Staring at the screen in disbelief as the BBC broadcast a preview of a quite literally soft focus “interview” of Theresa May by a simpering Nick Robinson. North Korean stuff. For Panorama.
“Prime Minister, a lot of people liked it when you described yourself as a bloody difficult woman”. Astonishingly sycophantic stuff from the state broadcaster.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
the neo-liberals stride the earth and fill the jails
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
The French were behind this debacle; they planned the operation with the Israelis to degrade Syrian defences.They provided air cover for the Israeli jets by targeting a key Syrian radar site with a missile strike, according to a French military source,”close to the action”. The downing of the Russian plane may not have been accidental, as spy planes are a serious irritant to Nato interests. The technology exists to spoof the ID of another plane making it appear to be the enemy, ie israeli.
@ Monster September 19, 2018 at 09:56
Sounds pukka. Have you got any links?
Alas my French military links are not for public scrutiny. However, French actions at supporting anti-Assad forces are widely reported. The French mouthpiece offering plausable deniability is Col. Patrik Steiger who has form in supporting terror groups.https://www.france24.com/en/20180608-paris-attack-bataclan-victims-answers-military-order. More will emerge shortly as we wait for the radar history to be studied.
“Alas my French military links are not for public scrutiny.”
Lol. Very convincing.
^^ Attack upon the person not the argument.
Clark, to be precise it is an attack on the statement. Not strictly an ad hominem under most definitions.
To expand on the remark above, how can anyone give credence to any argument which when challenged is defended with, ‘anonymous sources tell me…’?
Such behaviour would be challenged and ridiculed by majority of the blog if someone defended the American or British Governments and then proceeded to deflect challenge with, ‘alas my Government links are not for public scrutiny’. I am certain there are numerous examples on the Skripal thread of commentators attacking ‘security sources’, Mark Urban’s connections etc.
Irish U: Am I to take if from your dismissal of anonymous sources that you place no faith whatsoever in the credibility of the many anonymous security sources that corporate media outlets cite every day?
i know exactly what you mean irish u, like when the governments of the u.s. and u.k. make all these claims without providing evidence. i’m glad you recognize the need for transparency, especially from known liars like may.
JudeD: Thank you for proving my point in response to Clark re. Monster’s original post and reply. Anonymous sources are welcome here as long as they support the general consensus of the commentators here.
To answer your question, my scepticism is usually context specific and varies on a case-by-case basis. As a historian, by training if not practice, I have a general aversion to anonymous sources as it makes it almost impossible to detect or substantiate bias. However, in the real world journalism would not survive without protecting those who divulge the secrets / gossip of the day.
@IrishU:
“However, in the real world journalism would not survive without protecting those who divulge the secrets / gossip of the day”.
With a handful of distinguished exceptions, real world journalism has not survived. What goes by the name of journalism is mostly government and corporate propaganda.
indeed, in the context of the skripal propaganda, and the propaganda swirling around syria, anything less than full transparency is unsatisfactory. where is the evidence that a nerve toxin was used on the skipals? for that matter, where are the skripals? and why do major news sources give credibility to the white helmets? one simply can’t take the government on faith in these contexts, we need solid evidence.
Irish U: “…my scepticism is usually context specific.”
Isn’t everyone’s? Opponents of liberal interventionism/Neo-conservatism are sceptical about corporate media sources because they believe them to be promoting pro-intervention narratives at the expense of the truth. I don’t believe that anti-globalists (for want of a better term) tend to be unquestioning of sources simply because they conform to their own outlook. Indeed if anything characterises the so called alternative media it is endless accusation and counter-accusation of this or that alternative or anti-globalist source being a “disinfo agent” or “deep state shill”. My own rule of thumb is simply to use the same rule about news sources one would use when choosing a tradesman, i.e., has he or she done good reliable work in the past? For me, corporate media sources usually fail this test.
IrishU – Lol
Ridicule. Attack upon the person, as I said. The commenter was right here for questioning, if you could think of an appropriate question. Your projection of confidence implies some reason for doubting Monster’s statement, so formulating a question should have been easy for you. Instead you just took the piss.
Clark,
The commentator was here for questioning – correct. Unfortunately, he had already declined to answer the most appropriate, indeed only valid, question – ‘Have you any links or sources to back up your claim?’ (Paul Barbara). As you say, a very easy formulation.
My response emphasised that I found his answer – “Alas my French military links are not for public scrutiny” – unconvincing, especially in the context of this blog where anonymous sources are ridiculed when they come from the Security Services or Western Governments but are welcomed when they originate from Russia or if the ‘anonymous sources’ (mythical or not) support the prevailing mood of this blog. I feel perfectly happy in standing over my comment and don’t consider it an ad hominem under generally accepted rules of moderation.
I look forward to other instances of you challenging other contributions for ridicule or perceived ad hominem attacks.
I hope this clarifies the matter.
I’m sorry to hear it, if it’s true. The French can’t get rid of the baggage of their colonial history, in the same way as the Brits can’t. Too many exiles, living in Paris, are too much heard by the Elysées, and you can bet they’re telling the story that it’s a democratic revolt, and never mention that it’s really 95% jihadi.
Nice try. While we’re on the Bataclan theatre massacre, have you got any idea why the venue’s previous owner Joel Laloux was on a hotline from I__ael during the attack?
From territory occupied by that notorious terror-created and terrorist regime, he was constantly updated on what was going on. That was despite having sold his interest two months previously and left France. Laloux had a record of using the venue to host events to support the Z__nist armed forces.
As for Patrick Steiger, he is the spokesperson for the French Joint General Staff. So you’d agree that propagandists can be terror supporters? Have you ever come across that kind of activity in your life full of “links”?
“While we’re on the Bataclan theatre massacre, have you got any idea why the venue’s previous owner Joel Laloux was on a hotline from I__ael during the attack?”
Sounds like the story of the high-fiving Israelis during thevent which has a dedicated thread on thsi blog.
Sources, please !
The not just high-fiving but literally happy-dancing student film crew are only a “story”, for which no credible sources exist, eh? Well, call em up and ask them directly, then. You do have access to their mobile numbers, don’t you?
As for Bataclan, Jesse Hughes’ account of the events should not be dismissed. The whole thing reeks to high heaven, as does that previous Charlie Hebdo charade. In fact, f*ck Charlie, je suis Fredou !
Try this.
The story has become massaged somewhat. Now it mostly says that Joel Laloux is so observant and it was on the Sabbath and he only decided to pick up the phone after several insistent calls. (How he knew they were insistent without picking up, I have no idea.) But it’s not denied that he was on the phone being constantly updated during the events in the Bataclan. Nor that he had previously used the venue to hold events for the Znazi army .
“It’s my baby, whether I sold it or not,” he says. Imagine a hardnosed commercial guy like him having such a sentimental “reason” for his interest in a recently flogged property asset in a country that he has just skedaddled from. What a load of crap.
Agreed, @wonky. Hughes is brave to reveal that security at the Bataclan mysteriously “failed to show up”.
@ Monster September 19, 2018 at 11:21
Thanks, I obviously understand why you cannot provide the source.
It certainly makes sense. France was the driving force behind the Libya War Crimes.
Their War Crimes in Algeria were legendary.
@Paul Barbara – Are you sure it wasn’t Turkey behind it? I mean look what they did in Armenia.
Barbara
“@ Monster September 19, 2018 at 11:21
Thanks, I obviously understand why you cannot provide the source.”
That is really very understanding of you. You are mellowing with age.
This is the Fort Russ story, isn’t it.
And I see Andrew Korybko is at it again, dissing all the Russia supporters for questioning the Russian position. He did that about six months ago when the Russian response to some other event in Syria dismayed the Russia supporters.
I think that was something to do with an Israeli/Syrian “no mans land” on the border, and Iranian forces too close to Israel’s border.
He seems to pop up with this stuff when it appears to Russia supporters that Israel is getting an easy ride. Russia supporters can crudely be identified as The Saker and those who follow his line.. Bit too Nationalist and principled for yer geopolitical analysts like Andrew.
So, last time his argument was that Iran was the real problem, and now his argument is that Israel is a friend to Russia, so you can’t be expecting Putin to be raining missiles down upon Tel Aviv, just cos they caused a Russian military plane to be shot down.
Fort Russ is arguing that France shot it down, but NATO were ready, waiting and willing a Russian response. But anyway, Russia wants to be friends with France, and wouldn’t itself want an escalation. That would only play into the hands of others.
The guy who runs Fort Russ well knows that there are times you lead your supporters and times you mislead them to mislead your main audience.
There are those, in Russia, who urge all manner of over the top response to everything that happens. It could be argued that PCR does something similar. It’s always Putin’s weakness in response, to every provocation.
But there’s a time and a place.
And an unready response would be the worst of all. Surely that’s what the provocations are intended to achieve.
Perhaps there’ll never be a response at all.
Peace shall come through the complete exhaustion of the enemy.
Always a good idea to let natural processes do most of heavy lifting.
France making trouble more in North Africa makes sense?
Why, Macron & co want more “refugees”?
France, Israel and probably Britain as well. It reminds me of the Suez crisis in 1956. Are there oil wells in Idlib?
Don’t think so. But there are probably lots of valuable intelligence assets embedded with the assorted head-choppers and heart-munchers.
“It reminds me of the Suez crisis in 1956”.
Except that in 1956 Washington intervened to stop the invasion cold. Today it encourages everything.
Yes, strange that. Who was US President in 1956?
Eisenhower
– “The technology exists to spoof the ID of another plane making it appear to be the enemy”
I heard reports of something similar during Trump’s cruise missile strikes on targets in Syria. What I think I remember hearing was that some of the Russian-made S-series missiles went after targets that were electronically concocted fakes, produced by, or at least from, Israel.
‘Webster Tarpley from Damascus: ‘CIA, MI6 and Mossad, together against Syria’:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article171932.html
A flashback to the current invasion/occupation of parts of Syria, from 2011.
The CIA and their War Criminal cronies’ modus operandi all over it.
What plane?
All gone now on the state broadcaster. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Israel did nothing wrong. And anyway, it was only Russians who died, and they’ve been dehumanised by relentless propaganda.
Neocon power can always rely on the state broadcaster.
They only have this from our Jonathan Marcus yesterday right at the bottom of the main page. The link there reads:
‘Russian plane downed in Syria: What may happen next? ‘
When you click on that it changes to:
Russian plane deaths in Syria: What will be the consequences?
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
18 September 2018
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-45564125
A long analysis.
I doubt the French had anything to do with this. More likely,
1) a French signal was faked and
2) the usual Znazi propaganda partisans (*) have been told to spread the lie that the downing of the Russian plane was the fault of the French.
[*] Should they really be treated as civilians in this context?
@ N_ September 19, 2018 at 11:46
The Russians detected missiles fired by the French frigate, so what were they shooting at? Just having a little firing practice?
There was a Russian Krivak Class frigate in the area – shown on Russian MoD map not far from Auvergne – SKR Pytlivyy 868 which should have a radar system capable of tracking StormShadow missile launches since the Krivak carries SSN-25 rockets presumably to destroy naval threats
Paul Greenwood, this is the second time you have claimed Auvergne was equipped with StormShadow missiles. The first time was here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/soft-focus/comment-page-5/#comment-784336
StormShadow is an air-to-surface missile. The Auvergne was armed with the Aster surface-to-air missile.
16 cells MBDA SYLVER A70 VLS for MBDA SCALP Naval cruise missile with a range up to 1000 km or Aster 30 anti air missile.
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/French-Navy/Destroyer-Frigate/Aquitaine-FREMM-class.htm
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/DCNS-Sylver-vertical-launching-system.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
MBDA developed a longer-range sea-launched variant for the French Navy, called Missile de Croisière Naval (MdCN standing for Naval Cruise Missile), to be deployed on FREMM multipurpose frigates from 2015
The MdCN was used in its first operational strike during the April 2018 bombing of Damascus and Homs against a Syrian regime chemical weapons production site, in coordination with the United States and United Kingdom. In addition to nine Scalp EG missiles fired from French aircraft, the FREMM Frigates Aquitaine, Provence, and Languedoc launched three MdCN missiles
StormShadow is the UK name for SCALP and the French version is also Missile de Croisière Naval (MdCN standing for Naval Cruise Missile)
It is a surface to surface missile launched from vertical chambers on a FREMM frigate. UK uses American Tomahawk missiles instead. You might find Wikipedia informative The Sylver Vertical Launching System on the new Type 45 destroyer is claimed by its manufacturers to have the capability to fire the Tomahawk, although the A50 launcher carried by the Type 45 is too short for the weapon (the longer A70 silo would be required). Nevertheless, the Type 45 has been designed with weight and space margin for a strike-length Mk41 or Sylver A70 silo to be retrofitted, allowing Type 45 to use the TLAM Block IV if required. The new Type 26 frigates will have strike-length Mk41 VLS tubes. SYLVER user France is developing MdCN, a version of the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missile that has a shorter range but a higher speed than Tomahawk and can be launched from the SYLVER system.”
“The Sylver (SYstème de Lancement VERtical) is a vertical launching system (VLS) designed by DCNS. The launcher comes in several variants, each distinguished by their height. A-35 and A-43 were developed for launching short range surface-to-air missiles, the A-50 for the long-range PAAMS air defense system, and the A-70 launcher for larger missiles such as the SCALP Naval land attack cruise missile.”
So UK will use French launch system as deployed on FREMM on Type 45 destroyers so UK can be like France
@Paul Barbara – File radar hacking with signal faking.
Has France had a recent history of bombing Syria without admitting it?
“I doubt the French had anything to do with this. More likely, a French signal was faked”
“More likely”? Pfff. I see that you are having trouble adjusting your opinion when new information comes to light, especially after you have derided others for stating it was a French and Israeli operation instead of just blaming Israel, oops – sorry, I mean I__ael.
I have to say I was a bit bemused by Putin’s response to the downing of the plane. I would have expected at least a little anger. But there was nothing. Very odd. I doubt it played very well with the Russian public.
He can’t be a real man, can he, if he doesn’t shoot back? Or maybe he’s a bit brighter than that.
Russian “steps” will be announced soon.
It’s not like with the British government which said it would be taking steps against the GRU and then forgot it said it.
I suppose HMG has “taken steps”. But they were so puny no one noticed.
Or the British government gave up on the idea because nobody else was into it. But practically everyone in Britain views Theresa May and her government as clueless and incompetent, so nobody here is surprised. Putin doesn’t have that kind of image in Russia even among his opponents.
I was not at all put out to see how unperturbed Blair was by these murders in Iraq in 2003…….
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/early-inquest-gives-hope-to-insulted-families-of-redcaps-killed-by-iraqi-mob-5344285.html
and of course Lyndon Johnson simply rolled over when USS Liberty was attacked by Israel and John McCain’s father covered up the matter by silencing the Naval ratings that witnessed the attack and whitewashing the Naval inquiry after 34 dead and 171 wounded
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
@Paul Greenwood,
Since when has the killing of members (military police in this case) of an invading army by the citizens of the country which has been invaded, ever been called a “murder”?
I would hope that British citizens would act in the same way if we were ever invaded.
Did we refer to members of the French resistance who killed Germans as “murderers”?
Maybe murder is the right term? The official government story is they fought to the last man, so the use of ‘killed’ would be more appropriate. However, if you delve deeper into the so-called ‘Battle of Majar al-Kabir’ it is widely held in military circles that events leading up to the red caps being killed weren’t as portrayed in the media. Instead of bravely fighting it out they surrendered to the mob in an act of cowardice rarely seen in the history of the British Army, so perhaps ‘murder’ is more accurate.
Corporate manslaughter more like. Sent to die by your government should be classed as murder though.
Members of the French resistance were usually Communists.
It is actually the way the Recaps were killed that defines “murder” even in wartime. By the same token hanging and cremating SOE POWs in Buchenwald was not considered in accordance with Geneva Conventions but then again nor were Rheinwiesenlager where hundreds of thousands of German POWs were starved to death
By your token ISIS during a Jordanian pilot in a cage is fine and dandy and what the Sonderkommando and Einsatzkommando did across Central Europe and Ukraine perfectly in order just as executing POWs is fine by your criteria
Will the (Lack of) Competition and Markets Authority rubber stamp the proposed merger of Sainsbury’s and Asda, thus limiting competition in price and product choice?
Sainsbury’s-Asda deal faces investigation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45571151
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sainsburysasda-merger-how-to-respond-to-the-cma-investigation/how-to-respond-to-the-sainsburysasda-merger-investigation
Currently Tesco has the major share @ 27.4% followed by Sainsbury and Asda @ 15.4.% and 15.3&% respectively. Followed by Morrisons, Aldi, Co-Op and Lidl and the rest.
https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/en/grocery-market-share/great-britain
Tesco are setting up a chain of cut price stores named Jack’s after the founder Jack Cohen.
Tesco’s new discount chain Jack’s takes on Aldi and Lidl
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45572731
Major Tesco shareholders.
https://www.tescoplc.com/investors/major-shareholders Blackrock, the American hedge fund outfit who employ Osborne for ONE DAY a week @ £650,000, is the major shareholder.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/06/why-worlds-largest-fund-manager-paying-george-osborne-650000-pounds
Tesco have already acquired Booker the cash and carry wholesaler. SO acquisitive.
Tesco cannot replicate Aldi or Lidl supply chains. they are completely alien to UK supermarket practice and pay suppliers CASH within 30 days.
Some of the items in Jack’s will be what they currently sell in their own cheapo range.
Incidentally both TesCO and Jack’s are named after Jack Cohen, born Jacob Kohen.
Aldi and Lidl pay all their suppliers with banknotes?
Not unusual in retail…….so much cash changes hands for listing. Of course I mean Cash as opposed to Credit lines – payment at 30 days is effectively Cash compared to 90 or 120 days or 24 months in the case of Tesco……..
“Tesco had withheld a multi-million pound payment from one supplier for over two years.”
Aldi and Lidl can therefore scoop up surplus stocks from food brokers and wine producers by giving them liquidity instead of draining it
Ah OK so not actual banknotes. I was wondering.
How do you see the Jack’s plan playing out? Tesco are very powerful – and entrenched in schools for example – but they don’t always get everything they want. I haven’t studied this much although I’m interested. Did Tesco set up any estate agency and legal services (“Tesco law”) in the end?
Also have you got any dirt on Trinity College’s involvement with this company? 🙂
@Paul Greenwood
“Aldi and Lidl can therefore scoop up surplus stocks from food brokers and wine producers by giving them liquidity instead of draining it”.
What a clever idea. Get cheap prices by actually paying your suppliers.
Not enough potential flashpoints in the world? Polish President Duda proposes to contribute $2 Billion towards permanently stationing an American armoured division in “Fort Trump”. At joint press conference Trump replies that America is considering the proposal “very seriously”.
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-wants-to-build-fort-trump-andrzej-duda/
Impressive. When you can’t find anybody willing to defend your country, just hire some kids from Nebraska and Mississippi to do it.
Especially when your country doesn’t need to be defended, because no one is threatening it.
Well, no one’s threatening Russia either so Russia doesn’t need to be defended so Mr Putin could spend some of the money currently spent on unnecessary armaments etc on filling up the state pension funds and such like.
russia feels a bit threatened by nato on its borders, helping overthrow the ukrainian government, and by all the propaganda about hacking the u.s. election. and they spend far less on armaments than the u.s.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/soft-focus/comment-page-7/#comment-785111
Meh.
And in any case, the US currently spends more than $600 billion compared to Russia’s less than $70 billion. While Americans starve, doubtless some Russian too (similar in the UK.) What’s you point?
J
It may well be that the US spends 600 billion and Russia only 70 billion but the question remains: what percentage of GDP do those two figures represent? I asked this question before but note that – significantly, perhaps? – none of the experts on here has replied yet.
The answer is important when you consider, for example, that the UK spent well over 10% of GDP on defence at the beginning of the 1950s and under 2% today; the implication is that, for whatever reason, expenditure has shifted towards social expenditure.
Not sure about that. In fact in 1948 during the Berlin Crisis US B29s were in UK ready to launch a nuclear strike. This came after Churchill’s “Operation Unthinkable” to re-arm the German Army in 1945 and attack the Red Army at Dresden….the US refused to play.
There has never been a time since 1917 when the UK has not conspired to attack Russia and Russians view Hitler as just one of the UK proxies given the route to the East at Munich in 1938 by France selling out the key Soviet ally in Czechoslovakia which was supplying its weapons from Skoda, Europe’s largest armaments works.
I don’t think the Russians are as ignorant of history of geopolitics as you are Charles
we don’t know, charles, how much the u.s. spends. that’s because the pentagon isn’t audited. not even the pentagon knows how much it spends. obviously, it’s a lot, given the billions wasted on boondoggles that don’t even work.
Dom
What a silly comment. The Polish armed forces don’t have a recruitment problem.
BTW, does your theory (“When you can’t find anyone…etc…”) apply to Syria (the presence of Russian military refers)?
Your comment actually adds weight to the view that the war in Syria is far more than a civil war. Assad and the existing government had majority public support before and after the protests as indicated by elections and mass pro-government demonstrations. Therefore, if the conflict was mostly a civil war, government forces would be greater than the rebel faction and would have won.
But the Syrian government needed Russian military support, and that’s because they are fighting NATO (covert operations particularly Turkey), Israel and at least two Gulf monarchies.
Spot on Clark.
As indicated by elections? Which ones did you have in mind?
The single candidate Presidential elections up until 2014 or The People’s Council elections which always ensured the Ba’ath Party’s candidates won overall control?
An interesting measure of majority public support.
Yes, elections are far from perfect. Donald Trump, of all people, got elected (marginally) in the US, and the people of the UK voted (marginally) to leave the most successful economic collaboration the world has ever seen.
Assad and his government had and have majority support. Syrian elections are not so much worse than Western ones as you make out, and the popularity is confirmed by public demonstrations and opinion polls.
Oh look. The one-party system was abolished by referendum, and it was our side, the “opposition groups” and “rebels”, who tried to scupper the subsequent election! –
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014
– “Domestic and foreign-based Syrian opposition groups boycotted the election and the vote did not take place in large parts of Syria under rebel control. The areas under Kurdish militia control also did not allow voting due to the refusal of the government to recognize their claim for regional autonomy, though some people traveled to government–controlled areas to vote.[4]
Some rebel groups vowed to disrupt the elections in any way possible, including bombing and shelling polling stations and government-controlled areas. Another statement, issued by the Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union, the Sham Corps, the Army of Mujahedeen and the Islamic Front, said they would not attack voters but warned people to stay at home “in case the Syrian government did”; there were 50 reported deaths from the shelling by the rebels”
Correct me if I am wrong, but did Donald Trump face an opponent and were there two options on the ballot paper for the EU Referendum?
‘Syrian elections are not so much worse than Western ones as you make out’ – a key difference would be the presence of options rather than an Assad for President or the Ba’ath Party for the Legislature.
Also do we now trust opinion polls here?
Polish Army is ineffectual and the defence budget is $10 billion which would barely buy two British aircraft carriers
Duda is using EU money to do so. Poland is No1 recipient of EU Transfer Funds – Poland gets €106 billion 2014-2020
http://www.msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,dok.html
Of course they can build a gold-plated Fort Trump. Simply getting the NATO spending US puts into German bases would raise Polish growth rates by 2% pa. With EU funds available from UK (Theresa promises to fund it post BreXit) Duda should have no problem giving every US soldier his own concubine and hotel room
EU transfer funds (I suppose you’re referring to the Structural and Social Funds) cannot be used to build military bases, so your comment is false.
You should look at how many funs Poland taps. Why can’t they build houses using Structural Funds and lease them to tenants ? Why can’t they build roads ? What is the money for if not infrastructure ?
Greenwood
I see that you (nor for that matter anyone else) has challenged my point that EU strucural and social funds transfers to Poland cannot be used for building military bases and the like. The conclusion I draw is that your assertion was false and it would be good if you had the grace to admit that. This blog should not be used as a receptacle for fake news.
Bostock:
http://www.roedl.net/pl/en/services/state_aid_advice/eu_funds_in_poland_20142020.html
Poland Regional Funds 31 billion Euros……..I am sure they can find a depressed region need of infrastructure boost. they could even ship the mess that the US has left in Mainz-Kastel – which is quite disgusting. Or they could pack up the new base in Wiesbaden and its supermarket and fly it together with the NSA facility to Masuria.
EU is simply the Economic Subcommittee of NATO
VivBliv
“Polish President Duda proposes to contribute $2 Billion towards permanently stationing an American armoured division…”
Yes, he’s a rare example of someone putting their money where their mouth is. If only more people were prepared to do the same, rather than shouting and protesting and then fading away into the twilight when it’s time to stand up, attend and be counted!
I think UK should spent $2 billion extra on Defence but scarp the F-35 planes and sell one of the aircraft carriers to Australia.
Why?
As the always planned for unsinkable hard brexit means brexit ship heads full steam ahead into it’s 51st state berth across the Atlantic council, what could possibly go wrong?
One thing is for sure, the rotten Atlantists captain and crew are hopefully never to be seen again and all their loot and inheritance will be restored to the people as the stolen commons.
A great change is a coming – the bankers bluff has been called. Any hot war would be a failure. They will never have the win-win scenario of the last few hundred years again.
Nukes and WMD can’t be used and there is no standing army to take on the combined Russian / Chinese forces. Once India refutes the US yoke and makes peace with the now anti US Pakistan, the US empire will shrink along with the $ just as the European empires were forced to.
The media whores are whizzing around like a demented shoal of sardines being picked off by the smarter truth hunters around.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so deadly.
@ Dungroanin September 19, 2018 at 13:32
Wishful thinking. Though more and more people are getting news from alternative sources, and wising up, we and they are still a small minority; most people just lap up the government and MSM narratives.
As for wars, the US and it’s cronies have the ability to fight more than one major war at the same time, using mercenaries and setting countries and peoples at each other’s throats through False Flag ops.
The vast majority of people, even some fairly wised up, still believe all these ‘terrorist attacks’ in the UK, Europe and US are done by Muslims (and, in the case of the States, ‘Loonies’ – re all the False Flag shootings or hoaxes to try to get guns banned).
@Dungroanin
“Nukes and WMD can’t be used…”
I wouldn’t bank on it. The Skripal poisoning might be a trial run before they bump off everybody in Salisbury and then blame it on the Russians.
The use of WMD means MAD at worst.
A major environmental disaster for flura and fuana as the fallout spreads at best.
Even the crazed bankers and warmongers have families and kids and they don’t want them to live in poisoned palaces.
The surprise false flag attack on the Russian aircraft which would have left very clear evidence of the missile origination, was probably designed to get a response from the Russian navy ship nearby. The UK airplanes in the air there to rush to the defence of their French ‘colleagues’… the US aircraft ready to launch from their various bases and carriers and the IAF lurking to take out the Iranians
Playing chess with Russians didn’t workout for Napoleon or the other proxy armies sent against it. What makes the wankers think it will now? Especially since Trump refuses to play along with the madness.
But weirdly enough, many of them have been busy building underground complexes beneath their homes. Swimming pools and everything. An inspiring little note opulence.
The above comment was responding to this https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/soft-focus/comment-page-7/#comment-785049 but somehow wound up here.
Building second homes underground (basically fortified bunkers) is becoming alarmingly fashionable among the super rich and bankers.
Fuck a duck. I give you some money to build a road and hey presto the money you would have used to build that road is suddenly free for a vital military base (cos there just ain’t enough of them around Russia already)
The UK getting more 51th state like after Brexit than now? Tough challenge….
Might need some English voices on BBC World Service so we know what they sound like
I wasn’t talking about shooting – just words!
It definitely isn’t a day in Scotland for filming wildlife.
So, turning again to Brexit and the question of why the British establishment foisted it upon us — which they absolutely did — it struck me that something massive has quite miraculously disappeared from the debate on Brexit over the last year or so. It was there before and now it’s gone — like magic.
One of the key concerns of those of us who were interested in Brexit and the impact it might have on the British economy, particularly British exports, revolved around the UK banking and finance sectors. From memory, this category of exports represents something like 50% of the UK’s total exports. Big bucks, for sure.
Until recently banking & financial services was a central issue amongst politicians and media pundits when they discussed Brexit. It’s conspicuous absence from the debate today ought to ring alarm bells amongst those who hope and pray for a “soft” Brexit, for it can only mean one thing; “the City” has made its own provisions for Brexit.
Once you accept that it was “the city” (otherwise known as “the British Establishment”) that instigated Brexit, as I do, you aren’t far away from joining the dots on all this. Let’s look at the possibilities;
1) “The City” is unsure what the outcome of the Brexit talks will be and what final deal will be reached. Okay but if that’s the case why aren’t they in the debate arguing their case? Where are they? Why is nobody discussing the possible opportunities and risks that the banking & finance sectors face all of a sudden? We were all discussing it last year.
2) “The City” knows that a hard Brexit or “no deal” outcome is likely or certain. That being the case, it makes sense that there’s nothing to discuss as far as “The City” is concerned. They’re making (and have probably made) their own plans, plans that probably explain their reason for taking us down the Brexit road in the first place.
“The City” for me, then, is like a great magician who can effortlessly conjure up and make things disappear at will. But this isn’t an ordinary magician. This magician’s hands are invisible.
Dark Money, Brexit, attacking Iraq, Libya, Trident renewal, Syria, austerity, tax avoidance/evasion, money laundering, food banks, political and non-political bribery, these things don’t happen by themselves.
Do people really believe that our politicians wake up in the morning fretting about the democratic deficit in places like Iraq or Syria or worrying about the welfare of the people there?
It isn’t an oversight that companies like Amazon and others (the rich generally) don’t pay a penny in taxation in the UK.
Rich Russians buy football teams and property in London for reasons that go way beyond their love of football and architecture.
Murdoch with his shares in Genie Oil & Gas isn’t really worried that Assad is going to gas anyone in Syria, despite what his papers say.
Conservative estimates suggest that around 40% of the global investment market is handled through London and “The City”. Think about that. And think about why that’s the case, why do all these people from around the world decide to do so much of their business through “The City”? What is it that the great London magician offers that these rich people and corporations can’t get anywhere else?
Please explain …..
Invisibility.
‘The reality is not what you believe, that the prime minister has the power to decide on the future of your country. The power is hidden here.’
Eva Jolly – MEP, Vice chair of the Panama Papers Committee (European Parliament)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2147&v=np_ylvc8Zj8
I temember Michael Portillo answering that question on a politics show several years ago with the words .. “English law.” His pompous delusion was burst by another guest, ex-banker Max Keiser, who pointed out that it is the very absence of laws and regulations that attracts the world’s sharks, parasites and launderers to the City.
As well as hiding money in London and in Britain’s “treasure islands”, the said parasites have also loved introducing English-style equity law into their own jurisdictions – a body of law which is wholly about hiding the controllers of assets and protecting them from any ideas that those wearing political, government or even judicial hats might get into their heads about taxation, regulation, or seizure. This is very much part of the attraction of the English brand to ruling parasites around the planet.
See too the attractiveness of English private boarding schools to the elites in Russia, China, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Networking and passing wealth down the generations, and so much done with a nod and a wink. Most of them probably don’t realise that at the end of the day they are still regarded as “good wogs”.
Well Gandhi knew he was a “good dog” despite being in inns of Court in London and I bet Imran Khan and Benazir Bhutto knew they were “good wogs” as no doubt did Indira Gandhi and Lee Kuan Yew and most Indian surgeons in the NHS
“British establishment foisted it upon us”
I think you mean the British people foisted it upon the establishment.
Yes, obviously. Now the “establishment” is making sure that it is in name only, thereby obeying the letter of the peoples will.
Hardly, Brexit has been a top-down exercise from the very start. Since around 1979 when Mrs Thatcher came to power the media has been overwhelmingly anti-EU – particularly the print media. For a long time it has been almost impossible for anyone wanting to sound credible to say they support the idea of the EU because the media has created an overwhelming environment entirely hostile to the idea of the European peace project. A true rebellion from the bottom by Eurosceptics would not have been one supported by almost the entire “British” media. What is surprising about the Brexit referendum is that 48% voted to remain.
The one true difference between the UK and the other 27 members of the EU is that in the UK it has been politically correct to be Eurosceptic. In the other countries it is politically correct to support the EU.
Another point – since the referendum the British media has continually been speculating which will be the next country to have a Frexit, a Swexit or a Nexit or an Italexit. None of them will come to pass. The populist parties which initially supported the idea of the breakup of the EU have discovered that it actually puts voters off. The vote-winner for them is anti-Islam sentiment and it is that which drove their rise. They are now dropping the idea of leaving the EU in favour of a policy of gaining the ascendancy within the EU.
As a result of Brexit it is much more likely that the UK will break up, not the EU.
People have different ideas on what the EU should look like, but for most ordinary people in most countries they can see that the alternative to a European confederation is having hostile foreign armies criss-crossing your territory every couple of decades!
In agreement with most of that, except the part about Thatcher who, along with her “City” backers were pretty keen on further integrating the then-called Internal market — hence her signing the SEA. Thatcher was the embodiment of schizophrenia that the establishment of the UK has always shown towards Europe; one one hand they want free trade and access, on the other they don’t want anyone tampering with their scams or treasure.
“Thatcher was the embodiment of schizophrenia that the establishment of the UK has always shown towards Europe; one one hand they want free trade and access, on the other they don’t want anyone tampering with their scams or treasure.”
Good reminder that Margaret Thatcher was the architect of the Single Market.
Hatuey
Margaret Thatcher was only partly schizophrenic about the development of the EU. Its true that she pioneered the Internal Market, like later it was the British who pushed the fast-track integration of the former Warsaw Pact states of eastern Europe into the EU. But the reasoning was that by concentrating on economic integration and on widening the membership it would move the focus away from political integration and cause a fracturing within the EU as more and more countries joined. The French and Germans were always far more cautious about integrating countries like Poland too soon because they foresaw it would cause massive migratory pressure from east to west. The irony is that the main “argument” used by pro-Brexiteers in the referendum was an entirely socially acceptable racist campaign primarily again the Poles, which the media skillfully also managed to confuse in the minds of the electorate with the refugee crisis. I do not believe that without the refugee crisis the Brexiteers would have got their referendum victory. This despite the fact that in reality non-EU immigration has very little either way to do with British membership of the EU as Britain is not part of the open-border Schengen Zone. British immigration policy as far as non-EU citizens is concerned is entirely a matter for the British Government.
Patmur, you’re the second person to imply that Thatcher pioneered or was the architect of the single market. She was definitely keen on it but as I recall from my times studying all this years ago, the basis for further integrating the internal market derived from the Ceccini Report. My spelling there could be wrong.
The European project since the start proposed “ever closer Union” which translates to economic and political integration. The British have some nerve moaning about it going too far now, when the original 6 and the Treaty of Rome couldn’t have been worded more clearly and unambiguously.
“Brexit has been a top-down exercise from the very start”
I think you mean membership of the EU has been a top-down exercise from the very start.
Yes, like most matters of high policy, it wasn’t left to the peasants.
There are members of the establishment who undoubtedly want to be in the EU. “The City” has a preponderance of power today though, thanks in large part to its growing influence in international circles, the media, and politics.
It’s no coincidence that a much higher than normal number of “euro-sceptic” Tories were selected to run in the 2010 General Election, many of which won. That sort of thing doesn’t happen by accident and it didn’t come from the ground up.
Absolutely correct. A top-down exercise which has left huge swathes of the UK white and blue collar classes exactly where the arrogant and dumb remainers claim they will end up after brexit. Thikckos for the most part.
It’s virtually impossible to make a serious case along the lines that Brexit came from below. Feel free to try.
If you look at say immigration which was probably the biggest issue on the ground, even there you find a completely rigged debate that goes back decades. The media have been up to their eyeballs in stoking this stuff for years but their efforts were ratcheted right up after 2008.
It’s not a very flattering discussion since it’s hard to distinguish between what you might call genuine concerns about immigration and racism, but the facts suggest that successive British government had powers that would have enabled them to curtail immigration had they been minded to do so. Those powers exist now and have been successfully used by other member states to control immigration.
To be clear, if what I am saying here is true — and I cant tell you it is — that makes the whole debate about immigration in the UK over the last 7 or 8 years a complete charade. Immigration, for the avoidance of doubt, could have been addressed without any need for Brexit and well before it became defined as a problem.
Did anyone say that during the Brexit campaign? No, but we heard a lot of stuff that defined immigration as a cost of being in the EU (to get rid of one problem we had to get out of the other), and they were good enough to embellish their arguments with pictures of queues of coloured people etc., etc.
Racism and nationalism are key levers when it comes to mobilising and manipulating the bewildered heard, as we all know. Those levers were pulled very effectively in the aftermath of the credit crunch when people were angry, insecure, and looking for someone to blame. Right on cue they were told to blame immigrants and the EU rather than those who were really responsible for the mess.
“It’s virtually impossible to make a serious case along the lines that Brexit came from below. Feel free to try”
Ok. There was a referendum.
But how do you think that referendum might have gone if just about every newspaper and every news channel on TV wasn’t pushing Farage and immigration down your throat for 7 years before the vote?
Maybe you’re one of those special people that just woke up one day and decided all by yourself that immigration was a problem, Farage the solution, and Brexit a necessity. Maybe you were born with these ideas in your head.
Actually, though, seriously, your response is no less ridiculous than me asking how you think the referendum on Brexit would have gone if you were not offered a referendum on Brexit.
Haha. indeed. Hatuey’s theory is a home-made evidence free piece of speculation which is declared with all the conviction of people who avoid any evidence that their pet theory is full of holes and utterly simplistic.
“your response is no less ridiculous than me asking how you think the referendum on Brexit would have gone if you were not offered a referendum on Brexit”
You’re just rambling now bubs. We were offered a referendum on Brexit.and by now you should have found out the result. Perhaps it passed you by or you ended up on the losing side. Either way, tough. That’s the way it goes sometimes. Get over it.
MJ, that’s my point. You only got to vote on Brexit because certain elements gave you the opportunity to vote. Those same elements filled your head with nonsense first, by sticking Farage, immigrants, and bent bananas in your face for years leading up to the referendum.
I know how difficult it is to admit you were played, but why should I worry about that?
If you look at the sequence of events, the truth is plain to see. The whole global financial system had just collapsed. “The City” was worried that the general population would lame them and look into certain banking practices — if they did they’d be shocked at the extent of the corruption.
The role of these people in the financial collapse couldn’t be exaggerated, they were up to their eyes in it.
They were also worried that the Lisbon Treaty would lead to attempts to regulate them. Lisbon was a massive factor in the decision to press for Brexit.
Solution: distract the masses with hysteria about immigrants and, in doing so, pave the way for a favourable Brexit vote. There’s a quite beautiful and impressive efficiency and symmetry to all this.
@H: Not to mention a hubris-filled and – frankly – rather unintelligent Cameron who thought he was on a lifetime’s winning streak, and could not lose. So he decided on a highly simplistic referendum, and lost. Thereafter, he was the first to abandon ship – an example of utter dereliction of duty if ever there was one.
@MJ: Do you give the same no-nonsense “get over it” advice to those advocating yet another Scottish independence referendum?
@ Glenn NL
“So he decided on a highly simplistic referendum, and lost. Thereafter, he was the first to abandon ship – an example of utter dereliction of duty if ever there was one…”
There’s another way of looking at Cameron’s role. I watched an interview with him after he had left office and there was no suggestion of disappointment or sense of failure.
Not sure if you are aware, but Cameron’s father was/is highly involved in “The City”. That’s his background, and it’s a pretty tightly knit community.
From the perspective of his background, he succeeded. He freed and saved his people them from potential meddling of the EU and now they can go on and fulfill their post-Brexit dreams.
If you were told that was Cameron’s mission in 2010, you’d have guessed he had no chance of success. But he did it.
What you need to remember is that “The City” types have been opposed to the EU for decades, since ‘the big bang’. They have thrived on non-regulation, that’s why they are so rich, so, of course they would naturally perceive the EU as a potential threat in terms of possibly bringing in regulation.
With the Lisbon Treaty, major alarms bells were ringing and the financial collapse didn’t help. Brexit represents pure freedom for “The City”.
The City did not and does not want to leave the EU and is not about to benefit from an unshackling if EU regulations The very opposite in fact.
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-city-of-london-eu-strict-rules-2018-8?r=UK&IR=T
Cameron’s demeanour does not qualify as counterevidence.
Excellent analysis Hatuey.
I found your comments elsewhere interesting, SA. Based on this thread of comments (6am Thurs, my analgesia wore off) I see you and Hatuey believe Brit-exit was a desired outcome by “the City”. I’m not entirely clear what you mean by this; a conventional understanding of the facts would align rather more with Dom’s comment 40 minutes ago. Would you expand on the reasons for this seemingly controversial assertion. Cameron’s apparent post ref. demeanour as mentioned here seems a little specious
Second thoughts, belay that request for clarification, SA. Dutch Glen’s remark about “dereliction of duty” is nearer the mark. Cameron and Osborne “walked away” because they realised they made a misjudgement bigger than Suez. It took a good ten years and a lot of hard work for British diplomacy to begin to “live that down”. Cameron’s mistake will take decades. In his defence, I don’t think he could realistically have done much good by staying in public service.
Having met many public figures over the years, it often surprises me how utterly different they are personally from their media portrayal. One exception was Peter Mandelson, who did send shivers up the spine. I called him “the Ready Brek kid”, a sobriquet that gained traction with the visa staff; his staggering self-importance was palpable. Andrew was another, he far worse than expected, spectacularly awkward, and curiously chavvy.
I have a fair few good friends who’ve been working in the City since College, and are now rather well-informed. I can assure you, Cameron is not popular. They are not that bothered, of course, and are finding ways to plan for the future. A couple are reluctantly getting taught German by me.
I’m not trying to be witty. It’s all being kept well under wraps, no bank wants to break cover, and be accused of being the first rat to abandon ship. It would damage the corporate public image. Much is hanging on the next six months, and we all keep our fingers crossed, but plan B is all jump together.
Nobody outside Doncaster or Bexley really wanted Brexit. It was a bluff that was badly called due to what has (in my opinion unfairly) been termed arrogance of Cameron and Osborne (and others, in particularly Cameron’s wider “clique”).
These are not opinions, but facts. I am not a journalist, nor am I political. I’m a bored well-informed guy getting over an injury.
Probably of negligible interest, rather as my shaggy dog story about the man who gave me a light: I doubt there are many Sinophiles on here.
At the end of June 2016, I had returned to UK on long leave, and was visiting my partner’s mother in Catford. She had been talking away all afternoon, swerving around a maelstrom of disparate and divers topics. She is Jamaican, and although I have largely mastered the patois [three goes on SwiftKey™ avoiding the patios!], I still have little idea of meaning behind what she says. Perhaps there is none, but her remarkable animation suggests otherwise.
She had gone for a nap, and I was enjoying some online chess with a random person. The chess was good, 1- and 2- minute blitz games, and we got chatting. She was a chick in her late 20s from Shanghai. I lived in China for 2½ years, and retain a little Mandarin, she was more impressed than me; over the years it has gone to ratshit. Chat swiftly turned to the topic du jour, the UK referendum result, and she was obviously incredibly up to speed with it all. She said she worked at jiao tong University, but I suspect she had exposure within a UK company.
We played for about two hours, probably 30 odd games, all the time chatting.
When Venetia’s mum began to stir it was time to say bye to weiwei. She’d obviously been thinking it up whilst we were playing, her parting shot was roughly translated: “How can you leave this to people who don’t know anything. I never thought like this before now [she had never been to UK, her understanding was mainly academic] and thank God, thank God, thank God we don’t have democracy in China”. I genuinely think it was a road to Damascus moment for her.
@ James
“I have a fair few good friends who’ve been working in the City since College, and are now rather well-informed. I can assure you, Cameron is not popular. They are not that bothered, of course, and are finding ways to plan for the future.”
For someone who claims to be well informed you seem somewhat naive, James. Trust me though, I’m devoted to learning what I can in this area and not looking to insult or get into any sort of argument. Let me explain why I think you’re naive before you shout back.
When we talk about banking, financial services in London, and “The City”, it goes without saying that we are talking about a monster that has two heads and faces. Ideally we wouldn’t need to explain this since it’s so obvious and well understood by anyone with an atom of understanding, but your comments forced my hand.
Incidentally, I’m a chess player myself and I don’t see how it’s possible to have a conversation with someone whilst playing blitz. Maybe I’m not the man I used to be.
Now, as we all know, there’s the side of banking that is very dry, squeaky clean, and predictable and then there’s this other side which is quite the opposite. They are both connected, for sure, one hand washes the other, etc., but let me as clear as possible when I say that these two worlds could not be further apart.
On the dark side, everything they do, it’s their speciality, is geared towards getting around regulation and laws that would otherwise get in the way. No provisions that any hostile government or society makes is ever likely to thwart them — I stress, their expertise is in avoiding scrutiny and moving money around in secrecy.
I suspect your friends work on the dry and squeaky clean side of banking. On this side, many will have concerns about their ability to sell regular banking services and things like insurance on the continent. “No Deal” doesn’t necessarily mean that sort of business won’t continue, it means access will need to be negotiated. Worst case scenario, WTO terms on banking and financial services are bearable.
To be clear on the above, I’m not talking about the distinction between regular banking and investment banking. I’m talking about shell corporations, trusts, fraud, money laundering, bribery, tax evasion and avoidance, outright theft, and other questionable facilities, conducted often at very high levels and invisibly. The scale of this is gigantic and growing.
Gosh, quite a mouthful Hatuey; my prolixity begets itself! Other than a little dig at my naivety, my atomic level of understanding, and the implausibility of playing blitz chess while chatting in Mandarin, I fail to see how your reply properly addresses the point of my comment. It was about Brit-exit, and your seventh paragraph was wide of my mark.
Absolutely no insult taken btw, just wry amusement.
My “banker friends” would also be somewhat amused to read your remarks such as ”it goes without saying that we are talking about a monster that has two heads and faces”. They might agree more with being described as on the “dry and squeaky clean side of banking”, especially the dry bit.
The “dark side”, the world of “invisible… high-level… shell corporations, trusts, fraud, money laundering, bribery, tax evasion and avoidance, outright theft” is that part of your world-view I don’t quite grasp. Not through naivety on my part, I can assure you, but why you think all this is so overarchingly important. Of course it goes on, and has done for ever, though your final assertion that it is “gigantic and growing” is plain wrong.
Depending on what your idea of gigantic might be, these “shady dealings” are of no interest to my banker friends precisely because they are, of course, utterly insignificant compared to the “legitimate” side of your mythical Janus. Your suggestion that all this chicanery is growing is also plain wrong, and belies I suspect your lack of contacts in “this area” . Since 2008, there has been a contraction in your “dark side”. Of course, you will argue, it is invisible, and at that point I must therefore throw in the towel, wondering whence your insights might emanate.
I really don’t know why I bother on here. It seems to me equally plain that whereas I know my squeaky clean banker mates, you don’t appear to know any such people. Your quest for learning, while admirable, is predicated on scouring the dark corners of the Internet, rather than talking to actual individuals with expertise and experience. A potentially fatal, though understandable mistake. It’s hard to put simply, but I repeat: the scale of your dark side is absolutely minuscule. My mates make quite unconscionable amounts of money by being “squeaky clean”; why would they want to get involved in some dangerous, dodgy lake of small fry?
I’m at a loss Hatuey. The idea that a high court judge might give up his generous salary, pension, social status to make a few hundred thousand out of a cocaine smuggling operation comes to mind as analogy. It’s just silly.
I love playing blitz, but love the chat more, especially if it’s in German, Turkish or Mandarin which I’m OK at. Better than my chess! It’s like mental ping pong. The winning and losing is unimportant, it’s an enjoyable form of mental exercise.
I think you might well understand that.
prosperum iter facias
erratum, and with the greatest respect read:
“Your quest for learning, while admirable, seems to me to be predicated… [&c]”
Let’s keep it polite, eh?
edit #2
Before you start “scouring the Internet” and find examples of Crown Court judges who have done exactly that (are there any?)… please don’t bother. It was an analogy, as weak as a kitten perhaps, but nothing more?
@james, let me apologise in advance for not feeling overwhelmed or intimidated by your impeccable sources (a couple of friends who work in banks). Let me further apologise for not being able to speak with you in mandarin or Swahili.
You know, in 2018, after the revelations brought to us by the likes of wikileaks and the Panama Papers, it’s quite remarkable to hear that there are still dinosaurs out there who want us to believe that research conducted and delivered on the internet is second class compared to say the claimed insights of your pals which for some reason we are to accept as the real truth.
Specifically, in regards to the question that this shadow economy has grown and is growing, I have no need to take any sort of refuge in its invisibility. That said, any fool will appreciate that invisibility is central to the operation of these systems, just as stealth is integral to the machinations of covert operations in the military, etc.
This isn’t the sort of stuff that anyone wants to shout about. Have you looked at the 30 or so names of high ranking politicians implicated by the Panama Papers? Maybe you can ask your pals to comment.
We can assume and validate the growth of this industry over say the last 50 years by looking at historical events and corroborating with leaks and revelations.
For example, the disintegration of the Soviet Union resulted in a surge in interest in these services, naturally, with new countries effectively being created, new opportunities in terms of converting state owned assets into privately owned assets, and new players in the market wishing to secure their interests. This is reflected in the Panama Papers revelations and, thus, we can confirm we have here indubitable evidence of growth.
You know, though, it’s interesting that we are discussing this today when Danske Bank is all over the news revealing yet another massive example of this trade you describe as miniscule. If $200 billion is a piffling example of a miniscule industry, I think we need to move on swiftly to a working definition of miniscule.
BTW, can you keep your middle class anecdotes to a bare minimum. I find it quite degrading to have to wade through that sort of stuff — the middle classes generally make me vomit and I regard them as the most shallow, materialist people on the face of the planet. If that changes and I ever want to discuss South African wine or the best way to cook aubergines, you’ll be the first to know.
London is the heart of global financial corruption. The money laundering capital of the world. Nowhere else comes close. Common knowledge, whether you work in the City, converse with people in the industry, or neitther.
My old tutor Barry Rider would be a good starting point when learning about money laundering. He and his cohort pretty much wrote the book. In fact, there is probably a symposium happening right now in college on that very subject. He’s been hosting this for thirty years. Google CIDOEC and enjoy.
That really is your dark side, and nothing middle class about it.
Not seen the Danske Bank stuff, really interesting it looks big- 200billion, thanks @Hatuaey! Looks like Volkswagen is implicated too. Is that a record amount, it does seem a lot?
Bit unlucky for @James’s smarmy rubbish. I’ll bet he’s some sad retired guy with nothing better to do.
@James
Beyond the unending glib froth, references to expert witnesses in the banking industry (who happen to be friends), and vague allusions to your tutor who allegedly wrote the book on money laundering, do you have anything of substance you’d like to share on the subject? Something testable would be especially welcome.
I thought this strayed rather from Cameron, Brit exit, and around there into aubergines, money laundering and wine.
Glib it may be, froth it is not. Very soon it seems we’ll all have more to bother about than daft and embarrassing flame wars.
You and the dark side steered this into that particular dark alley.
Do have a look at CIDOEC. I’m not joking at all when I say that is the dark side.
Unlike so many on here, I am pretty much 100% genuine. You will be relieved to hear that it’s back to the coalface for me soon. Middle class as that may sound
They’re not vague allusions, they are quite the opposite. The testable stuff in this (I mean Brit exit) is largely off the record. Money laundering wise, there’s loads of stuff. Barry Rider was a seriously forbidding character 30 years ago when I was at College. I don’t know much about it, so sorry squire nothing from me apart from a point in the direction of CIDOEC and on from there.
I was thinking Cameron’s motivations was more interesting as a topic, and more relevant to most of us too.
Middle class, tish tish. If only you knew!
Ah you didn’t get the point. Not so much of a revelation perhaps if you’ve not lived in China. (oops there I go again)
The point
I was staggered to hear a young Chinese person say democracy was a bad thing. In my experience, it is a source of universal envy there. As you might imagine in a repressive totalitarian country, as it certainly is. It sheds light (for me) onto the absurdity of the decision made here at that time.
I thought that was obvious. I was wrong. As I’ve said elsewhere, l ll be off here soon, it’s not my world.
Please moderate that back on if you wish. It was a shaggy dog story. All froth.
No, actually boring but all true.
Try as I might, I simply can’t decode it. How do you transpose “Craig John Murray” into “Hateuy”. I’m no good at anagrams or crosswords, but genuinely curious about the key.
Hehe pretzel….and everyone on here thinks I’m the big show-off [no comment, tnx! ] Nakamura (never heard of him) sounds like the real deal, though I’m sure it’s actually quite impressive. LangLang on the piano reminds me of these chess wizards.
I’m pretty shit at chess, tbh, and wavered around 1700, though I’ve gone as low as 1300 on 1 minute bullet games, and once reached 1850 on WCN. Remember that from before the millennium?
I’ve not had an online game in ages, months and months. I was really busy all summer, then smacked my shoulder at the end of August.
Come to think about it, maybe I should wean myself off here and play some more chess. All so addictive, unhealthy as hell, and frankly a bit twattish. Thank the dear Lord I never got into Candy Crush!
people stream themselves playing 1 min while talking to the viewers, so that isn’t unusual. if you’re typing the chat while playing, that would be difficult to say the least.
lol okay. But there’s no facility for streaming video on chess.com which is where I play. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do so.
You normally chat between games, obviously. Am I now part of a mew conspiracy theory that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to play blitz chess and chat.
And so it begins.
Actually, James, I’m also working on my social skills and was wondering if you could shed some light on something. Can you explain to me why you think anyone who frequents this blog, or anyone anywhere, would wish to read this;
“At the end of June 2016, I had returned to UK on long leave, and was visiting my partner’s mother in Catford. She had been talking away all afternoon, swerving around a maelstrom of disparate and divers topics. She is Jamaican, and although I have largely mastered the patois [three goes on SwiftKey™ avoiding the patios!], I still have little idea of meaning behind what she says. Perhaps there is none, but her remarkable animation suggests otherwise.
She had gone for a nap, and I was enjoying some online chess with a random person. The chess was good, 1- and 2- minute blitz games, and we got chatting. She was a chick in her late 20s from Shanghai. I lived in China for 2½ years, and retain a little Mandarin, she was more impressed than me; over the years it has gone to ratshit. Chat swiftly turned to the topic du jour, the UK referendum result, and she was obviously incredibly up to speed with it all. She said she worked at jiao tong University, but I suspect she had exposure within a UK company.”
I fail to see what anyone might hope to accomplish by typing this sort of stuff.
Might have been better if you redacted the irrelevant waffle about Venetia’s mum, and reposted the bit about Weiwei.
I assure you I don’t come on here for my social skills. I see your sense of humour is very dark indeed.
You do seem quite angry and chippy about all this stuff. As I’ve said elsrw
hatuey there are links on chess.com to people doing it; they are trying to make money by getting subscribers. it’s the “gig economy” or somesuch–being a fogey i know little about it.
no james i figured you were either chatting on skype or doing it between games. maybe nakamura can do it while playing 1 min, but precious few others–i’ve seen him using those diagram arrows and such while still handily beating his gm opponent, on icc, and chatting (briefly) in the chat window while playing, too.
All asking such questions inevitably get accused of, erm some form of racism. when we go down the alleys and halls of the City.
Not that it is in all ways evil (just many).
A true appreciation of the Independent state of the City of London, must look back to the time it was established as the Roman trading port at the upper reaches of the tidal Thames.
Then it’s reinvention when the first bankers arrived , then the Italian bankers, etc.
Let the names be a guide to that history – Old Jewery, Lombard Street, etc.
The City has had it’s stiicky fingers and long arms in all the conquests, wars and despicable slavery,drugs, arms, colonialism industries for HUNDREDS of years.
They are not about to give up their rights to do what they like, where they like, to whom they like and make money without regulation, tax or transparency – and every single government department and PM/ Chancellor have danced to their tune. For centuries. (Except for the odd one when they couldn’t stop the popular will of the poor peoples of the country in which they are a parasite).
“If you don’t know your history you are like a cabbage in this society” or summat like that by Misty in Roots. I’m off to rummage through my old LP’s…
Keep it up H.
@Dungroanin – How do you see the relationship between the City (on which it is an open secret that the British economy is based) and the EU in the years running up to 2016? I reckon some interests on the continent wanted Britain out of the EU. This is of course an absolute no-no for anyone to say or even speculate about in the British media. Between 1973 and 2016, whenever a British PM or Foreign Secretary travelled to central EU meetings on the continent he or she was always portrayed as telling the excitable and intellectually poorly-endowed foreigners what was what, calling them to order, showing them some straight back. The British media then portrayed the supposedly racially and culturally inferior foreign types as mostly kowtowing to British superiority, since generally speaking they knew their place and didn’t need more than the occasional round of grapeshot when they occasionally got uppity.
The reality was different, and as 2016 approached it became increasingly different. Now we’re almost at the point where Britgov is begging France to send food lorries. It wouldn’t surprise me if they beg the Republic of Ireland too.
Did the City seek to extend its reach? Or did its existing reach get attacked and eroded? I haven’t worked that one out yet, but the real story of Britain’s relationship with the EU in the past few years and in the near future is primarily to do with the City.
With the caveat that there is a limit to how much weight we can put on the metonym “the City”, we can ask how much more of the resources in Britain will the rulers sacrifice on the altar of the said financial centre. Because that is, from big finance’s viewpoint, what Brexit is essentially about.
Bankers’ salaries and bonuses in continental Europe are a fraction of those in the City. The EU has applied a small transaction tax as well, I believe.
I would guess that there is widespread disagreement. Some will want access to the relatively uncontrolled City, with its gateways to tax havens in the UKOTs etc. Others will want to separate from these lopsided, corrupting influences.
Fascinating article. Thank you RoS.
John Kerr’s link from p1 again seems peculiarly relevant here
Clark,
Hope you are well.
“Fascinating article. Thank you RoS.”
It’s been deleted.
Maybe you are not still the moderator.
Incidentally, it would be relatively easy, to make a mirror of this website, where nothing gets deleted. Might be a bit boring though.
No I seriously can’t be bothered.
Tony
Tony_0pmoc, it does appear to have been deleted; I can’t think why, it didn’t seem to break the moderation rules. Maybe someone clicked the wrong button. A moderator did that once and blocked Craig from his own site! I haven’t moderated here for ages.
[ MOD: The comment with the link wasn’t deleted. It’s further down the page. ]
I still have the article open and I remember what was quoted so I can post them both again:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
– “There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple”
Ah ha! Thanks Mod; seems it was me who clicked the wrong button when I posted my comment in the wrong place.
N_, The British economy exists in every part of the UK. Don’t be fooled by the distorted numbers most of which in no way affects the ordinary lives and wages of peoples far from the City. Remember Retail Financial Services are NOT the City.
How do I see the relationship between the City and EU?
Well to put it simplistically – The City sends it’s vassal ministers to the EU to veto the plans of the collective EU that would require the Bankers to behave and pay their fair share.
When the veto no longer can be invoked they then walk out and work to destroy the EU.
Answer your question?
Simply look at the armies of lobbyists coming our way, crowding on the warm shit like flies. How disgusting. Nice report by Spinwatch and Unlock Democracy
“There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies.”
“The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.”
London’s Square Mile, is a law/power unto itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval
Tunnels
Re RoS’s electorial wards in the City of London link.
This is an extraordinarily grotesque electoral anomaly and perversion of the democratic process.
I like your way of putting things…
On the history side, it’s my understanding that a great deal can be traced back to the 1690 ‘financial revolution’ period. We need to think it through but when you consider that William of Orange was a mere figurehead and ask yourself what they mean when they say that — what did he represent? — you are drawn to some very straight forward conclusions.
Of course, that assumes an understanding of the role that the Hapsburg’s Netherlands (and ‘The Dutch’) played before and after the Reformation, right up until the smart money there jumped ship. The Dutch were in the Empire building game well before the English, of course, with their first expeditions to the East Indies arriving there in the 1590s.
Central to all that was the creation of The Bank of England, paper money, and national debt, of course. I can see now why they considered these events “Glorious”.
@Hatuey
“What is it that the great London magician offers that these rich people and corporations can’t get anywhere else?”
Answer: Completely toothless regulation. I read about it in Private Eye every fortnight.
Yes, blunderbus, but I think it goes beyond that too. As I understand it, it’s basically illegal to try and find out who is behind trusts and shell corporations in places like Jersey.
To say it’s simply down to toothless regulation seems treacherously euphemistic. In the absence of laws and regulation, you are basically legalising fraud, tax evasion, laundering, and a bunch of other things.
By the same token, if we got rid of the laws on say drunk driving, the effect of that would be to legalise drunk driving, if you follow…
MiG-31 fighter jet crashes in Central Russia, both pilots eject safely
https://www.rt.com/news/438818-mig31-crashes-in-russia/
The comments btl are adversarial.
I’m sure we’d all like to know.
“The government can keep secret the details of whether there were any links between British spies and a Russian businessman who died in mysterious circumstances, a coroner has ruled.”
“Alexander Perepilichnyy, 44, collapsed in November 2012 when out jogging near his mansion in Surrey.”
Why is he refusing? They weren’t slow in pushing the Skripal attack, and possible reasons for it.
“The coroner at the inquest into his death, judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, upheld an application by Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who is refusing to publicly release documents from MI5 and MI6 relating to Mr Perepilichnyy for security reasons.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45548975
RoS, this “intel” goes fractionally further:-
https://intelnews.org/2018/09/19/01-2400/
Dead Russian oligarch’s links to UK spy agencies must stay secret, judge rules. . .
The judge, Nicholas Hilliard QC, has security clearance and was therefore able to review the relevant evidence behind closed doors, during a secret session. He then ruled that “publicly releasing intelligence information [relating to Perepilichny] would pose a real risk of serious harm to national security” Hmmm!
The CIA ‘public diplomacy’ channel Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty seems initially impartial in this article
https://www.rferl.org/a/scientist-finds-no-toxins-stomach-russian-tycoon-died-in-britain-perepilichny/29158180.html
but they get a Litvinenko twist in at the end.
The BBC version. It’s difficult to remember that we live in a so-called democracy.
Alexander Perepilichnyy possible MI6 links to stay secret
By Jim Reed and Louis Lee Ray
BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire programme
18 September 2018
The inquest is looking at whether Alexander Perepilichnyy died of natural causes or was unlawfully killed. (Photo caption)
The government can keep secret the details of whether there were any links between British spies and a Russian businessman who died in mysterious circumstances, a coroner has ruled.
Alexander Perepilichnyy, 44, collapsed in November 2012 when out jogging near his mansion in Surrey.
An investigation by Surrey Police later found he died of natural causes.
Critics of the police response say a full public inquiry is now needed to establish whether he was poisoned.
The coroner at the inquest into his death, judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, upheld an application by Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who is refusing to publicly release documents from MI5 and MI6 relating to Mr Perepilichnyy for security reasons.
/…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45548975
Q. Why has it taken four years after the death to arrive at the inquest?
Perhaps there is hope that there might be one for Dr David Kelly, fifteen years on.
A car carrying four people hit three people outside a mosque in Cricklewood, North London, last night.
It does not seem to me as if it was a premeditated Islamophobic or racist attack planned with murderous intent. According to that ITV report, the car was parked in the Islamic centre’s car park, the occupants were asked to leave, they may have been abusing alcohol or other drugs, a row ensued, they uttered some anti-Muslim abuse, the car got some minor damage, and it drove off injuring some people.
But look at the way the story is covered. As I’ve said before, there really is such a phenomenon as the copycat attack, as those who control the media know very well. They are trying to incite acts in which Islamophobic nutters try to commit murder at mosques, as happened in Finsbury Park last year; and, more generally, race war.
I put up a comment about that but it has been moderated. Perhaps it was because I said, if it had been a s.nagogue, the story would have taken off into the stratosphere. I also said that the JC is making another attack on Corbyn ref anti-semitism.
The police obviously know who owns the car and who was driving it. No CCTV in Cricklewood?
‘The Met has urged anyone with information to come forward and said inquiries are under way to trace the car.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45570907
The BBC has changed the report eight times since 7.50 this morning!
https://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1663736/diff/1/2
Minor revisions of no consequence.
The car could be an unregistered “pool car” or stolen.
Would still be traceable.
If I were a TV interviewer, I would ask Theresa May the following question:
“What if opinion polls show that 90% of the electorate think that the version of Brexit you’re trying to sell – whether it’s a ‘deal’ or whether it’s the ‘no deal’ that will ensue if your efforts to reach a ‘deal’ fail – is an unmitigated heap of shit? Will you back a second referendum then, girl? Or will you resign and run off to get filmed in Waitrose instead?”
The way you phrase the question you’d like to ask explains why you’d never make it as a TV interviewer.
Hard-hitting is fine, vulgarity, bad manners and dumbing down are not.
But N_ is only following the example set by Jon Snow, Cathy Newman, Kirsty Wark, Krishnan Guru Murthy, Stephen Sackur etc
Oh I get it, it depends who is being interviewed.
@Charles
Yes – they have to submerge any independence of thought, any spirit, any profound criticism of the system they might possibly ever have had, and yet still come across as though they are representing objective truth. Welcome to professional culture in which the middle class android’s identity is based on their stupid job. Against their world, intelligently used vulgarity is good.
Of course I wouldn’t make it doing what they do.
Some of the decent commenters here give me the impression they dream of a clean journalism, a clean politics, a clean parliamentary democracy, a clean capitalism, a cleaning out of the stables. Well I don’t. I just want to burn the whole of capitalism down.
Can you imagine? Bye-bye mediatory professionals with their craparse “objectivity”. Bye-bye their bullshit world.
You seem to have difficulty with the idea of “dumbing down”. If someone publicly asked Theresa May the question I wrote, they wouldn’t be dumbing anybody down. They would be helping to do the exact opposite, to wise people up.
N_,
It’s been tried, but it will get deleted when it appears here. (I think they are all closet Tories)
I’m not sure about you.
“Time to F**k off Theresa!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz_SHidVfk
Tony
Granulation tissue slowly amassing after installation of my new titanium clavicle, I was out and about yesterday for the first time in a fortnight.
Blustery as it was, I paused to light a xiaoxiongmao™ cigarette, but quickly ran out of Swan Vestas. I was cowering in the doorway of an old-fashioned wholesaler of livestock feed in the centre of the little town. A personable chap who worked there saw my plight and came over offering me a light.
We had a little chat, and he told me in a strong local brogue that the firm had been trading from the same premises for more than one hundred years. Even the impressive huge wooden doors on rollers were original. I suspect he may have in fact been the owner. I asked him how was business, a bit about the history of the business, and finally whether he thought “Brexit” would affect him.
“It sells t’papers” was his laconic reply.
As the political party conference season gets under way, be prepared for the PPBs.
Tonight we had Vince Cable’s ‘Exit for Brexit’ call after some knocking copy on May and Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkgtzm
Who cares? Nobody watches them, though no doubt you will be sacrificing yourself for some perverse reason.
Unavoidable as they either precede or follow the news. I assume you live in the UK and watch the news.
Your use of the word ‘sacrifice’ is rather stupid as is your remark.
Get off my back.
PPBs are totally avoidable unless one has lost the remote control or does not own a clock.
The first news on Monday night, came from CNN, and I think they were probably correct, cos they heard it almost direct.
However The Russian airplane that was shot out of the sky has live dowload links to The Russian airbase in Syria.
The Russian MOD will know exactly what happenned and they were immediately furious,
It is a very old flying trick.
Putin told his own MOD to SHTFU – cos he is a very clever guy, and didn’t want to start WWIII on Monday, by sinking The French Warship, which may also have shot a few off.
The UK Planes in The Sky from Cyprus with transponders on (so they could be identified) were also there (just watching , but loaded)
Everyone trying to attack are seriously annoyed by my heroes Vanessa Beeley and her mate Eva Bartlett (for actually being there) who are simply trying to defend the innocent people of Syria being bombed even more to hell – like what happenned in Iraq and Libya
But the very interesting outcome of all of this, is that they seriously annoyed The Russian Military Defence, to such an extent, because they pulled the worst possible trick. That will hit the psyche of almost all Russian people, regardless of the fact that many of their people live in the country that is Responsible for the attack
Its a bit, but on a much larger scale, than the recent attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
It’s O.K. for The English and The Americans to seriously annoy The Russians.
They can take that..
But this was Something Else. It’s called shooting yourself in the foot.
http://i2.wp.com/www.wrongkindofgreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Eva-Vanessa-Strike-Down-Corporate-Media-.jpg
Tony
Andrew Murray is chief of staff at Unite and an adviser to Jeremy Corbyn.
He writes in the New Statesman –
19 SEPTEMBER 2018
Is the “deep state” trying to undermine Corbyn?
The denial to me of Commons security clearance and a raft of hostile stories suggests the intelligence services may be working to block the election of a Labour government.
/..
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/09/deep-state-trying-undermine-corbyn
At last people are finally getting down to brass tacks.
If the British Establishment are fundamentally criminal, fanatical, unreformable, uncompromising and unyielding, then what is a genuine democrat to do to further their own cause?
Foreign Affairs = news in Soft Focus. Monday taught me that the media(s) are far for more biddable and on message than I had thought. If we are not officially at war than it’s all a bit too much like everyone and everyones editor’s a teacher’s pet and there are no wild cards in the class. That must be some stagnant pool. If we are at war then all’s fair in love and war and everyone toes the line and truth is too valuable to be broadcast, but if we just have a sort of silent war without the public being aware: then is that to be kept under wraps? It’s one thing to know that there is a war and consent to truth being suspended for the duration and another not to even know there is a war and that truth has been suspended for the duration.
I suppose the 60’s Oman/Dhofar was one such silent episode in marked contrast to public Vietnam.
Maybe we shouldn’t expect any truth in the media. Why? For £1.60 or £2.20 or for a couple of cookies or because we think our journalists aspire to a higher standard and not to their egos, ambitions and families? Hhhmm…??
Maybe my view of the world is simplistic but I don’t believe that most people are evil as I’m an athiest.
The thing is that we have the 1% which if you are an academic and a mathematician is provable.
The 1% employ people like Blair- Kissinger – Cheney etc to promote /lobby on their behalf.
Further down the food chain the BBC Executives do the same in order to keep their salaries and future employment in the PR firms in the private sector.
Politicians are no better or worse – they all have a stake in perpetuating the current system and you have to remember that Thatcher’s creed – that ” There is no such thing as society ” has fashioned the thinking of most people under forty and left them operating as individuals not as a collective society.
If you are lucky enough to be able to afford a mortgage ( in order to cover your financial arse when you are old ) then it is doubtful that you are going to rock the boat in your career.
Thjs I believe is how most of the Middle to Upper Middle Classes operate these days and as an adjunct to this it is a bastion to a certain extent of the Brexiter sentiment. It is not the left behinds ( and there are many of them ) that are throwing their hands in the air crying foul it is the literal conservatives ( with a medium C ) who gained a lot in the Thatcherised years 1979 – 2007 season and these gainers y view Corbyn and his mates as a bunch of pirates who are itching to relieve the same people from their deserved gains or capital gains in terms of house prices. It’s not true of course but the Mail and Express scare the crap out of them from time to time.
As I say I don’t view these people as evil – just scared and they obviously don’t want things to change. But they have
two choices vis Brexit/Remain. That is: they can tolerate the alleged bureaucracy of the EU or feel the benevolence of a nationalist/protectionist US and its wrecking of WTO rules.. There is no chance of the BRICS taking us in -they are doing fine as they are.
Them’s the choices and on balance I know what it’s like to live under the EU rules but have no idea what the economy will be like if we don’t.
Belief in the nation won’t cut the Brexiter argument for me as the last thing I want do as an atheist is to go to church and pray for a good No Deal Brexit.
There are only two choices EU or WTO rules.
Nobody can really know much about what is being or non-being and maybe agnostic makes more sense than atheism, but anyway there is also the choice of what you choose to do in any situation and if you, I or one chooses the choice that we knows ain’t the right one then to be conscious of that and not to lie to one’s oneself about it, then that is where it’s at.
If the 99% are so easily co-opted to make the wrong choices because they choose to lie to themselves then hell that sure makes it easy for the one %.
EU or WTO, Norway or Swiss or what have you. These are tough choices which we don’t have so much data on and it’s not so easy to decide. So we go with a hunch and hunches can be played and can be wrong. QE has been such bullshit that something has to be done and something is going to happen, some sort of reckoning or balancing because we can live on creating debt out of air ad infinitum, (or can you?) but when that moment comes where do you want to be: in EU or UK – that is not easy to answer. The big risk in UK on its own is its a big change and in big changes clever people snap up the opportunities and what was dreamt of is lost and instead there is something worse.
Making the choices in front of us everyday ain’t shying away. They are tough questions too. They are the real dilemmas. Different for each of us but at the base of each dilemma is do I do what I should do or what I shouldn’t do and if we look closely we see that we often do what we shouldn’t but have dressed it up in a big inky cloak of a lie. If we address these small problems then the big problem will fall away i.e. the one % will not have it so easy.
For example if every journalist and editor is committed to set out the true facts as they rightly or wrongly perceive them then ……its obvious… some of those facts are going to be known. If they cower for fear over a possible loss of status, connections, livelihood etc well hell WTF did they become journalists for as they might have well become IBs or hedges. Some people….
@fwl – Be aware of where the term “agnostic” comes from, namely the deeply unpleasant eugenicist turd Thomas Huxley.
surely the position itself doesn’t derive from eugenics.
Cheers N, I’d not heard of Thomas Huxley before and have looked hi up. The process of thinking and realising that we can’t really know is found in many places eg even in religion say Mhadyamika Buddhism, Taoism, or even Montaigne (although he was a Catholic he doubted pretty much else and I’m not sure why he didn’t doubt his faith, maybe that was because of his faith or maybe for pragmatic political reasons). The Mhadyamika approach that something is true, is also false, is both true and false, is neither true nor false is a sound one if it doesn’t give one a headache. Many on these pages attack one another for spinning a party or country line as if they were a paid shill, whilst often spinning their own position. If one is not being paid and / or is not engaged on work or party or state business then a little bit of Montaignian type doubt and reflection is in order.
@ fwl September 19, 2018 at 21:04
‘..Maybe we shouldn’t expect any truth in the media. Why? For £1.60 or £2.20 or for a couple of cookies or because we think our journalists aspire to a higher standard and not to their egos, ambitions and families?…’
Whilst there has always been dodgy journalism, there used to be newspapers that really searched for the truth, and printed it.
Now, all MSM is nobbled, and owned or controlled by the PTB.
It is heinous, but it certainly make sense from the PTB’s point of view.
How much real blazing anger is there in Britain (or elsewhere) at the fact that our government is threatening war against a sovereign state if they have the audacity to attempt to re-establish control over their country from the headchoppers that we and our cronies sent in there?
That is the reality of what HMG is threatening.
Unfortunately, most of the so-called ‘Left’ believes the BS about Assad using CW’s against ‘his own people’, and that he is a terrible monstrous tyrant.
There is virtually no righteous rage at what our government is threatening, which is the worst of the Nuremberg War Crimes, a War of Aggression, a War Against Peace.
Well I don’t know if journalism used to be better or not. I thought it was but then Ian Cobain in the History Thieves makes the point about how hushed up Dhofar / Oman was in the 60’s. He says that even many military thought there was at least one post war year when we were not in a conflict (one year in the 60s I forget which) but actually there was not even one because Dhofar was so quiet.
He also makes the point that Freedom of Information whilst giving us some useful access has made some things more secret than they used to be, but I am surprised at how little diversity there is in the media. Still I vaguely recollect I read a year or two reading something possibly in the FT and I think it was by a son of a ME intelligence chief, who had come to an unpleasant end, saying his father had told him that nearly all secrets are already in the public domain if one just has the patience to uncover them.
According to legend it was 1968.
Things aren’t really kept secret so much as their public domain profile is managed.
Cryptic one there Johnnny. I could tell you a few secrets, and I’m not here referring to the colour of the carpets in the Admiralty building. As with the floor coverings, you would find most of them extremely dull, but they’re secret alright. Some of the more colourful speculations (which have been defended against) about attacks on UK infrastructure might be up your street, but even they are ultimately mundane. These musings were, are, should and will remain secret, for fairly obvious reasons.
What is this “public domain profile”? Should I be looking into E H Carr‘s philosophy of history here?
Thanks N yes 1968 quiet a year.
Johny, yup that makes sense. Rather like how it was ok to publish obscene verse in latin, or the old Lady Chatterley’s Lover prosecution argument as to whether it was a book you would want your wife or servants to read. WSJ used to have this wonderful freedom to publish that which would not be aired on Fox News etc on the basis that information otherwise taboo is needed for the efficacy of financial markets. I am not sure of that is still the case with the WSJ, though I don’t know as they don’t even print the Euro version these days.
@ fwl September 19, 2018 at 22:55
I seem to remember reading about Dhofar/Oman in the Guardian (which i USED to be an avid reader of).
‘..nearly all secrets are already in the public domain if one just has the patience to uncover them…’
Ahh, but, ‘public domain’ is not the same as ‘MSM’.
My point was that MSM used to be more open and honest.
That’s why some books are virtually impossible to get, and why some Freemasons used to steal books from public libraries about Freemasonry, which had info about the ‘Craft’ that they did not want exposed.
There is so much info out now that they don’t bother, but many books are secretly censored from public libraries, just as some are now getting barred from Amazon and the like.
Notice that they call Masonry ‘the Craft’, just as witches refer to their witchcraft. And that is most assuredly not the only similarity between the two.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump says exposing ‘corrupt’ FBI probe could be ‘crowning achievement’ of presidency
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/407335-exclusive-trump-says-exposing-corrupt-fbi-probe-could-be-crowning-achievement
I rather like Trump’s style of straight-talk.
You like comedy, then.
Interesting Wikileaks Cablegate material about novichoks, Mirzayanov, and his book State Secrets.
– – – – – – – –
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09THEHAGUE205_a.html
2009 March 26, 09:08 (Thursday)
From: Netherlands The Hague
To: Central Intelligence Agency | National Security Council | Secretary of Defense | Secretary of State
S E C R E T THE HAGUE 000205
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR ISN/CB AND VCI/CCA
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
NSC FOR LUTES
WINPAC FOR WALTER
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/26/2019
TAGS: PARM, PREL, CWC
SUBJECT: (S) CWC: INQUIRIES IN THE HAGUE ABOUT MIRZAYANOV
“STATE SECRETS” BOOK
Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B), (D) and (H)
This is CWC-17-09.
1. (U) Action requested para 5.
2. (S) On March 25, in a private conversation, Canadian delegate asked U.S. and UK Delreps whether they had heard of the Mirzayanov book “State Secrets: An Insider’s View of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program.” Canadian Rep added that Mirzayanov now appeared on YouTube. UK Rep acknowledged she had heard of it, but said this was the first time she had heard of “novichoks” and thought the entire discussion was best left to experts in capital. U.S. Delrep indicated a lack of familiarity with the subject matter and indicated no interest in pursuing the discussion further.
3. (S) On March 4, Delrep met with U.S. Rep to the OPCW Data Validation Group. In addition to a routine report on the activities of the Validation Group the week of March 2, U.S. Rep informed Delrep that representatives of several countries (Finland, Netherlands, UK) had begun discussing the Mirzayanov book on the margins of the meeting. All participants in the discussion seemed to be simply gauging the level of awareness; these same individuals also expressed some doubt as to the credibility/accuracy of the information in the book. U.S. Rep to the Validation Group confirmed that no other members of the group took part in or were listening to this conversation.
4. (S) Del Note: U.S. Del understands from OSD that the UK Ministry of Defense has spoken to its counterparts in the Netherlands and Finland, apprised them of the conversation, and asked each country to provide guidance to its del members not/not to raise this issue in the future. End Note.
5. (S) Action Request: As the implications of this book for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) are likely to come up at future OPCW meetings (particularly technical meetings like the upcoming Scientific Advisory Board meeting 30 March – 1 April 2009), Del requests guidance as to how this issue is to be handled if raised by others. U.S. members of OPCW technical advisory bodies do not necessarily have contact with the U.S. delegation during their time in The Hague; guidance will need to be provided directly to these individuals.
6. (U) Beik sends.
GALLAGHER
I found that cable from the following article:
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/03/21/unknown-newcomer-novichok-was-long-known-a1596490
Summary of argument:
The existence of the novichoks has been actively ignored by the West for years, in order to save the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
There are strong indications that the West has secretly started to synthesize the substances soon after discovery.
There has been a lot of confusion about the structure of the substances for a while in professional magazines and manuals. There are indications that incorrect information was actively distributed.
Israel has a completely unaudited Bio- Chem- Weapons program and the USA has become remarkably tardy in dismantling its facilities – lost interest once the Russians complied.
I bet Monsanto can bottle Nina Ricci without labelling it “Poison” and probably will now the Zyklon B guys at Bayer are find Glyphosate an expensive legal headache. Wonder why German Business gets itself into heavy duty litigation – Bayer-Monsanto, VW, Bilfinger, Siemens, Deutsche Bank – they are probably going to find out which companies……..
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-companies-suspected-of-aiding-syrian-chemical-weapons-program-a-1014722.html
I think we can agree that US has targeted Germany in the EU trade war. It wants sycophantic Poland as it’s lapdog and will transfer factories there to weaken stronger EU economies.
All this stuff is just propaganda to back it up.
Is that from 2009? Why does it have a 2019 date?
fwl, that’s the projected declassification date, ten years from issue.
Ah, thanks.
‘Biohazard’ by Ken Ailbek is a great read. The former head of the Soviet bioweapons defected to the US in 1992 and tells the story of a massive program the US and it’s allies knew little about. Whilst Novichok isn’t mentioned by name, after all it is a classification of weapon rather than one in particular, there are references to ‘wet work’ and compounds developed that could be put on door handles, steering wheels and telephones.
Here’s a link to a .pdf of the book… https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/esmallpox/biohazard_alibek.pdf …pay particuar attention to pages 176/77
@ Spencer Eagle September 20, 2018 at 11:49
‘..compounds developed that could be put on door handles, steering wheels and telephones…’
Ah, but, there was no mention of putting it in perfume bottles! See how far the world has progressed since then!
oh and those compounds don’t kill cats or guinea pigs or random hotel guests staying the same room. fascinating.
Not on topic, but a thought.
A plausible explanation for Skripal might be thus.
Immediately after the discovery of the two victims, the security services were able to tell the Gov that they had two likely suspects. Which they indeed had, but not much else. Everything fitted nicely, trips to Salisbury etc, and Russian to boot. The Gov went with this because it all sounded perfect and fitted their agenda. The story thereafter has been designed to fit. Hence the myth.
But unfortunately it was not so.
On a “blog” where the “blogger” saunters in once every several weeks with an entry or two and then promptly dozes off for a few more, the concept of off-topic need concern no one and indeed barely exists.
An Israeli theatric for a Mosvow audience.
‘Israeli Air Force chief to explain downing of Russia’s Il-20 in Moscow on Thursday
Published: 19 Sep 2018 | 20:16 GMT
An Israeli Defense Force (IDF) delegation will set off for Moscow on Thursday morning, the country’s military said in a statement. The group is led by the commander of Israeli air force, Major General Amikam Norkin, who will give Russians a “situation report” on the recent downing of a Russian Il-20 plane in Syria. The plane was mistakenly shot down by Syrian air defenses in the midst of an Israeli attack on the province of Latakia late on Monday. Apart from the promised situation report, the delegation is expected to provide Moscow with evidence of the alleged attempts to “establish an Iranian military presence in Syria,” according to the statement.’
RT website.
6 months or there abouts until the next big crash. No, not Brexit, but the next (Chinese/ Australian) financial collapse is being ever more widely predicted.
The decline of liberalism, the rise of Rightwing ‘populism’, austerity and really all the features of the post 2008 world are attributable to the inevitable decline in energy and resources around the world. Growth is ending/ has to end, and that changes everything.
Yet nobody seems to want to discuss it.
The growth created by our national investment plan, underpinned by the responsible economic management embodied in our Fiscal Credibility Rule, will create good jobs, drive up living standards and improve the public finances. Labour Party manifesto 2017
Conservatives will deliver…growth accross the country through our modern industrial strategy.. Conservative manifesto 2017
..a focus on jobs, growth and productivity… SNP manifesto 2017
Even the Green Party writes of ‘supply side sustainable ‘development”.
I checked the Guardian articles on ‘peak oil’ and the last was written in 2014 by Nafeez Ahmed who seemed to be the only journalist there who was thinking about politics in a systems analysis kind of way.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-next-financial-crash-is-imminent-and-chinas-resource-crisis-could-be-the-trigger-be108b2731e9
“Salisbury incident: Hoax ‘likely’ to be one line of inquiry”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45580825
“Rat poison, Prezzo and the Russian model: an odd Salisbury subplot ”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/19/salisburys-saga-the-spy-the-supermodel-the-strychnine-and-thats-just-the-sub-plot
“Strychnine is a grand tonic … to take the flabbiness out of a man.”
HG Wells “The Invisible Man”
Just as I predicted. The new game “Novichok!”, perfect for the dinner table.
@EricsEars,
As long as you remember to wash your hands and clothes in Fairy Liquid after, you will be fine.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 (AM)
Russia reveals the MH17 ‘smoking gun’
Defense Ministry provides missile engine evidence, shifting blame to the Ukrainian military
http://www.atimes.com/article/russia-reveals-the-mh17-smoking-gun/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLBpLVwa-lM
SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 (PM)
Russian IL-20 aircraft shot down in what seems was a planned manoeuvre to deceive
‘Staring at the screen in disbelief as the BBC broadcast’ ….. an interview with Grayling on BBC Breakfast saying ‘lessons should be learned’…’not fit for purpose’…… in reference to the report on the country’s latest rail system collapse.
‘Rail: ‘Lack of accountability’ led to timetable chaos
35 minutes ago
“No-one took charge” during the timetable chaos that caused severe disruption on Britain’s railways in May, a regulator has said.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) blamed a lack of “responsibility and accountability” for the problems and said passengers were “badly treated”.
It said track manager Network Rail, two train operators and the Department for Transport “had all made mistakes”.
It came as the government promised a major review of Britain’s railways.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45572736
Oh. I see. We’re going to have another ‘review’.
He should go and the rest of them. The Tories have been in office for 8 years and 133 days (including the 3 years with the LDs).
ORR = The Office for Rail and Road. I am sure they get Grayling and co quaking in their boots. Previously the Railway Inspectorate.
The usual players are on the magic roundabout. http://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/who-we-are/the-board
Report after report – http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2018/orr-inquiry-concludes-passengers-let-down-by-rail-industry-failures
A new chairman, Declan Collier, starts in January. He was the CEO of London City Airport.
http://orr.gov.uk/news-and-media/press-releases/2018/orr-chair-announced
The Tories were in government with the Liberal Democrats for five years. I would not ordinarily correct people on a blog but I know you demand high standards of accuracy from others.
Why don’t you stop channelling me and tell us something REALLY interesting for a change. I see what your game is.
No thanks necessary. As I said I would not correct you but you do go out of your way to correct others. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
I shall contribute where I see fit, History, Politics, NI / RoI relations , Scotland and Foreign Affairs are particular interests, as my contributions over the last eight or so years will demonstrate. However, I am quite sure my posts will not be up to your high standard of long cut and past jobs from Electronic Intifada, BBC, RT, etc – please accept my apologies in advance.
Network Rail is having a new chairman as I said. The current holder of the post is Mark Carne (not Carney btw) on a £675,000 ++ salary. It is currently £820k. A snip.
Network Rail boss Mark Carne to step down this year
Chief executive has been under pressure from government and move follows East Coast collapse
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/06/network-rail-boss-mark-carne-step-down-this-year
He’s done the rounds at Royal Dutch Shell and British Gas before being recruited for Network Rail in 2014. Her Maj gave him a CBE in June for his excellent performance.
Birthday Honours 2018: Network Rail boss made CBE amid travel chaos
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44415339
I see there is an escapee from Branson’s Virgin Trains on the Network Rail board, Chris Gibb.
The Magic Roundabout is in operation. pp 77 and 79 on here for the salaries.
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Remuneration-Committee-Report-2018.pdf
Sir Peter Hendy OBE, Transport for London etc, received £half a million and
‘In addition to fees, Sir Peter Hendy CBE also receives private medical cover which was agreed with the DfT in 2015 at the time of his appointment. The 2016/17 figure has been updated to show value of cover received. Sir Peter Hendy CBE also reduced his working hours in July 2017 which is reflected in the decrease in remuneration.’
YCNMIU
A point of agreement! The salaries paid to rail bosses are a disgrace. I favour higher public sector pay (not just at lower levels but throughtout the sector – including the SCS and politicians) but the salaries and perks on offer to rail bosses are ludicrous, espeically given the rail companies’ performance in Great Britain.
Mark Carne’s total remuneration package in 2017/18 was £769,000 – over five times the PM’s wage and twcie that of the VC of the University of Cambridge. Madness.
Gavin (Shurrup and go away) Williamson, Secretary of State for Defence (LOL) is visiting Ukraine.
Ukraine praises Britain’s support for Ukrainian Armed Forces – Muzhenko
18.09.2018
Building up the capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is the key element of the strategy to deter the aggressor, and Ukraine praises the assistance of international partners, Chief of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Viktor Muzhenko has said.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-defense/2540519-ukraine-praises-britains-support-for-ukrainian-armed-forces-muzhenko.html
Muzhenko and his mate could have Williamson for breakfast by the looks of it.
and
UK defense secretary visits Donbas conflict zone
19.09.2018
A British delegation headed by Secretary of State for Defense Gavin Williamson has visited the area of the Joint Forces Operation (JFO) in eastern Ukraine, the press service of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has said.
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-defense/2541059-uk-defense-secretary-visits-donbas-conflict-zone.html
‘According to the Defense Ministry, Williamson noted he was most impressed by the resilience and courage of Ukrainian soldiers facing one of the world’s most aggressive armies.
The British delegation also met with Joint Forces Commander Lieutenant-General Serhiy Nayev, who reported on the situation in the JFO area and provided specific facts of the use of Russian-made weapons against military units in eastern Ukraine. Nayev informed Williamson of measures being taken by the Joint Forces to deter Russian aggression and stabilize the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.’
UKRINFORM There speaks another state broadcaster. The BBC could change its name to UKINFORM.
Thanks for the info, Sharp Ears. I’m sure he impressed them…with his gullibility!
I take it he didn’t ask them about ongoing attacks on civilian areas in the Donbass.
L-G Serhiy Nayev “provided specific facts of the use of Russian-made weapons against military units in eastern Ukraine”. I take it that would be the weapons supplied to Ukraine forces in the 1980s, then. Presumably, like ‘Novichok’, because they were produced in Russia, accountability for any future use has to fall to the Russians.
I also note the final sentence of your second link, viz “The British official said at the end of the trip that the UK would continue to assist and fully support Ukraine”. Well we know what that means. The anti-Russian agenda isn’t going to end anytime soon!
‘FBI fabricated evidence against Libya’: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Pierre_P%C3%A9an#FBI_fabricated_evidence_a gainst_Libya
These days, they don’t even bother to fabricate evidence, they just fake it and make allegations.
I wonder why the ‘White Helmets’ aren’t ‘helping’ in Yemen?
Actually, my sentence ‘..These days, they don’t even bother to fabricate evidence, they just fake it and make allegations…’ is self-contradictory, in that that was exactly what they did in the Lockerbie case.
“Bear from Bo’ Selecta! Bear from Bo’ Selecta!”