “Call Me Dave”, the toss-pot who called a referendum on the EU. Now if that isn’t really blowing it, I don’t know what is…
Alan
you haven’t answered my question of 22h40 yet. Chop! Chop!
BTW – I suspect you’ve lifted that text of yours from somewhere. Admit it! 🙂
(” What people are looking for is honesty and integrity..” refers)
But I will accept that the first two lines are yours.
Jeremy didn’t have much integrity over Europe. A lifelong Eurosceptic, he flopped at the crucial moment.
He didn’t flop; he avoided the argument that has currently over-run the Labour Party. It was more like a postponement of the inevitable.
Avoided the argument = flop.
I was watching a TV broadcast of proceedings in the Greek Parliament and was interested to see that there is a SYRIZA minister (I didn’t catch his name) who’s a dead ringer for Mr Corbyn.
SYRIZA has lost a lot of its former popularity, from which I deduce two things applicable also to the UK political scene:
1/. Do not go a-whorin’ after false gods
and
2/. in the unlikely event of a Corbyn govt, it will become as unpopular as the SYRIZA govt in as short a time.
Note to Nicola
the arse is dropping out of
the coal mining game
the steel making game
the banking game
the oil drilling game
Do not go a-whorin’ after false gods
Like the demi-urge, you mean? “Thou shalt have no other god before me???
Why admit there were other gods?
Note to Nicola
Royal Bank of Scotland ( not doing too good)
RBS performs poorly in stress tests
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36928888
RBS Group performed poorly in the latest European stress tests which assess how the banks might perform in adverse economic conditions.
It is no surprise that SYRIZA has lost much of its former popularity. It was elected by the Greek people to resist the EU. The Greek people reaffirmed what they expected of their government by way of referendum. Upon receiving its mandate from the people SYRIZA immediately capitulated, and failed to represent the interests of the Greek people.
This is not the end – because it cannot be the end. Greece has debts which cannot be repaid and, if those debts are not written off, is locked into an endless cycle of “bail outs” and austerity.
It is likely that the Greek people will try again – perhaps by way of Golden Dawn. Things can always get worse and in the case of Greece they are certain to get worse.
Corbyn may also “sell out” in that it is unlikely he will be capable of resisting the US. All that means is that the British will look elsewhere for a solution – perhaps UKIP will evolve into a more radical nationalist party or perhaps some other group which currently does not exist.
Whatever happens it is likely that we are collectively nearing the end of the road in terms of traditional mainstream political parties – all of whom have been captured by extremist zealots.
“Jeremy is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25 year-old tired, he has not stopped. We are doing our best, but if we are not reported, it is very difficult.”
Now who said that Anon1? Which Angela Eagle said that?
https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/29/the-originis-of-labours-civil-war/
I am just now in the process of reading Against Elections by David van Reybrouck. It advocates adopting the ancient Athenian system of appointing representatives and most officials by lot. I am glad to say that it got a relatively good review in last weekend’s Financial Times.
I think this is an idea whose time is finally coming.
Is reading a “process”?
It is a idea which has never been applied since, anywhere except perhaps by some Amazonian or Papuan tribes.
Can one speak of “government” when talking about classical Athens?
Yeahbut.
You’re assuming that contemporary elites want the best form of democracy.
It’s kinda obvious now that they fiddle even the crappy version they gave us.
Just out of interest – all the talk about Cambridge; I’m reading a book about Anthony Burgess – has anyone here ever had a tap on the shoulder? Does that still happen at St Andrews, Oxbridge, SOAS…?
Also, do spies still wear Macintoshes (of the older, textile kind as opposed to the Apple version)?
Anyone know?
Do you mean Guy Burgess?
A real spy?
This is a real spy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson
Tiny, he is. Like Putin. Another spy.
Why are they always tiny, like Napoleon.
And of course, that bloke Craig’s writing a book about.
Probably tiny.
Anyway, came across this video of the great Russian athlete Isinbayeva . She’s talking about being banned from the Olympics and how bad it feels and so on and they’re all doing a cuddle kind of thing.
It’s a mesmerising speech.
You feel the pain of the athlete who has trained and trained but cannot compete, and may never compete in another Olympics again, since this is their peak.
That’s the main story.
But I noticed that when Putin came into camerashot behind Isinbayeva he looked like he was standing up on his tippy toes.
Isinbayeva is like about six foot or something. Putin is like five foot five.
And we see the same thing with Sarkozy and Hollande in France.
Why is this not the most important story on the planet today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v660CA_lI6k
It’s not women we need to worry about.
It’s tiny earth men taking over the planet.
What the fuck’s that all about.
Frankly Herbie, it looks like a silly prejudice to me. Of course smaller men are less likely to be noticed, which is why they are likely to make better spies than incredibly handsome, wife-beating macho Scots with heavy accents, who are well over 6 foot tall, drive rare sports-cars while dressed in the finest attire, when they’re not placing large bets at the casino and escorting the most eye-catching women on the planet.
The sort of thing which might get one noticed, in other words.
I read that Madonna likes to have a bunch of very capable bodyguards, none of which is over 5’6″, so they can make their way through crowds without too much attention.
I’m afraid you’re totally wrong about tiny men taking over the planet – which US president, or serious candidate for that matter, was under 6′ ? Our trivial culture would not entertain a PM not considerably taller than average, and look at the ridicule Putin gets over this childishly irrelevant point – as just illustrated by your good self.
Your examples would seem to indicate countries which do not mindlessly endorse height discrimination.
Can you think of a Chief Executive, for example, who is not rather tall? (Exceptions being if founder of the company happens to still be the CEO.)
*
I’m halfway through reading “Sapiens” : http://www.ynharari.com/sapiens/short-overview/
It’s pretty good. It addresses some of these points about why women do not become leaders very often, and the illogical nature of these choices – I imagine “tiny earth men”, whatever you mean by that, is part of that mindset which is the problem.
Could you explain WTF that is all about?
For example – if was under 5’6″, would that be a problem for you? If so, why? If not, WTF are you on about?
Glenn
An interesting reply to Herbie although probably more interesting than his various musings might justify.
You may be interested to know that it was either William H. Whyte or Vance Packard who – writing about the US companies world of the 1950/60s – pointed out that the overwhelming majority of US company executives were tall men.
“Can you think of a Chief Executive, for example, who is not rather tall? (Exceptions being if founder of the company happens to still be the CEO.)”
Michael O’ Leary. Five foot one and a half.
The little people are taking over.
I’m tellin ye.
And they’re vicious.
“Wife beating macho Scots”…huh!
Glenn, could you clarify where you got that information from?
If you are citing James Bond, and ergo Sean Connery, one would be grateful to know why you used the plural term Scots and not Scot.
Habbabkuk: Thank you. This is possibly one of the last tolerated forms of prejudice, where it’s considered perfectly acceptable to snigger at Putin (taking the example here) in polite company, or indeed in public, simply because he’s less tall than average.
Possibly mocking another for being bald would be another. If this were any racial attribute being ridiculed, it would be seen as entirely distasteful.
Your point about Packard would be a good case in point – it is rare to find a CEO not exceptionally tall, white and male, unless they are self-made (Gates, Dyson, Alan Sugar, Ross Perot, Bernie Ecclestone spring to mind). These self-made individuals surely prove there is nothing inherently lacking in such people’s capabilities and leadership skills. I read of one (tall, white, male) CEO recently who was expressing sympathy with the prejudice faced by men of average height or less.
It would appear we seriously reduce the pool of available talent, by dismissing the majority of candidates on such trivial criteria.
Yeah. I can’t help being a baldy bastard.
And yet small men are notoriously driven and ambitious.
The CEO of one company I worked for was about five feet four, and another one was certainly under six feet.
Yes, sorry, Guy Burgess.
I don’t see how anybody can get a tap on the shoulder at Cambridge; they all ride bicycles.
It’s probably figurative… they actually get a tug on the scarf which is billowing away behind, as they ride their bicycles across the cobbles.
Perhaps the spy-masters ride faster ones? Next time you’re on a bike among the dreaming spires, watch out for that don on just behind you.
I was not an undergraduate at Yale, but I understand people invited to join secret societies at that university are “tapped”, whatever that means.
And Yale secret societies have been the source of many officials in U.S. intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA. The movie The Good Shepherd does a good job of showing this.
I did not say I did not attend Yale. What I said was that I was not an undergraduate there.
Phew, you had us worried there for a moment 🙂
Hang on… there are four negatives there, if you count “undergraduate” as one.
What are you saying, then?
Glenn
In his usual elusively modest way he is telling us that one of the “higher degrees” he has mentioned several times was from Yale.
I am amazed that you are admitting you did not attend Yale. After Oxford, of course.
Facts are Facts…. The Horrid bbC –
One graph in particular is shocking. It shows how the BBC’s early evening news programme has treated Corbyn – and it ain’t pretty.
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2016-07-29/study-exposes-bbcs-deep-anti-corbyn-bias/
BrianFujistan:
Cook’s conclusion on LK, going from the general to the particular is as poor as his previous blog piece on a supposed ‘paradigm shift’ based on a half understood reading of a 1960’s science book, and zero understanding of the science itself.
There’s 6 hours of election night coverage with LK at the helm, which another poster claimed was full of terrible examples of her bias. I looked at all the purported episodes and found none of them corresponded with the posters description.
And I’m mystified as to why a recent post I made on the hypocrisy or lack of it in the eating of Sea Bass has been deleted. I was making a fair point to a poor argument.
Jim
My Main Gripe with the bbC is Not the Indy Bias, or Corby Bias… But the blood… Iraq.. Libya… Syria..Yemen
I shall look into eating of sea bass….Fish fingers are made of…whatever is left
BrianFujisrsn:
I know perfectly well there’s systemic bias at the BBC, it’s the repeated demonising of LK I’m talking about. I’ve tried multiple times to get a response on the 38 degrees/ LK affair, to no avail. I’m making very fair points.
Yes, Iraq is an ongoing nightmare, who’s denying that? But it’s a separate issue.
The BBC and all of the rest of mainstream media are scum. They are the people responsible for the constant lying about the need to bomb the foreign man, whilst simultaneously berating their own audiences for being stupid racists infested with ignorance.
There is only one effective way to deal with the media, and this is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64U1VTpoCNc
Neil dishes it out very evenly to politicians of all persuasions, he’s relentless on that, and rightly so, it’s his job. Even Craig admitted that in a previous post, praising his impartiality.
Don Siegel didn’t want the title The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which was forced on him by the studio. What he wanted was the Macbethian Sleep No More.
Reading through the sudden flurry of comments, I see no mention of Hillary Clinton, who’s the most corrupt presidential candidate in US history.
I’m out of this lunatic asylum.
I’ll see you on the other side of the revolution (that they don’t tell you about).
Don’t blame me. I’m voting for Jill Stein, after having donated rather large sums of money to Sanders’s campaign.
Large sums of money?
Are you one of the 1%? 🙂
You are of course free to do what you want. However the main aim should surely be to prevent Clinton being elected. Only Trump can do that.
Clinton is truly crazed and will lead the entire world to disaster. With luck Trump will only lead the US to disaster. Vote Trump and give the world a chance to save itself.
A vote for Trump allows for rational belief in American exceptionalism – sacrifice yourselves to save the world. The alternative is to sacrifice yourselves and everyone else.
That is illogical. Trump is the greater danger, therefore, vote against his opponent.
Clinton was Secretary of State – did she attempt to destroy the world?
The “tear it down” nonsense about Trump has no basis is sense, sorry, and don’t forget – the poorest and weakest will always be hurt first and hardest in any major disruption. Thinking that voting for Trump will make everything terrible, so then people will see sense and start voting the right way in future, has no basis in logic or history for that matter.
It is a point of view, and I am not so sure it is illogical,
As Secretary of State Clinton bears responsibility for events in both Libya and Syria. She was complicit in events that led to the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Clinton played a seminal role in events in Honduras. All of this can be considered “run of the mill stuff” by the standards of the US.
Most worryingly, from a global perspective, she has compared Putin to Hitler and adopts an unremittingly aggressive approach to Russia.
That Clinton is a liar and a criminal has been established by the FBI. Sure Comey declined to recommend prosecution but he was pretty damning in his assessment of her.
Trump says he wants to destroy ISIS. Clinton has been part of an administration that funds and supports ISIS. Which approach is better?
Trump says he wants to work with Russia. Clinton wants to confront Russia Which approach is better.? and which approach carries the highest risk to you personally?
Trump wants to create high paying American jobs. Clinton wants to import a minimum of 5 million unskilled workers. Which approach is better?
Trump wants to confront immigration – a subject that raises the hackles of the liberal elites. But bear in mind there are around 2.4 billion people in this world who live on less than $2/day and all 2.4 billion would be better off in the US or Europe. Is it possible to import 2.4 billion people? If it is not then the issue must be confronted at some point.
It is “run of the mill” stuff by the standards of the US – which doesn’t rise to the level of disaster for the whole world, bad though the usual standard clearly is.
Trump is a belligerent, thin-skinned moron with no interest in details, does not rely on anything but his gut instinct from moment to moment. He’s likely to want to drop a nuke if someone insults him. Did you listen to the speeches at that Republican convention?
Clinton was not established as a criminal by the FBI, come on now. They don’t declare someone a “criminal” and then give them a pass.
On the subject of immigration, I don’t disagree with you.
Glen: Comey clearly stated that Clinton’s actions with regard to e-mail security standards would debar her from employment at the FBI in almost any capacity. He also warned the general population that were they to engage in actions similar to those of Clinton then they could expect to be prosecuted.
There is no evidence that Trump is interested in nuking anyone – whereas there is ample evidence that Clinton and her advisers believe it possible for the US to “win” a nuclear war. Their positioning with regard to Russia is supportive of such a belief.
OK – “Disbar from employment at the FBI” does not quite rise to the level of Clinton being a “criminal” – the charge you had put.
If you like the idea of a true fascist running the US, fine – go ahead and vote for Trump.
Yeah.
The world can’t really afford Hillary getting all indignant stary faced feminist with Putin.
But he’d be quite a trophy, he would. The baddest meanest of them all.
She’s already put one on the mat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U
They’re really pushing this woman leader thing now, with May, Hillary, Sturgeon and whoever else.
That’d be cover for darker times to come, I’d imagine.
If history’s any guide.
The Faerie Queene, eh.
Hillary is a warmonger. Trump could become a dictator. By voting for a third-party candidate, I avoid the guilt I would feel over either eventuality, and I satisfy my conscience.
Habbs :
Exactly the sort of regular comment from you know who which I pointed out to the moderator is why I’m not keen on being asked to publicly identify myself.
It’s worrying enough posting the regular Putin averse stuff here which I do, knowing the propensity critics of his have for premature deaths by car bomb, as only recently happened yet again in Ukraine.
Habbakook said “you haven’t answered my question of 22h40 yet. Chop! Chop!”
I have never voted Labour in a general election, as I have already told you, due to the fact that when I was a young first time voter, the local Labour party presented us with Robert Maxwell as the candidate.
Dianne Abbott??? Yes, sounds like a typical Labour candidate; same as Robert Maxwell. i.e. would sell their own grandmother for three ha’pence.
Furthermore, Habba, it was the Labour Party who closed down Grammar Schools, thus robbing working class children of the education that I received.
But of course, the likes of Dianne Abbot can afford to pay for her children to have a good education. *snigger*
Be fair Alan: Labout not only closed down Grammar Schools (they ought to have closed down Public schools as well) they also closed down Secondary Modern schools in which most kids were condemned to a dead end education.
They also founded, in many municipalities, first class Comprehensive Schools which came close to offering a good range of stimulating opportunities to kids from all social classes. Until they were starved of funds and hobbled by governments which believed that it was dangerous to educate workers, the Comprehensive system was good.
And you still haven’t answered.
The question wasn’t whether you vote or have voted Labour.
It was : “Could you tell us in which way Diane Abbott has “crapped on” the people who voted her in?”
(NB – Diane Abbott wasn’t in Parliament when Labour finally got rid of the grammar schools, so that “example” is nugatory)
What does it matter whether someone has voted Labour? Historically all main political parties have had exactly the same policies.
The only exception to this in most peoples adult lifetimes would have been in 1983 when Labour stood on a radical platform under Michael Foot – but they were not elected, so even that makes no difference.
So Atlee was a raving Friedman-like Thatcherite? Hmm.
What Loony’s talking about is bipartisanship, particularly in the financial and economic sphere.
So Atlee’s policies in this area are to be compared to his contemporary Conservatives.
Thatcher is compared to Blair.
Though it does take a bit of time for the party espousing the old view to catchup.
There’s a bit of a lag whilst the best proponents of the old view are ejected from the party.
Happened in both Labour and Conservative parties as the switcheroo was done.
Ya fatten it up and then you eat.
Attlee last stood for election in 1955. In 1955 the age of majority was 21. Therefore the youngest voters would have been born in 1934 meaning that today the youngest person that could have voted for Attlee would be 82.
As most people are younger than 82 it follows that most people would not have had the opportunity to vote for Attlee.
Simply reading the statements of others should be sufficient to forestall vexatious and inane responses.
Loony :
Both my parents and those of most of my contemporaries are still alive, along with millions of others who will have benefitted from the post-war Atlee government which their parents voted for. I’m not sure what point you’re making. Herbie’s abstruse conjectures as to what you ‘really meant’ don’t make a lot of sense to me. I’ll have to read it several times more.
Jim the point is very simple, and it revolves around the meaning of the word “most.”
Most means: “nearly all, the greater quantity, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance”
Most of today’s electorate did not constitute the electorate in 1955. This is a simple statement of fact, and is entirely non contentious. The UK has a population in excess of 65 million and so the personal experiences of your family are only infinitesimally relevant to any calculation relating to the demographic composition of the electorate.
I also note that you imply that both you and your parents are alive and that you are all over the age of 82. I suspect this to be untrue.
Loony :
Read what I wrote again. ‘Both my parents and those of most of my contemporaries are still alive’. That’s not suggesting I’m about 80! Are you suggesting cloning was going on in 1936? Some evil mastermind à la Strangelove at work in the suburbs of British towns and cities? Wouldn’t be surprised if you did! ?
No, both my parents are about 80. They’re alive, as are the parents of lots of my friends.
Still not sure what point you’re trying to make with your thesis though, sorry.
And you still haven’t provided any evidence of Abbott’s views. FACT
Hmm :
It’s not Abbotts views that are in question. It’s the disparity between her avowed high profile political views, which she’s spent her whole adult life espousing, and her actions. The word is hypocrisy. Nothing to do with whether she might have a preference for eating Sea Bass or not as another poster argued ( now deleted).
Exactly.
3 M’s please.
If you are gonna get involved please provide the Abbott quotes. Otherwise ignore mode is on.
Facts please. What did Abbott say about fee paying schools?
Hi Jim,
Just letting you know this poster is not and has never been deleted. Not sure what you meant by that.
But how many times must it be repeated to you (and Habbakuk’s ‘far left’): she is advocating socialism in a non-socialist society. There is nothing hypocritical in advocating and working towards a fairer society, whilst looking after your own and your family’s survival in this unfair one.
Also, here’s something fishy for you.
Pot and kettle. Give us the quotes please.
Listen to this Stunning Inteveiw by George Galloway….
Then you must listen at 7 mins in.. for the uk’s best ever minute of radio –
George Galloway slaughters Andy Slaughter MP during interview on Jeremy Corbyn coup –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRRyh8M6hjY
Brian, that ain’t no interview that was George grandstanding with some sound bites. To suggest that you can’t be supportive of the Palestinians unless you support Corbyn is ridiculous. Given that there is an entirety plausible argument that Corbyn is undermining the labour party with the obvious consequence that when the conservatives call an election there will be a landslide is it not remotely conceivable that labour MPs are going to be focused on the survival of the party. George is entertaining, but lets face it what did he poll as a candidate for London Mayor – around 10,000 wasn’t it. What does that do for the Palestinians?
fwl
Fair point.
I was looking at it with the aspect that the Coup Should not even be happenig at all, And the why The Fks of it all
Anyway..Hope you are well
Brian
Yes fine thanks. Slaughter is a staunch supporter of Palestinians and other minorities and Motormouth Galloway was sounding off. It’s noticeable that Londoners voted for Khan not Galloway and although they could have voted for Galloway 1st and Khan 2nd they didn’t. Khan and Slaughter are both good blokes and pragmatic.
Andy Slaughter denied the existence of a coup. He’s a liar. I really don’t have to listen any more or go any further. Any MP who denies that the last month’s events were not intended as a removal from power without giving the Labour Party electorate an opportunity to re-elect Corbyn – which is a coup – is a liar. Dishonest and not trustworthy. Kick out of the Labour Party and out of Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
JSD tad excitable for you. Do you know what a coup is? This is not Turkey. Coyps involve murder. The attempt to unseat Corbyn is not even a very English coup. Usually if a leader loses a vote of no confidence then the unwritten rule or convention is that he goes. The unconstitutional behaviour is not the attempt to unseat, but the refusal to go when confidence is lost. Blair used to play a high stakes back me or I’ll go and I have no doubt that if he hadn’t been backed he would have gone. Now unfortunately Corbyn is not even coming up to Blair’s subterranean standards.
I totally get the argument that Corbyn’s legitimacy comes from the members, but there are other sources of legitimacy namely the parliamentary party in its elected MPs, the local parties and the nation in a general election. So if you want to defy convention fine go for it but let us then see where it leaves the party after a general election….broken I suspect. Of all those who may bestow legitimacy on Corbyn which group is more democratic: MPs elected in a general election, or the £3 members. Corbyn is the bought leader not the freely elected one.
That is not so. A coup does not even have to involve violence: still less does it have to involve murder. Have you never heard of a “bloodless coup”?
What it does involve is the illegal seizure of power. I am. admittedly, using the word in a metaphorical way: a coup technically involves a change of government. Also, it was of course an attempted coup: it didn’t work. It was an attempt to oust the leader of the Labour Party without recourse to an appeal to the legally constituted electorate of the party. That’s a coup: it’s close enough to the technical definition to fully merit the word. Additionally, Slaughter pretended he didn’t know what Galloway was talking about: of course that was a lie, he could not possibly fail to have known precisely what Galloway was talking about.
No, I think I have been restrained, as a matter of fact, not excitable at all.
And if it wasn’t a coup, why did Andy Burnham MP call it a coup?
The use of the word coup in this context is colour illusion and mischief. In reality it is nothing of the sort. The convention is that if a parliamentary leader loses the support of his MPs then he or she resigns. If there is undemocratic and unconstitutional behaviour it is on the part of Corbyn for refusing to resign. He is still in title leader but in reality something akin to a squatter and somehow reminiscent of the era before 1832.
Of course power is (when we remove our civilising veneer and ornamentation) all about the ability to exercise power. By refusing to get of his throne crying out that the three pound socialists have enthroned him Corbyn has emasculated (if you will excuse the patriarchal term) both the leadership and the party.
Who benefits in the absence of any virile opposition. The egos of Corbyn’s supporters and probably UKIP. Hhhm.
George Galloway is good for battle crys, but I had not thought of you John as the sort of person, who could be won over by a battle cry. I had thought you were fair and measured in your assessments of others.
Just to explain that a little further:
If the majority of MPs in a party vote no confidence but then find they can bring about a resignation they are impotent.
If the leader can’t command his MPs he is impotent.
People can now see that both the party’s MPs and it’s leader are all dead wood.
I do not agree. Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, when they are candidates, are required to affirm that they will abide by the rules of the Labour Party. That’s in the rule book. The rules of the Labour Party state that the leader of the Labour Party will be chosen by vote of the members and supporters of the Labour Party. That’s in the rule book. There’s nothing in the Labour Party rule book about a vote of confidence by the PLP forcing the leader to step down, which is why Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn correctly described it as having no constitutional legitimacy. It is the PLP which has acted in an undemocratic and unconstitutional way, not the leader.
Now, they are doing it right. And you know what? By doing it right, the PLP is going to lose, and by a very substantial margin. As they very well know. That was the reason for the coup in the first place, because they couldn’t do it right and still win.
You say he’s a squatter. Let’s see if he is still a squatter when he has been overwhelmingly re-elected by the members and supporters of the party.
I don’t think you are right about the dead wood. I have an idea that a majority of the PLP will suddenly discover that they are okay working with Corbyn after all, when he’s re-elected. I don’t think you really grasp what the resignations and no confidence vote were all about. They were an attempt to force Corbyn to resign. That attempt was to force him off the ballot. It didn’t work. People will therefore return, when he is re-affirmed as the leader.
I am hardly in love with George Galloway. That’s not the issue, the issue is: was he right? I have no doubt that on this issue he was emphatically right. Let me emphasise that Slaughter did not say that he didn’t agree with Galloway: he said he did not know what Galloway was talking about. That was a lie, Fwl. He can say that the coup was justified, or wrong, or whatever, or that he disagreed with Galloway that it was a coup, but he unquestionably knew what Galloway was talking about when Galloway described it as a coup. Impossible that it could be otherwise.
You did not answer me about Andy Burnham. Did you miss it?
I think that generally speaking where you have an unincorporated association whereby the members elect the officers and the officers lose confidence in their leader then (a) the leader steps down or (b) the officers resign and trigger an election of officers or (c) the leader or someone calls a leadership election under the rules.
(a) would neither be unconstitutional or contrary to the rules of any unincorporated association, but it would simply be a reflection of the leader having lost the confidence of his members. It would not be a coup although in the bar later on members might affectionately call it such;
(b) is quite a common scenario in an angling society or golf club, but in the labour party officers are complicated by the fact that they are MPs and so for a majority to resign would trigger a sort of suicidal half general election and therefore if after a vote of no confidence the leader is still in place they can do little more than resign from shadow government posts. That is not a coup nor unconstitutional, but is just the usual response. Try a vote of no confidence and if the leader in whom the officers have no confidence stays out then resign from office. It would be irresponsible of MPs to stand down as MPs (or would it?).
(c) Hold a members election for leader. Okay, but if the Members re-select the leader what then? They can’t select or deselect the MPs. They have then created a stalemate. Great for Theresa May and Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP become the opposition. Labour MPs might then defect or set up a new party in which case in my book they should resign as MPs and it would then be up to the government to either sit on their hands and enjoy the spectacle, or more likely call a snap general election.
If you can convince me Corbyn will be re-elected I will look at the odds for a 2017 general election, but before I do shall have to check the % of MPs required to call an election during a fixed term. Presumably it is a greater % than the Conservatives currently master, but no doubt they could find sufficient support elsewhere.
This is a most peculiar situation and one which does not call for any conspiracy theory. The hallmark is foolishness (something I know all about). Hope I didn’t become too personal earlier. I forgot the mod rules. Sorry if I offended you. Have a peaceful weekend.
It’s two-thirds. That’s all right, you’ve been a lot more civilised than many. But you still haven’t answered me about Andy Burnham! J
Because I haven’t heard nor seen him speak about it.
This is getting beyond a joke. Why has my post about perfectly legitimate worries about potential politically motivated violence against my person been deleted, when regular threats of the ‘you’re all going to get put up against the wall, you scum’ variety have been tolerated for as long as I’ve been posting here? And the threat of political violence from Putins thugs against his critics is a very real one?
What happened to the notion of free speech? It’s not funny and not impressive.
Funny, yes.
Funny in what way? You think political violence is some sort of joke? Or that Putins political enemies haven’t been culled remorselessly? Just goes to prove my point.
Ah yes the remorseless culling of Putin’s political enemies. Luckily such a thing could never happen in the US
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/another-clinton-associate-found-dead-bill-hillarys-body-count-increases/
Clark:
This an interesting piece from Aditya Chakrabortty on the recent changes in thinking regarding the neoliberal project, you asked me for some links in the subject a few days ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnessing-death-neoliberalism-imf-economists?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Clark :
I forgot to say changes in thinking from the IMF of all bodies.
Jim, thanks; it’s a bit late and I have some electronics to do before dawn so I’ll read your link later.
Regarding your missing comments; if they were replies they’ll have gone into limbo if any of their ancestors was deleted. Moderation is too time consuming to get right; commenters vastly outnumber moderators, and no one can follow every gripe back to its source. The most common reason for deletion is personal insult. Comments that descended from a comment that was later deleted aren’t themselves deleted, they just become detached from the thread and languish in the database, no longer being displayed.
If one of your comments with an important political point goes missing, my advice is to assume good faith and repost. The most recent version of Craig’s moderation and commenting rules is here:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/moderation-rules-commenters/
Ok Clark, no probs, I was getting a bit paranoid there ?
Diane Abbott on political violence (toleration of). She seems to find it pretty amusing too.
https://youtu.be/uB4o5n2EGyA
It must take a certain degree of chutzpah for a supporter of the Syrian “Revolution” (wahhabi militias, NATO Air Force and Israeli military hospitals included) to pose as an opponent of ‘political violence.’
I’m a supporter of people like Osama Nassar and his family, who loathe the usurpation of their legitimate wishes for democracy after decades of brutal autocracy by the Assad family by the parties you mention. Don’t try and pull that dissembling drivel is a claim on me.
of a claim.
Anything to say on Abbott?
Jim, I suppose Bevin could have been referring to you. I’m not sure; Bevin’s comment isn’t explicit. This is the sort of ambiguity that moderators have to try and untangle all the time. I found that it all got a bit much, so I like the Wikipedia rule; “assume good faith”.
Oops, I clicked the wrong “reply” button. Damn.
Jim, Bevin seems to have accused Diane Abbott of chutzpah, and Abbott is a political figure rather than a commenter present here. You replied with “don’t try and pull that dissembling drivel of a claim on me”, which attacks Bevin, who is not a political figure and who is personally present. So you’ve engaged with a commenter rather than their argument. That could get your comment deleted under “play the ball, not the man”.
This comment is to explain rather than to criticise you. This could be why some of your comments have been getting deleted. And yes, I know that not every instance of personal engagement gets deleted. Every commenter sees their own comments as entirely fair. A moderator sees an angry horde and turds thoroughly mixed into the treasure 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGfKu6_loI
Jim, please clarify what you mean here:
– “…by the Assad family by the parties (wahhabi militias, NATO Air Force and Israeli military hospitals included) you mention…”
You may find this report interesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9
What do you mean ‘please clarify for me what you mean by this’.?
That’s from Bevin’s post!
It was late when you posted these accusatory things, you must have been tired, so I forgive your confusion. Read the exchange again! ?
And don’t you dare accuse me of Chutzpah on this subject after you approvingly posted the notorious Paul Craig Roberts article. And have multiply denied having done so. That’s staggering Chutzpah,
Angela Eagle on political violence and the notorious ‘brick’ incident, which sounds a lot more credible than Craig’s attempted dismissal the other day. Such an action had never happened in her 20 years at the constituency office.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/29/angela-eagle-ive-heard-cruel-words-i-know-language-matters-labour-leadership-owen-smith?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
We’ve no idea who smashed the window. Tories or an anti-Corbyn PR company would both have more rational motive than a Corbyn supporter, or maybe it was just a random yob. A possible question to ask is, who would have known that they wouldn’t be caught on CCTV? Best to ignore it and concentrate on the actual issues and policies at stake, I reckon. Does this look staged to you?
http://www.killick1.plus.com/pictures/photo-op.jpg
“the notorious ‘brick’ incident”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppnKHmuVA1s
Clark :
Regarding the brick throwing, Eagle has been going to that constituency office for the last 24 years, nothing like this had ever happened before. Read the article again. Coincidence that on that particular night this act happened? I think not. She’s not stupid, and not deliberately malicious enough to make spurious claims line that. There are some dodgy people out there Clark, as evidenced by the pulling of the 38 degrees petition. Joe Hayden himself pulled it. I know it’s distressing to have to admit, but come on, face facts.
Clark :
There’s no context to the photo you posted. What has it got to do with the brick throwing incident Angela Eagle is describing? It’s like the context free photographs from ‘Moon of Alabama’ some posters link to purporting to be ‘evidence’ of this and that from Syria. Meaningless.
Jim:
Esclavo, thanks for the link to the YouTube video.
The video shows the building Sherlock House which consists of six different offices. At the back of the building is a window displaying two small red banners which may well bel pieces of red Labour Party publicity material – unfortunately the makers of the video are more keen on special effects than clear images, but this seems most likely to be the window of Eagle’s Labour Party Constituency office.
At the side of the building is the window that suffered one broken pane. It is the window to the shared stairwell. Beneath that window is a small scrawl of black meaningless graffiti, so that specific site has clearly suffered vandalism, whether simultaneously with the broken window or not.
It seems to me unlikely that the window was broken in protest at Eagle’s leadership bid. Common vandalism seems more likely.
Jim, it’s YOU that needs to get your facts straight. You said that “such an action had never happened in her 20 years at the constituency office”, but you neglected the graffiti. You and Eagle have both behaved either like conspiracy theorists, or like dishonest political opportunists.
Jim, I’m losing faith in you. I think it’s time you put an identity to your moniker – nothing to hide, nothing to fear, eh?
The photo I linked to was the vandalism of the RBS building in London at the start of the Financial Fools Day protest in 2008. Many photos of that vandalism appeared in the press, but those chosen for publication were all from angles and cropped such that the ring of press photographers could not be seen.
Basically, I’m sick of being deceived and propagandised at. It takes the public for idiots.
Clark :
Er, no! This is an ongoing tactic with Bevin. It’s directed at me I assure you.
Also, I keep pointing out that Bevin originally posted an approving link to an unambiguous and now notorious article by Paul Craig Roberts in praise of the political ‘tactics’ of deliberate mass murder. An incredible article, and this from a former Reagan administration economics apparatchik, so indirectly responsible for unknown amounts of human suffering as part of that grievous economic programme. Factor in the other ‘special ops’ now well known from the Reagan administrations activities in Central America and you have a pretty watertight case against Roberts. Fast forward 30 years, he’s now flying the flag for the most heinous aspects of Leninist savagery. Nice guy. That’s why Bevin doesn’t like me reminding him of his ‘little lapse’ and outright denies having posted the link.
JTRIG pedos manipulating dissidents, risking their lives for bureaucratic fun and games
https://motherboard.vice.com/read/gchq-url-shortener-twitter-honeypot-arab-spring
Listen Jim…Eagle Office Do NOT HAVE WINDOWS…..So Fuck that
Clark
Sorry..Your task..
BrianFujistan :
It’s a feeble argument to use Brian. There’s a shared entrance to the building, a disgruntled anti-Eagle brick thrower would have no direct access to the constituency office. What’s the next best thing for a person with the mentality to do such a thing? Ooooh, this’ll do!
As she said in Guardian article, nothing like this had happened in her 24 years going into that building. Read it again, she says ‘draw your own conclusions’ and I do, she’s right.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/29/angela-eagle-ive-heard-cruel-words-i-know-language-matters-labour-leadership-owen-smith?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
There is an office window with a Labour Party sign in it, Brian. if anyone was planning to heave a brick through a window to send a message to Angela Eagle, there’s very little question but that they would have chosen that one, whether that is a constituency office window or not. See here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppnKHmuVA1s
The window on the stairwell was boarded up with a Labour Party poster or something, a transparent attempt to link the stairwell with the constituency party office after the breaking incident. Why not just use ordinary cardboard.
We’ve no idea why the window was broken. In my opinion it’s a thundering sight more likely to have been broken by an Angela Eagle sympathiser in order to garner publicity and support for her and damage Corbyn – that is in fact what happened, and it was a mighty convenient time to happen. At the same time it didn’t cost the constituency office any money or convenience. What a pile of garbage.
Evidently there is a pub just over the road from which, late at night, inebriated persons emerge….
Any honest person would say: “Well, that window wasn’t in my office and we’ve no information as to why it was broken. Let’s wait and see what the police come up with before we start pointing fingers at anyone.” But, oh, no. Eagle had to make it headlines and blame Corbyn supporters on absolutely no evidence.
Contemptible, smearing rubbish from Corbyn opponents, as usual, but that is hardly a surprise given their antics over the last month or so.
Don’t get obsessive about this one JSD, she is a spent force. This is what Losers do. Why are you wasting your energy on an ugly, fat, inelegant loser? Really!
Alcyone :
‘Ugly fat general loser’.
Welcome to the ‘kinder, gentler politics’.
I rest my case m’lud.
JSD :
I’m far more convinced by the testimony of the person who’s been regularly attending that building for the last 24 years, and in all that quarter of a century has never had any such incident occur. It’s as plain as day what’s going on.
Anything to say about the ongoing vendetta and lies directed at Joe Hayden and David Babbs regarding the pulling if Joe’s petition? This is repeated smearing, when I’ve posted links to the Independent where Joe confirms his witnessing of the misogynistic abuse and also confirms this was the reason he decided to pull the LK petition.
Anything to say in the ‘kinder and gentler’ politics shown by the despicable posting of the Brendan Cox link here 24 hours after her murder?
“Anything to say in the ‘kinder and gentler’ politics shown by the despicable posting of the Brendan Cox link here 24 hours after her murder?”
Put Up or Shut Up!
Alcyone :
In what sense. Clark moderates here and he’s seen it, just hasn’t admitted yet that it was indefensible at such a time. I sort of feel for him, because it is difficult to see someone in a less ‘glowing’ light than one has previously had. But the facts are plain, and unpleasant. Same goes for the ongoing repeated slurs against the integrity of Joe Hayden and David Babbs regarding the 38 degrees petition.
A simple ‘hands up’ of ‘yes, I’m sorry about that, I apologise’ would suffice. Nothing of that nature forthcoming so far though.
Alcyone :
The admission to come from Craig, not Clark. Clark’s just trying to defend him, which I can sort of understand. But facts are facts.
Jim Put up or STFU
Now buzz off!
Alcyone :
You still haven’t specified what you want ‘putting up’ in order for me to ‘shut up’.
What on earth are you going on about?
Jim, we have no idea what Craig found interesting on the page he linked to. He did NOT express approval.
And I’m not moderating here now or (1) I would be precluded from explaining and (2) I’d be deleting many of your comments under this rule:
– “Fair Play. Play the ball, not the man. Address arguments, not people. Do not impugn the motives of others, including me. No taunting”.
because you’re attributing motives to Craig that he did not express.
Alcyone, Jim originally accused Craig of an “interjection” about Brendan Cox. Since Glenn and I found what he was so insistently crowing about he has correctly referred to it as a link. However, the linked page has since been taken down.
Jim makes much noise over small matters in a fashion that I find quite infuriating, but please stay calm and apologise for your insults.