Jump to content


Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


peterms last won the day on March 20

peterms had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,569 Excellent

About peterms

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,821 profile views
  1. Shall I take your answers to those questions as no, no, no and yes respectively, then?
  2. The Swedish authorities didn't regard this as a serious matter having carried out a preliminary investigation, and originally dropped the case. You may be aware that the women went to the police to ask if he could be required to have an STD check, not to report a rape. It was reinstated, with a different prosecutor. There was involvement from a politician and lawyer who had facilitated rendition to the US. The UK later secretly pressured Sweden not to drop the case, asked them not to interview him in the embassy (we were told it was not legally possible, which was a lie). Emails between the UK and Sweden on the case have been destroyed. If you've actually followed the case, other than reading the stuff the Guardian have been printing, you will know this. The US has been in the background all the time, and more recently have spied on Assange's meetings with lawyers and medics. "Tin foil hat" is a remarkably unthinking response, and along with "conspiracy theory" is a sign of wishing to accept an official version of something without going to the bother of actually reviewing available facts. It's disappointing to see it.
  3. If I happen to notice the Guardian or the Mail reporting on this, I'll be happy to link it. Perhaps you might look out for them covering it as well? Meanwhile, do you have any reason for doubting what it says? Have you tried spending 15 seconds on a websearch to see if other sources confirm the links of her husband and son with military and intelligence firms? Or do you prefer to disbelieve anything coming from sources other than mainstream, as a default position?
  4. Thanks for your contribution. The art of reasoned argument is not dead.
  5. If you're suggesting the information is false, please share your basis for thinking so. It would be so helpful.
  6. It was only ever a pretext to detain him for the US to get their hands on him, as many people said at the time. And now he is being kept locked up by a magistrate who has very significant conflicts of interest. His medical condition is reported to be such that he can barely speak coherently. The whole thing is utterly shocking.
  7. I took her to mean some kind of creature that causes accidents, but I note this passage: which perhaps is the clearest descrition yet of the intimate details of their relationship.
  8. They couldn't have made it clearer that they have no remorse, no regrets, no rethinking what they did in coalition. Appalling.
  9. The same is true of food. The difference is the infrastructure required for distribution. It's the ease of delivery via pipes, and the lack of efficiency in having multiple competing sets of pipes going into a home, that makes water infrastructure a more obvious candidate for monopoly supply of infrastructure than food. Though of course there is massive waste, duplication, inefficiency and environmental damage in the way food is distributed - the answer to that wouldn't have to be taking distribution into public ownership. Yes. And provision of rail infrastructure can only sensibly be done on a monopoly basis. A comparison with buses is interesting. There's no requirement for an infrastructure monopoly with buses (I mean of vehicles, not roads, which is already a publicly controlled resource), but deregulation and competition for profitable routes and neglect of less popular routes suggests that even with timetable management, central control will produce better outcomes than letting the market do its thing. That could be done via regulation rather than ownership, of course. To the extent that broadband requires physical infrastructure that needs to be laid, maintained, renewed, I suppose it's much less disruptive and intrusive, cheaper and more efficient to have one lot rather than many, so I imagine there are practical reasons for treating provision as akin to a natural monopoly. The argument for having provision socially controlled however seems largely about the poor outcomes we have seen compared to what other countries have achieved, the increasingly important part this service plays in people's lives, and the need for intervention to deliver better and more equitable outcomes.
  • Create New...