peterms

On 15/05/2019 at 17:59, blandy said:

They say he has never worked for them as part of the Syria Douma FFM - my mistake. But I take your point.

I don't take the same view as you write about the Chlorine. The OPCW report as I read it said 

I completely accept your last comment about the denial - it looks like a non-denial denial - "he wasn't at any time part of the FFM isn't the same as "it's not a genuine document" - that seems to imply it is probably genuine. The reason why it was not used could range from "it doesn't support our preconceived verdict and we need to get something that does" (very bad)  through "internally there's been strong doubt on the nature of the work, let's get a second opinion" (if that were so, you'd expect the actual report to discuss or mention the conflicting possibilities, so still bad) to "We don't want to say so publicly, but he got it badly wrong and has lost his way" (very unlikely) to "it's a fake" (now, also unlikely).

So Yes, there is fog. No one comes out of it well. Like I said earlier - it all makes it impossible to find the actual truth for the likes of us.

The Mail have now published a piece by Hitchens, discussing the way the OPCW report was edited to produce a misleading impression that chlorine gas was used.  It includes the text of an internal email from OPCW staff protesting about the way the findings of staff investigating the incident were misrepresented.

Quote

The revelation appears to be the worst instance of ‘sexing-up’ in support of war since the invasion of Iraq and Tony Blair’s doctored dossiers. A whistleblower has made public the astonishing email of protest which was sent to senior officials at the OPCW. It says that the independent scientists’ official report on the Douma incident had been slashed and censored so severely that it:

• Misrepresented the facts – by leaving out key information;
• Hid the fact that the traces of chlorine found on the site were merely tiny trace elements, in parts per billion, and in forms that could have been found in any household bleach;
• Contained major deviations from the original report submitted by impartial experts, so that it had ‘morphed into something quite different’;
• Suppressed a total mismatch between the symptoms allegedly displayed by victims at the scene, and the effects of the chemicals which were actually found. The symptoms seen on harrowing videos shown at the time of the incident simply did not match the symptoms which would have been caused by any material found at the site.

The Mail on Sunday has seen the email of protest which one scientist at the OPCW submitted to his superiors. It refers to the original expert report from Douma which the email says was savagely censored...

...The leak follows other alarming developments concerning the OPCW’s report on Douma, which suggest an organisation in severe crisis. Last May, another leak from the OPCW’s HQ in the Hague cast grave doubt on claims that gas cylinders found at the Douma site had been dropped from the air, a vital part of the Western case against Syria.

An OPCW engineering and ballistics expert called Ian Henderson (who was not the leaker) had strongly suggested that two gas cylinders found in Douma and examined by the OPCW’s Fact-Finding Mission had been ‘manually placed’.

This vital detail too was left out of the OPCW’s own published report, which implied strongly that they had been dropped from the air. This was crucial as Syrian government helicopters were the only aircraft in the area. On this occasion the OPCW revealed that the Henderson document was genuine, probably unintentionally, by announcing a leak inquiry on May 16.

The OPCW – whose member nations meet in The Hague for a major conference tomorrow – is also in severe turmoil after reports of further whistleblowing on the radical US website Counterpunch. Its account was written by the veteran journalist Jonathan Steele (formerly a senior foreign correspondent at The Guardian, twice named International Reporter of the Year), based on the account of a whistleblower who he codenamed ‘Alex’.

‘Alex’ said that dissenting experts, protesting against the doctoring of their work, were invited to a meeting with three American officials who were ‘cursorily introduced without making clear which US agencies they represented’. He recounted that the three ‘told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack.’

The Mail on Sunday approached the OPCW for comment on the protest email on Wednesday, November 13, more than ten days ago. We supplied them with a complete text. Despite several further requests by phone and email, the OPCW had not responded by last night.

The OPCW has been in severe disarray before, precisely because its rulings are so sensitive.

In 2002, in the lead-up to the Iraq war, the OPCW’s then director, the Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani, was forced from office by intense US pressure. The US’s then ambassador to the UN was the ferocious pro-war hawk John Bolton, famed for his brusque and bullying manner to subordinates.

Quote

The leaked email in full

From: ********

Sent: 22nd June 2018 08:27

To: *********

Subject: Grave concern about the 'redacted' Douma report 

Dear ******,

I wish to express, as a member of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) team that conducted the investigation into the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April, my gravest concern at the redacted version of the FFM report, which I understand was at the behest of the ODG. (Office of the Director General). After reading this modified report, which incidentally no other team member who deployed into Douma has had the opportunity to do, I was struck by how much it misrepresents the facts. Many of the facts and observations outlined in the full version are inextricably interconnected and, by selectively omitting certain ones, an unintended bias has been introduced into the report, undermining its credibility. In other cases, some crucial facts that have remained in the redacted version have morphed into something quite different to what was initially drafted. If I may, I will outline some specific aspects to the redacted report that are particularly worrisome.

The statement in paragraph 8.3 of the final conclusions 'The team has sufficient evidence at this time to determine that chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical, was likely released from cylinders', is highly misleading and not supported by the facts. The only evidence available at this moment is that some samples collected at Locations 2 and 4 were in contact with one or more chemicals that contain a reactive chlorine atom. Such chemicals could include molecular chlorine, phosgene, cyanogen chloride, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen chloride or sodium hypochlorite (the major ingredient of household chlorine-based bleach). Purposely singling out chlorine gas as one of the possibilities is disingenuous. It is also worth noting that the term 'reactive chlorine-containing chemical' used in the redacted report is, in fact, inaccurate. It actually describes a reactive chemical that contains chlorine which itself (the chlorine) is not necessarily reactive e.g. chlorophenol. The original report uses the more accurate term 'a chemical containing reactive chlorine'.

The redacted report states that the gas was likely released from the cylinders (in Locations 2 and 4). The original report purposely emphasised the fact that, although the cylinders might have been the source of the suspected chemical release, there was insufficient evidence to affirm this. It is possible the error was simply a typo. This is a major deviation from the original report.

Paragraph 8.2 states that 'based on the high levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives, [...] detected in environmental samples'. Describing the levels as 'high' likely overstates the extent of levels of chlorinated organic derivatives detected. They were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.

The original report discusses in detail the inconsistency between the victims' symptoms, as reported by witnesses and seen in video recordings. Omitting this section of the report (including the Epidemiology which has been removed in its entirety) has a serious negative impact on the report as this section is inextricably linked to the chemical agent identified. It either supports or detracts from the confidence in the identity of any possible chemical. In this case the confidence in the identity of chlorine or any choking agent is drawn into question precisely because of the inconsistency with the reported and observed symptoms. The inconsistency was not only noted by the FFM team but strongly noted by three toxicologists with expertise in exposure to CW (Chemical Weapons) agents.

The original report has extensive sections regarding the placement of the cylinders at both locations as well as the relative damage caused to the impact points, compared to that caused to the cylinders suspected of being the sources of the toxic chemical. These sections are essentially absent from the redacted report. This information was important in assessing the likelihood of the 'presence' of toxic chemicals versus the 'use' of toxic chemicals.

A feature of this investigation and report was the robust and extensive scientific basis for sampling plans and analysing the data collected. A comprehensive bibliography of peer-reviewed scientific literature was attached to support and enhance the credibility of the work of the mission. This has unfortunately been omitted from the redacted report.

By singling out chlorine above other equally plausible substances containing reactive chlorine and presenting it as a fact in isolation creates, I believe, a level of partiality that would negatively impact on the perceived credibility of the report, and by extension that of the Organisation. I am requesting that the fact-finding report be released in its entirety as I fear that this redacted version no longer reflects the work of the team. The original report contains facts and observations that are all equally valid. The fact that inconsistencies are highlighted or observations not fully understood does not justify their omission. The inconsistencies and observations are based on the evidence and data collected. Further information in the future may help resolve them but the facts as they stand at present will not alter and need to be reported.

If the redacted version is to be released, I respectfully request to attach my differing observations, in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 62 of part II of the Verification Annex of the CWC.

Yours sincerely

 

3 minutes ago, rjw63 said:

I coexist happily with vegans.  They don't criticise me, I make vegan food for them (and me), it's all good.  I don't know any of the aggressive,  preachy ones, though.  As far as I know.

I will be doing the Green Party xmas buffet for the local councillors, who invite the other parties to come along for a drink.  It will all be vegan or veggie.  I shall include lentils,  because the other parties will expect that we will have lentils, as we are Greens, and for no other reason.

I may well have a kebab after.  Please don't judge ne.

10 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said:

Maybe in the city centre, or other areas of Birmingham but in my town (Halesowen, Black Country), I’ve never seen one. Will have to keep my eye out though 

You can get dried white beans anywhere, including Sainsbury's.  I just happened to get them from this shop.

Tinned chipotles are harder.  I have a great Spanish/Mexican shop locally, otherwise online may be easier.  I hear dried chipotles were banned a coupe of years ago, some health scare or orher, but tinned are ok.

So twitter says (and I haven't researched it myself) that he's a South African who came here in the 80s, when the most objectionable racists were running away from the changes they could see coming, and that he's a tory candidate for some office or other, not MP.

Whether that is true or not,  he's clearly a tory supporter who has been selected in contravention of the BBC policy and procedure.  How?

There has been discussion previously about how the QT audience is selected,  and the influence of a very right wing producer in that.  This adds to that existing concern.

Just now, mikeyp102 said:

I’ve never seen one of these round here, where do you live?

Edinburgh.  But they're in most towns now, surely?  Sometimes not very well advertised...or shops selling unlikely combinations like Asian/African/Caribbean.

10 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Yeah it normally comes, and gets cooked on the bone. I leave that bit up to our Mom though! 

But also ask for some other bones, not just use what comes with your purchase.  Beef bones are the most useful.  Beef stock, frozen in ice cube bags, is great to have on hand.  Drop some cubes into bolognaise sauce.  Soften some onions and garlic, add seasoning and a touch of vinegar, a bit of wine and some stock cubes,  a good base for a sauce that you can tweak in many directions.  Adds another level to your cooking. Beef stock in any sauce for steak is great.  And soup, of course.

Pork bones are good for stock for Chinese food.

Chicken is easy to come by, and I find I don't use as much lamb stock as I can make with the lamb I buy.  Mainly good for lamb tagines, but would work well with shepherd's pie, which isn't something I ever make, for no particular reason.

8 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

a rib of beef. Local butchers is tremendous, and always gives us a tremendous cut of meat.

Always worth supporting your local butcher.  Don't forget to ask for bones whenever you shop there, to make stock for the freezer.

Beans.

Got some dried white beans from the local med/north african shop, bigger than what I would call haricots and smaller than cannelini.  Soaked overnight, drained, rinsed, cooked.  About £1 worth.

Made a spicy tomato sauce by softening onions and (later) garlic, adding salt, pepper, dried oregano, sweet and hot paprika, tomato puree, a tin of tomatoes, and about a thitd of a tin of chipotle chillis in adobe sauce.  About another £1.50.  Half that if you use dried chillis instead of chipotle.

Added the drained cooked beans to the sauce.

Two things so far:

Breakfast of toasted granary bread with butter, covered in spicy beans with poached egg on top.  Very filling.

Dinner of cumberland sausages with spicy beans, and steamed french beans.

Cheap, simple, tasty, and still some left.

You could use tinned cooked beans to save a bit of time, the quantity I made would probably cost £4 in total rather than about £2.50.

3 hours ago, avfcDJ said:

Another production error

 

 

This is editing to influence the perception of viewers politically, by suppressing the disbelief and contempt which greeted Johnson's words.

This must be in breach of their charter,  and internal procedural guidance.

34 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well I for one will not be exposing myself to her.

Is that because of the restraining order?

3 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Please tell me you can buy these.

Sadly, I don't think you can.

Hostile environment, continued.

Windrush victim forced to sleep in London bin shed

Quote

A man caught in the Windrush scandal has resorted to sleeping in a freezing bin shed because the Home Office has not regularised his status and is trying to deport him.

Roy Harrison, 44, arrived in the UK as a six-year-old. He had been abandoned as a newborn in Jamaica by his mother and left on his grandmother’s doorstep.

She brought him up until he was six but became too old to continue looking after him so asked her daughter, Harrison’s aunt, who was living in the UK, to take him to Britain.

Harrison’s aunt agreed and he lived with her and her family for a few years. He was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. At the age of 10 he was taken into care and remained there until he was 18.

He then began working, and has two sons, now aged 23 and 25. The older one has an eight-month-old baby.

Harrison is a vulnerable individual with several serious health conditions, including problems with both feet that cause difficulty with walking. He needs corrective surgery but because the Home Office is not allowing him to work, and has denied him access to public funds, he is unable to get NHS treatment.

Harrison arrived in the UK in 1984 and therefore qualifies for leave to remain under the Home Office’s Windrush scheme. However, owing to a conviction for theft – a crime he says he is innocent of – the Home Office wants to deport him.

He has resorted to sleeping in a cold bin shed covered in pigeon droppings on a south London council estate, which he has to slide in and out of through a small hatch.

Harrison’s problems began during the inner-city riots in 2011, after the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan. He and his children were living in Croydon, south London, at the time. He was taking one of his sons, then 13, home when they became separated from each other because of the unrest in the area.

He went into a shop to look for his son and was then reunited with him. He is shown on CCTV going into the shop and leaving empty handed. Yet he was charged with theft and advised to plead guilty, even though he insisted he had not stolen anything and had never committed any crime.

He served eight months in prison and was then placed in immigration detention...

This does not appear to be a parody account.

She describes herself as a Conservative political communications and social media consultant.

I can't tell if this claim about tax is a deliberate lie, or if she really is as staggeringly stupid as she seems.

Johnson explains that a series of offensive terms were not meant to give offence.

They were taken out of context and were made to seem offensive (ie someone else made them seem so).

Well, he's certainly convinced me, he sounds sincere.

If I die of asphyxiation, I want them to play "Blue".

What we often do is plan and prepare a non-traditional meal for christmas, and pop down the shops about 4.30 on christmas eve.  Geese and turkeys that were priced at £50 or more will be going for a lot less.

Last year we got a goose for something like a tenner, can't recall exactly.  Rendering the fat gave 3 or 4 jars which will last a year and would cost more than the goose if you bought it in tins, carcasse for stock and soup, one meal from the breasts and another from the legs.  And a risotto if you pick the carcasse after you've made stock.

Pretty good value, just from shifting your purchase to a different point in time.

Can't guarantee there will be bargains though,  it all depends what everyone else has done in relation to what the buyers predicted they would do.  But I don't think I would ever again pay the asking price for a christmas bird, that's a premium price for eating it at one specific point in the calendar, which just seems mad.

55 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I came out of that wishing I could vote for an SNP government. 

Speaking as someone who can, I wouldn't.

Can we now call her Swansong?

(From Mark ne-francois-pas twitter)