General politics discussion thread

[Van Dammer]

Your claims of Higgins being innocent and believing his cock and bull story, it furthers my belief that you just base your opinions on whatever you are currently reading.

 

The guy that wrote the article shows no understanding of how the gambling industry works and how sports management works. Everybody in the industry knows hes guilty and theres plenty of proof that the public hasnt seen.

[David]

Your claims of Higgins being innocent and believing his cock and bull story, it furthers my belief that you just base your opinions on whatever you are currently reading.

My claims are based on part of what i've heard, not through the media, but through friends who know him, and my own opinion of the guy.

 

Your opinion is based on what you've read as well, isn't it? Unless you happen to know something we don't...

[Van Dammer]

Your claims of Higgins being innocent and believing his cock and bull story, it furthers my belief that you just base your opinions on whatever you are currently reading.

My claims are based on part of what i've heard, not through the media, but through friends who know him, and my own opinion of the guy.

 

Your opinion is based on what you've read as well, isn't it? Unless you happen to know something we don't...

 

No, I work in one of the two industries that it is linked too and its very common knowledge why the NOTW targetted him, it wasnt just chance.

[David]

No, I work in one of the two industries that it is linked too and its very common knowledge why the NOTW targetted him, it wasnt just chance.

The News Of The World is shit.

 

Considering the recent news reports on the activities of it's former editor i'm surprised anyone takes it seriously.

 

Higgins is a good lad, and i'll be happy when he dons the waistcoat again.

 

In other political news;

 

One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.

 

Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.

 

Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.

 

"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.

 

"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."

 

His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

 

Mr MacAskill freed cancer-stricken Megrahi on 20 August last year. He was given three months to live, but is living with his family in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.

 

The decision caused uproar in the US and among many of the relatives of the 270 people he was convicted of killing in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

 

In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty.

 

He also accused the American system of being based on "vengeance and retribution" saying he was glad to live in a country where "justice is tempered with mercy". He also likens America's executions to those in China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and highlights those countries' poor human rights records.

 

He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".

 

The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US.

 

He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered".

 

Shortly after the Cardinal's remarks, Mr Salmond said: "Some people say that the Scottish system has too much compassion.

 

At the end of the day, I think I'd rather be First Minister of a society with too much compassion than be First Minister of a country with too little compassion."

 

He added: "We have great respect for the relatives in all 23 countries who lost people in the Lockerbie atrocity.

 

"Some relatives say we took the right decision. Many American families say we took the wrong decision. All we ask people to understand is that everything we have done on this matter has followed the principles of Scottish justice."

 

MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.

 

It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.

 

The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.

 

Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.

 

The Catholic Church has held a long standing opposition to the use of the death penalty. However, the decision by Cardinal O'Brien to link America's record over the death penalty to its call for an inquiry over Lockerbie was criticised by relatives of those who died.

Source: The Scotsman

 

The part in bold had me chuckling.

 

I agree with Cardinal O'Brien. How we conduct business in this country has nothing to do with the US.

 

This is just them kicking up a stink because they didn't get their way, as they usually do.

[David]

An interesting commentary on the Lib Dem's ahead of their conference in a few days time;

 

It has to be admitted that the goings-on at the Lib-Dem party conference have never been precisely at the top of this paper's political priorities.

 

That's because, in the general manner of things, the Lib-Dems are confused, contradictory and quite regularly, policies that come from their conference emerge as very different beasts once their leadership has had their grubby hands on them.

 

Well, that certainly hasn't changed, but what is different now is that, with their hands tenuously grabbing at the apron-strings of the Tory Party and thus with a twitch at the reins of power, the Lib-Dem leaders are drifting further and further into the murky area of the Tory policy ambit.

 

And it's not even at its leftward fringes. Nick Clegg and his leadership cronies are progressively adopting more and more the clothing and colouration of the worst of the right-wing extremists who inhabit the nether regions of the Tory right.

 

Mr Clegg's latest intemperate outburst over benefits - a blue in tooth and claw Tory rant if there ever was one - is a fine example of just that.

 

We already know that Chancellor George Osborne has stated that around

[patiirc]

An interesting commentary on the Lib Dem's ahead of their conference in a few days time;

 

Source: The Morning Star

 

 

Awh diddums! Are they still upset the Lib Dems went to bed with the Tories and not ickle-wickle Labour... bless.

 

Shonky bit of guff journalism with the usual 'terror' slants if the Reds dont wake up to the real menace and thus should distance themselves from Yellow as a protest vote as its now Blue.

 

Id give em some credit if it wasn't bollocks with a bit of scaremongering chucked in to rally the faithful and didnt come accorss as toys being thrown out of the pram as Labour arent in power. I take it was an opinion piece?

[David]

Awh diddums! Are they still upset the Lib Dems went to bed with the Tories and not ickle-wickle Labour... bless.

 

Shonky bit of guff journalism with the usual 'terror' slants if the Reds dont wake up to the real menace and thus should distance themselves from Yellow as a protest vote as its now Blue.

 

Id give em some credit if it wasn't bollocks with a bit of scaremongering chucked in to rally the faithful and didnt come accorss as toys being thrown out of the pram as Labour arent in power. I take it was an opinion piece?

And you seriously wonder why I don't reply to your posts, Patdfb?

 

I'm unsure if you're just a numpty or if you're off your head on medication, but some of the stuff you've been posting recently has been verging on the unintelligible.

 

Apart from that, as a rule I try not to take part in debate of any kind with anyone who uses the word "shonky".

[patiirc]

And you seriously wonder why I don't reply to your posts, Patdfb?

 

I'm unsure if you're just a numpty or if you're off your head on medication, but some of the stuff you've been posting recently has been verging on the unintelligible.

 

Apart from that, as a rule I try not to take part in debate of any kind with anyone who uses the word "shonky".

 

Is it because some people are more intelligent than others that you don't reply?

 

Colloquialisms and slang are now beneath you? You realise that you would piss off some aussies, by dissing their language. Just because the language is different doesnt mean that the point is any less valid.

 

Unintelligible, because It doesnt go into 'isms' and 'systems' and the like and requires me to be chained to a computer for hours or what?

 

Or is it as I suspect, you cant be arsed because you are 'above all' that and it suits you not to answer questions that challenge your hegemony? This is because it detracts from what your trying to say and stops you cutting and pasting shite that has no further discussions attached other than the usual 'paraphrased' ' They dont like it up em' or ' what they say' or whatever one line pithy response you want to put on your posts to justify the cut and paste rather than just linking and providing thoughts on them

 

When you are questioned on it, you deflect everything as though it 'doesnt matter' and ignore any valid or (even) random questions because you consider them beneath you.

 

If that makes me some kind of numpty, by daring to question some of the genuine crap you have been C+P'ing without further discussion or allowed to be questioned or challenged then so be it.

 

You used to be a poster who engaged in discussions about anything. Now your more concerned with providing white noise to try and further your ' socialist views' as if this is some personal proving ground to justify the politics that you spout ( or are trying to justify top yourself that you believe them) or rather copy and paste on here with no grounds for anything else.

 

If I didnt know better Id say that 'David' had been replaced by someone else using his account as there is a marked difference in what is being posted and why.

 

But you go blame the meds or what ever if it suits you

[David]

Patdfb, check this thread and others like it.

 

I've been discussing the matter with people who bring points I can actually read to the table.

 

Your posts, regardless of their validity, are badly written, misspelt and generally a headache to understand.

 

That's the reason i've been ignoring you and continuing the discussion with others.

[patiirc]

Patdfb, check this thread and others like it.

 

I've been discussing the matter with people who bring points I can actually read to the table.

 

Your posts, regardless of their validity, are badly written, misspelt and generally a headache to understand.

 

That's the reason i've been ignoring you and continuing the discussion with others.

 

 

The reason for the posts being so over the place is I tend put everything down at a million miles an hour. I havent been in education for about a decade and havent needed to 'formalise' the structure of stuff for others who are studious for at least 3.5 years. As a result the posts can be a bit 'bitty'

 

I'am also a tinsy-insy-winsy bit mental as well, so that helps

 

Whatever thoughts come out are usually typed as is.

 

The mis-spells you are going to have to blame largely on Google as Chrome has an inbuilt spell checker, and I correct using that, been told Iam dyslexic before, but I think Iam just lazy in those regards.

 

I din't think that being so grammatically correct was the done thing these days. tis the interwebs and afaik written language is evolving. If it makes sense in my deranged head and I feel its relavent then it goes in the post. Sorry that doesnt always 'strike hot' with you

 

So why do they (the posts) give you a headache squire? To quote the Blue Rajah 'It's very mysterious'

[David]

Did anyone watch the Labour leadership candidates on tonights Question Time?

 

Who do you think came out of it the best?

[d-d-d-dAz]

David Miliband.

 

He might be one of the furthest away from my personal ideology, but the whole point of party politics is getting in power and, form his ability to communicate and control a room suggests to me he's the only one who could win an election. Ed Miliband, though I do like him, couldn't win a raffle if he had the only ticket.

 

Andy Burnham usually does well in these things, but he seemed to not understand the shows format, and have a tantrum when he couldn't answer every question.

[patiirc]

'None of the Above'

 

None of them stand out massively as a leader if Iam utterly honest, The Millibands' are Blair-like, in terms of the way they have been media groomed. Speech patterns and holding-things- too-long. mean you could shut your eyes and interchange between the 3 of them for sound bites.

 

Out of the millibands Id go for Ed over David, just because, he is less stern and strict, ala GB and seems a lil more in touch with what's happening rather than a continuation of the same old that has caused this mess in the interim

 

Burnham came across well to start with and then went a bit too bullish and ruined it. Could be a great choice, would need some time to galvanise and reshape the party

 

When did Diane Abbott become so meek? She was a real firebrand at one point, last night she sounded 'punch- drunk' and somewhat bored by the whole shebang. Started off thinking she would do quite well in the elections, but she hasnt really done anything other than turn up and be counted rather than actually come out and make it like she would be a good leader

 

Ed Balls??? His wife should have run, Yvette Cooper is much better choice as a party leader. Good politician, astute, strong and can lead when necessary and listen when required. She chose the kids first which is understandable, but is still a shame. Would like to have seen her have a tilt.

 

Question. When do the Unions get to vote? as Ive not recieved any ballot papers yet?

[d-d-d-dAz]

What Union are you in? ...Definitely Labour affiliated?

 

If so, you should have had your ballot paper already..

[patiirc]

What Union are you in? ...Definitely Labour affiliated?

 

If so, you should have had your ballot paper already..

 

USDAW. Ive never let me membership lapse

 

I had a recorded phone call, but it cut off quite sharpish and didnt really say much