blandy

I understand your view, yet I wonder if the point couldn't be made that, yes he was found to have erred in the past and was then given remedial/awareness training, had his role taken away and has not at all done anything wrong since. Someone has come forward and said "he bullied me too, 20 odd years ago. Thing is he's already been dealt with for that period of offending. It's double jeopardy - he's already been dealt with for that time. People may feel the punishment and awareness training was too lenient, but that's a different subject. The previous allegations were investigated and found to carry weight. These (as yet) have not been. IF they are found to have merit, then further decisions need to be made. As of now, normal legal or disciplinary process on this, i.e. innocent until...etc. ought to apply, surely?

It was, but corporates don't always go to the TV games because of KO times etc. Same with media coverage - it's lower, less journey there etc.

What did he do there Si? lift pieces of Weight?

Zecky boxes, corporate hospo, meeja etc.

Trying to stay cool, but It's seriously hot. Lager.

Exactly. unfortunately that seems to be part of whats happened.

Me too , and after BFR bigged him up to be the next God. Turned out to be not so far off the mark, but he had a shocker that day.

Its hard to find, tbf. So much crap, so little good , relatively. Hos and guns .

Yes, I agree with most of that im particularly pleased your question as to whether I support AQ seems to have been resolved. I obviously don't. I also agree dictators are baf and we make things worse not better in the middle east when we start bombing . That's long been my view. As to the degree of caution used when bombing, there's plenty of evidence out there. Ditto casualty numbers, and they pretty universally back up (inform) what ive said on them. Wiki has some, I posted maybe 6 months ago in the Russia thread some others. Essentially my view has long been that if weregoibg to even contemplate sending our sons, daughters brothers etc. to fight and die, then we sure as heck have to be absolutely certain of the ecact plan, outcome, post-war settlement, validity of information, and we have to resource and equip those going to the utmost level. The UK has not done this in my lifetime, save perhaps Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The US has the resources and equipment, but has fallen well short in the other areas. There's a further twist, too. Once you've made a decision and got involved and changed things, then there's a duty to get the best/least bad outcome. Like a wasp nest, i wouldn't pokecit with a stick, but once its been poked, and there's a ton of angry wasps, is it best to run away and leave others to be stung, or is there a responsibility to either kill the wasps or shield the other people?

I think they may be underestimating our ability to notice things, if that’s the case.

Gruesome.

The bit I remember is “I supported intervention in Libya” I also remember you later saying you were wrong for the right reasons, or some such. I have no recollection of the rest, but happily accept what you say above. One of the reasons I was not convinced by your (and more pertinently Cameron’s) then enthusiasm for us to get involved in Libya is because, as ever, and as with Syria, Iraq etc. the myriad various sects, factions, religious and ethnic groups don’t want foreigners there. Whether US, French, British, Russian... and there’s only so much you can do from the air, or offshore. Anyone doing that causes casualties amongst non combatants. My perception is that the UK is more careful than the US which is more careful/less careless than Russia which in turn is less reckless than than Syrian forces. The massive issue I have with your “outlook” is not that it comes from an anti-American/western position - that’s your prerogative and I can see some justification for it, but the hypocrisy and double standards and willingness to excuse or overlook or re-define actions when they’re taken by Russian actors in Salisbury or Syria, or anywhere. Your critical and sceptical talents are not evenly directed. There’s a bias that’s very apparent, which is fine, it’s a free world, but I can’t take what you write seriously when you exhibit it.

Abhorring Assad does not mean supporting AQ. So that’s a pathetic response I did not and do not “support” “us” getting involved in bombing etc. Syria either, or Iraq , or Libya (unlike some people with double standards in here. I mean this From Peter, who supported “us” taking action in Libya, for example.). So put away the ludicrous “take off your blinkers” nonsense, Akram. Though if you want to direct it elsewhere, it might be more useful in light of some of what’s been posted Monstrous hypocrisy doesn’t do this kind of thing justice Whilst correct, contrast and compare with this gem Assad and Russia liberate and return normal order! I can only laugh at it. Friendly Russian bombs! Assad and Russia since they got involved have been responsible for more deaths of civilians in less time than the forces from the US and partners. Because they take less care and because they also deliberately target them on occasion, with their barrel bombs and their gas. They are not, despite the “whataboutism” from you or @peterms, liberators and bringers of freedom. I’m amazed and genuinely saddened that my saying that has been vociferously opposed. I’m also greatly disappointed to even need to have to correct you, or Peter, by pointing out that opposition by me to Assad and Russia’s actions is not support for Trump’s or Obama’s or Cameron’s. Rail all you like against W, or Blair or Cameron’s folly because I’m with you, but don’t adopt double standards when it then comes to Russian bombings Frankly, fury at actions by the US is rendered rather artificial to me by anyone who then adopts an entirely different approach if it’s Russian bombs, Syrian gas, and who talks about illegality after calling for that very same thing in Libya. I can’t take it seriously. Pointing out all the flaws in US policy does not make Russian policy “liberation”. As I said, **** me. Staggering.

Nice one. Ha ha ha ha. Seriously this is one of the most ridiculously slanted things I’ve seen you write. “Liberated”. Ha ha. I’d just about go with “returned to the control of a murdering, torturing, dictator”. I’d go with “towns have been indiscriminately bombed and gassed by the Syrian army with crucial support from the Russians”. I’d go with some acknowledgement that utterly deliberate targeting of medics and hospitals by Syrian forces with the crucial aid of Russia has caused particular suffering for the people. Liberated. Yeah, good one. They’re free again to be ruled over by Putin’s tyrant friend. Where giving medical aid to anyone suspected of being an opponent is illegal, likely to lead to torture and then death in prison. A country where a popular uprising against the tyrant has been Liberated from democracy and retired to dictatorship. Liberated to return to a normal life of oppression. Liberated civilians liberated to their graves by the friendly Russians and Syrian army. **** me.

Now you're tying people in Notts.

So, you're saying that within weeks, Labour is going to reverse its manifesto (last one) commitment to do Brexit? Really? Your words don't quote say that, Peter, I know. But You seem to be implying Corbyn/Labour's position is going to be reversed within weeks - they've supported the tories in triggering A50, they continue, as you argued earlier, to not want a referendum, not to want to reverse the "will of the people" yet the man i=of (alleged) integrity is now (you're saying) going to oppose Brexit. As I said a few days ago, it's a heads or tails call. In or out. He's going to go from Out to In? What have I missed. Never mind party games, what is the actual belief, as you see it?

That's the nub of what I'm getting at, or thinking. This is an example of the EU stooping to May's level. As bad as each other. 2 years ago or whatever, I said (as did many) that people shouldn't be being used as trading money between the EU and UK. This is an example of the EU doing exactly that. The tories tried it 2 years ago, They were wrong to do so, and the EU is now. It's wrong whoever does it.

I take your point. As someone else (Bicks I think) said, it's an element of posturing, What I'm trying to put across is that EU solidarity, EU ideals are all about the people of the Europe being able to live and work and travel and...etc. anywhere in the EU, like a big lovely playground. Sure as you say if the UK becomes a 3rd country, then that doesn't automatically apply, but if you're making the argument about "here's lovely nice brotherly EU and there's nasty spiteful solitary UK", then being mean to workers and residents who originated in the UK but now contribute to Germany or Spain or Poland's national wossname, well that's as closed of mind as May's immigration obsession. It's an ideal that's getting lost.

TBF, that's the EU being twunts. It's not the (supposed) "ideal" of the EU to treat people like that. If the UK did it, we'd be mad at the heartlessness of the Tories. For all that our politicians have been massive throwers, the EU aren't exactly immune from dickishness either. I just feel sorry for the people hit by all the idiocy and posturing.

Well jell.

Don’t fatter yourself Alex

I didn’t know that. Thanks. It’s a glimmer of hope I suppose.

Maybe I’ve confused you. I’m critiquing Corbyn’s position, not espousing my own position. Corbyn’s position is ludicrous. May’s position is maniacal. Me, I’d revoke the ****, instigate a Republic, overthrow the surgery and kidnap Dr. Mopp......but I’m not pm. I’m a bloke in a pub.

Just seen this on the timing on twitter HV. The thread underneath links to the detail.

Let’s have a look at how that might pan out. Firstly there’s the legal side. The text is black and white. 2 years after triggering it, we’re out. We can revoke it beforehand, but not after. The EU and the UK would both need to agree to any extension and overcome any legal case brought (say by some hard Brexit throbber). There’s no time for such a case to be heard...so in the absence of a ruling it’s very unchartered waters. For BOTH the EU and UK to agree to extend, assuming no legal hurdles, as we have seen, the EU has just told May to do one on trying to reopen negotiations. Labour’s got the same issue of wanting single market etc. benefits without abiding by the rules. Maybe the EU would contemplate reopening and extending for Corbyn, but he’d have to change his stance, too. There’s also the difficulty of EU parliament elections coming up. How do they allocate seats for an unknown number of member nations, because the total seats would be split between TBD countries (27/28). Major problem. It’s a clusterpork, enabled by both parties, mainly the tories, but the opposition is utterly useless.