mjmooney Posted February 14, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2018 4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: 'Orwellian' is over-used as an adjective, but seems pretty appropriate here. It's verging on Delappian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 11 minutes ago, mjmooney said: It's verging on Delappian. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 18, 2018 Moderator Share Posted February 18, 2018 I agree with her too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Degrees are too expensive, but not plentiful. I suspect there is a generational aspect to some of this, but please feel to slap me down. I think there is a tendency for older voters to view Education as a means to producing 'workers' to feed the capitalist system, it's purpose is to 'train' people for jobs. The value of most courses is judged by some in their clear and obvious path into a 'job'. Younger people view Education as a means to further themselves and pursue an avenue of interest and expertise. Many view this in terms of improving future job prospects, some do not at all. Again, feel free to slap me down, since I'm nowhere near student age, but I think older voters are slightly bitter at the opportunities that young people have now, because it wasn't like that in their day. They faced elitism and an uphill struggle to attend university, or maybe they didn't. It's certainly not common amoung 'working class' rural folk from the West Midlands to have attended university until 15 years ago or so. For most people, even the academically able you went to school and then you got a job. As far as I'm concerned I believe it's in the Conservatives interests to keep people away from university. They want to promote both intellectual and class elitism. So of course Theresa May is seeking to divide people over university courses because it's been a key draw for the opposition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) So Ben Bradley hasn't had the requisite dog whistle training and blows a full on loud whistle by saying Corbyn has sold secrets to communist spies. No hint of suggestion, just tweets it. Thing is, shit like that can't go unchallenged. You expect newspapers to make things up but MPs should have a bit of decorum. This latest stuff coordinated by Cleverly isn't cricket and has consequences https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/30/finsbury-park-attack-darren-osborne-kill-jeremy-corbyn "Asked by the prosecutor, Jonathan Rees, whether he had planned to kill the Labour leader, Osborne told the jury: “Oh yeah, it would be one less terrorist [on] our streets.” He added: “And if Sadiq Khan [the London mayor] had been there it would have been even better. It would have been like winning the lottery.”" So Corbyn threatens to sue for libel if he doesn't delete it. About 5 mins later it was gone. Tories are playing a dangerous game recently, it seems they didn't watch what happened to Nasty Nick. Edited February 22, 2018 by darrenm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 I think we are getting very close to another election. You can tell, as the smears have started again - helped by the shitty rags like the Daily Heil. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted February 20, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2018 12 hours ago, darrenm said: Tories are playing a dangerous game recently, it seems they didn't watch what happened to Nasty Nick. No, they've been watching Trump and have realised that the truth doesn't matter any more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 14 hours ago, darrenm said: and has consequences are you saying Osborne wanting to kill Corbyn is the Tories fault ... the idea that Corbyn would have had any useful information for the Communists is of course laughable but it does sound as though he met with Sarkocy .... but no doubt the revisionists are going to tell us it was to bring about peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 Just now, tonyh29 said: are you saying Osborne wanting to kill Corbyn is the Tories fault ... the idea that Corbyn would have had any useful information for the Communists is of course laughable but it does sound as though he met with Sarkocy .... but no doubt the revisionists are going to tell us it was to bring about peace Osborne wanting to kill Corbyn is the result of the hard right media drive to weaponise fear and division, which the Tories have been latching onto in small amounts previously and are now, as shown above, using with much more vigour. Jo Cox was a previous victim (of the media radicalising people), if they keep it up, there will be more. The Czechs have said he was indentified as a person of interest and the spy concealed his identity posing as a diplomat but that the file in the archives never moved from interest to recruit. But no doubt the revisionists are going to tell us that they would say that wouldn't they. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 3 hours ago, tonyh29 said: are you saying Osborne wanting to kill Corbyn is the Tories fault ... the idea that Corbyn would have had any useful information for the Communists is of course laughable but it does sound as though he met with Sarkocy .... but no doubt the revisionists are going to tell us it was to bring about peace To be fair, the deleted tweet didn't just say he had met with the Czechs, but that he sold secrets to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Quote Andrew Neil Clobbers Tory Minister Steve Baker For 'Outrageous Smears' And 'Outright Lies' About Jeremy Corbyn BBC presenter says 'real scandal' is Tory 'disinformation'. Huff Post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post NurembergVillan Posted February 21, 2018 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2018 Corbyn's lawyers, rightly, have gone for Bradley's jugular. Quote "Dear Mr Bradley OUR CLIENT: RT HON JEREMY CORBYN MP DEFAMATORY TWEET We act for the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP. This is a Letter of Claim for the purposes of the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation. The prospective Claimant is our client, the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP. The prospective Defendant is you, Mr Ben Bradley MP. Yesterday, 19 February 2018, you published the following tweet on your Twitter account, Ben Bradley MP (@bbradleymp): “Corbyn sold British secrets to communist spies...get some perspective mate!! Your priorities are a bit awry! # AreYouSerious” Your statement that our client sold British secrets to communist spies is untrue. The inference that our client, whom you know to be the Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party, had engaged in criminal acts of treachery and spying could not be more seriously harmful of a British citizen, let alone such a prominent politician. As the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party you are fully aware of the serious harm that was caused or was likely to be caused to our client’s reputation by your defamatory statement. The natural and ordinary meaning of your words is that our client engaged in criminal activity at the most serious level. For example, espionage and serious breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911; that he acted in a manner which was/is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom; that he colluded with representatives of the secret services of foreign states to the detriment of the national interests of the United Kingdom, putting its citizens and its allies at serious risk of harm by passing confidential secret information to foreign agents/intelligence officers. Furthermore the natural and ordinary meaning of your words is that our client made financial gain for such criminal acts and espionage. Our client’s reputation has been or is likely to be seriously harmed by your publication of the offending tweet and by re-tweets. Furthermore, your tweet has been quoted in full in the Guardian newspaper, the Mirror newspaper, the Huffington Post, Sky News, the Mail Online and has been paraphrased in other national print newspapers, and online, which is unsurprising given your own high profile within the Conservative Party and your status as an MP. Our client instructed us yesterday evening and we advised his office to put out an immediate statement notifying you and others of the fact that he had taken legal advice and that the tweet should be deleted from your Twitter account. We note that you have removed the tweet but nevertheless serious harm has been caused by your libellous statement. Next Steps Our client requires you to immediately agree to take the following steps: 1. Provide a written undertaking, in terms to be agreed with us, that you will not repeat the defamatory statement identified above in your offending tweet or utter or publish any allegations/statements to similar effect about our client on Twitter or on any other social media platform or in any other form both written and oral. 2. Immediately agree to publish on your Twitter account an apology, in terms to be agreed with us, and with the additional statement that you will ask your followers to retweet your apology. 3. Agree to pay a sum of money direct to a charity of our client’s choice, in lieu of damages payable to our client for the injury you have caused to his reputation and also for the embarrassment and distress caused to him by your defamatory statement. We invite your proposals by return with regard to the amount that you will pay which we would expect to be substantial, as our client’s attitude towards the level of payment will take into account the speed with which you make sensible proposals or not. Our client does not seek any personal financial benefit from this litigation and if you force him to issue proceedings and recover substantial damages through the courts he will donate the damages to a charity of his choice. 4. Pay our client’s legal costs incurred in relation to this matter. If you delay the resolution of this case our client will commence legal proceedings against you in the High Court and our client will seek from you not only his basic legal costs but also a success fee (as our client has agreed a Conditional Fee Agreement which provides for a success fee) and payment of an after the event insurance premium. If proceedings are commenced legal costs payable by you will increase significantly, especially if the matter proceeds to a full trial. Your swift agreement to the matters set out in the numbered paragraphs above will assist you in limiting your exposure to our client’s legal costs. Any failure by you to respond swiftly will undoubtedly mean that our client’s legal costs will increase significantly. We look forward to your immediate and positive response. If there is any delay our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings against you for damages and ancillary relief for defamation without further notice. In that event, our client will rely on the terms of this letter and the lack of an adequate response, by drawing your conduct to the attention of the Court. Please indicate if you intend to nominate solicitors to accept service of proceedings on your behalf, should you seek to defend this claim." http://www.dorseteye.com/north/articles/you-need-to-read-the-letter-from-corb-s-lawyers-to-ben-bradley-tory-mp 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post markavfc40 Posted February 21, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 21, 2018 I can"t say I am a big grime fan but at the Brits Stormzy, who won best male and album of the year, closed the show and used the platform as a means to call out Theresa May in regard to Grenfell. Fair play to him. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 21, 2018 Moderator Share Posted February 21, 2018 And extra points for Stormzy for telling the Daily Mail they can suck his dick. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 11 hours ago, markavfc40 said: to call out Theresa May in regard to Grenfell. I doubt she or her party have given it a second thought, they are very much Trump lite in that regard, dead people can't vote, don't care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 22, 2018 Moderator Share Posted February 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said: I doubt she or her party have given it a second thought, they are very much Trump lite in that regard, dead people can't vote, don't care. That's also their huge problem though, their voters are literally dying by the day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, markavfc40 said: I can"t say I am a big grime fan but at the Brits Stormzy, who won best male and album of the year, closed the show and used the platform as a means to call out Theresa May in regard to Grenfell. Fair play to him. On a day when her response to a question on the subject at PMQs was as follows: Quote Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) Q11. It is more than eight months since the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, but thousands of people are still living in blocks with dangerous flammable cladding, including Citiscape in Croydon. That dangerous cladding was allowed to go up because of flawed Government guidance, and there is still an average of one fire every month linked to this cladding. It is clear that this is the Government’s responsibility, so why is the Prime Minister running the risk of a second Grenfell Tower when she could act and take this dangerous cladding down? [903965] The Prime Minister Over the years, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, building regulations and enforcement have obviously been looked at, and the arrangements in relation to enforcement were in fact changed by the last Labour Government. What we did immediately following the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower was to ensure that all those involved—local authorities and others—worked with their fire authorities to inspect towers and look at the cladding. There are issues about not just the cladding, because this is also about how it is affixed to buildings. Action was taken by local fire authorities in the areas where they thought that was necessary, which was why in Camden, for example, people had to leave their tower block while action was taken. My right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary has put in place a review of the regulations. It was urgently put in place, and action is being taken as a result of that review. That's all a bit different and dismissive in comparison to the money no object to sorting this out stuff that we heard in the immediate aftermath. Edited February 22, 2018 by snowychap 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted February 22, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted February 22, 2018 Quote Dear Mr Bradley OUR CLIENT: RT HON JEREMY CORBYN MP DEFAMATORY TWEET We act for the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP. This is a Letter of Claim for the purposes of the Pre-action Protocol for Defamation. The prospective Claimant is our client, the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP. The prospective Defendant is you, Mr Ben Bradley MP. Yesterday, 19 February 2018, you published the following tweet on your Twitter account, Ben Bradley MP (@bbradleymp): “Corbyn sold British secrets to communist spies...get some perspective mate!! Your priorities are a bit awry! # AreYouSerious” Your statement that our client sold British secrets to communist spies is untrue. The inference that our client, whom you know to be the Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Leader of the Labour Party, had engaged in criminal acts of treachery and spying could not be more seriously harmful of a British citizen, let alone such a prominent politician. As the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party you are fully aware of the serious harm that was caused or was likely to be caused to our client’s reputation by your defamatory statement. The natural and ordinary meaning of your words is that our client engaged in criminal activity at the most serious level. For example, espionage and serious breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911; that he acted in a manner which was/is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom; that he colluded with representatives of the secret services of foreign states to the detriment of the national interests of the United Kingdom, putting its citizens and its allies at serious risk of harm by passing confidential secret information to foreign agents/intelligence officers. Furthermore the natural and ordinary meaning of your words is that our client made financial gain for such criminal acts and espionage. Our client’s reputation has been or is likely to be seriously harmed by your publication of the offending tweet and by re-tweets. Furthermore, your tweet has been quoted in full in the Guardian newspaper, the Mirror newspaper, the Huffington Post, Sky News, the Mail Online and has been paraphrased in other national print newspapers, and online, which is unsurprising given your own high profile within the Conservative Party and your status as an MP. Our client instructed us yesterday evening and we advised his office to put out an immediate statement notifying you and others of the fact that he had taken legal advice and that the tweet should be deleted from your Twitter account. We note that you have removed the tweet but nevertheless serious harm has been caused by your libellous statement. Next Steps Our client requires you to immediately agree to take the following steps: 1. Provide a written undertaking, in terms to be agreed with us, that you will not repeat the defamatory statement identified above in your offending tweet or utter or publish any allegations/statements to similar effect about our client on Twitter or on any other social media platform or in any other form both written and oral. 2. Immediately agree to publish on your Twitter account an apology, in terms to be agreed with us, and with the additional statement that you will ask your followers to retweet your apology. 3. Agree to pay a sum of money direct to a charity of our client’s choice, in lieu of damages payable to our client for the injury you have caused to his reputation and also for the embarrassment and distress caused to him by your defamatory statement. We invite your proposals by return with regard to the amount that you will pay which we would expect to be substantial, as our client’s attitude towards the level of payment will take into account the speed with which you make sensible proposals or not. Our client does not seek any personal financial benefit from this litigation and if you force him to issue proceedings and recover substantial damages through the courts he will donate the damages to a charity of his choice. 4. Pay our client’s legal costs incurred in relation to this matter. If you delay the resolution of this case our client will commence legal proceedings against you in the High Court and our client will seek from you not only his basic legal costs but also a success fee (as our client has agreed a Conditional Fee Agreement which provides for a success fee) and payment of an after the event insurance premium. If proceedings are commenced legal costs payable by you will increase significantly, especially if the matter proceeds to a full trial. Your swift agreement to the matters set out in the numbered paragraphs above will assist you in limiting your exposure to our client’s legal costs. Any failure by you to respond swiftly will undoubtedly mean that our client’s legal costs will increase significantly. We look forward to your immediate and positive response. If there is any delay our client reserves the right to commence legal proceedings against you for damages and ancillary relief for defamation without further notice. In that event, our client will rely on the terms of this letter and the lack of an adequate response, by drawing your conduct to the attention of the Court. Please indicate if you intend to nominate solicitors to accept service of proceedings on your behalf, should you seek to defend this claim." Link 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 26 minutes ago, Xann said: I think I might take them a bit more seriously as a party if the top-line of their address wasn't 'The Biscuit Factory'! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts