Brexit, for once some facts.

[flecc]

learnt to type so I use a teletype machine to report where the bombs were going off from deep within my underground bunker, with the hope it all blows over....

And it did blow over because the cold war was all a sham, very similar to what is going on now. As ever there are some serious actions taken to convince that the situation is real and not bluffing, but in the greater scheme of things those actions are but pinpricks.

These shams are meant to frighten, that's the name of the game, but some of us are not fooled.
.

 

[Woosh]

I wonder what this government is going to give more money to.
The army or the NHS?

 

[flecc]

I wonder what this government is going to give more money to.
The army or the NHS?

The Royal Army Medical Corp could be a convenient compromise.

Seriously, probably both, but whatever is given will be announced at least three times over a long period to give the impression of generous fundings.
.

 

[oldtom]

I wonder what this government is going to give more money to.
The army or the NHS?

It's interesting that voices, always people in high places or those with distinctly vested interests, raise the myth time and again that we are at risk from the Russians so we need more/better/latest US missiles because that's the only way the Russians can be deterred from invading and occupying this island full of vast wealth and resources.

It is an extremely rare occurrence for anyone born into the elite of society to shout loudly for extra money for the NHS and even when such a rare event happens, it is usually an attempt by the individual to gain publicity by raising their public profile.

I can't ever remember the Chairman of the CBI ever calling for a pay increase for machinists in any sweat shop factory either in the UK or abroad.

There are some things that always happen and other things that never happen.

Tom

 

[daveboy]

With modern Planes,Reaper drones,hand held and surface to surface missiles I would sooner be in a room full of Tories than in a Tank.

 

[oldtom]

With modern Planes,Reaper drones,hand held and surface to surface missiles I would sooner be in a room full of Tories than in a Tank.

On balance, the tank scenario wins it for me!

Tom

 

[oldtom]

The web pages produced by Ad Sinistram', a politically left-wing organisation, frequently produces some very revealing facts that would escape all the sheep who have been brainwashed into receiving their political news from the extreme-right via their propaganda outlets which comprise about 95% of all forms of news media.

This is a straight lift from a recent publication:

"Founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) promotes the giveaway of vital public services to the private sector. Funded and peopled by some of the most iniquitous vagabonds in the corporate world, CPS relentlessly demands more and more control of basic necessary services to be handed to incompetent exploitative capitalist gangsters. CPS wants any public service, anything that is needed, to be given away; the public are then fleeced by the recipients of this gift. The word “free” in the declaration means the freedom of the few to exploit the many."

To read more:

https://ducksoap.wordpress.com/…/19/centre-for-policy-stud…/

"The relationship between free market think-tanks and the Tories is embedded and corrupt, and it is often unclear which node of the relationship is the wagging tail and which is the dog."

To read more:

https://www.google.co.uk/…/…/03/uk-right-wing-con-tanks/amp/

............................................................................

Petition via Azrael...

"Make it illegal for any MP to lie in parliament or knowingly deceive the public."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203502

It is important to read the the content of the hyperlinks contained in that piece before considering the infographic that follows here:



Tom

 

[Danidl]

The web pages produced by Ad Sinistram', a politically left-wing organisation, frequently produces some very revealing facts that would escape all the sheep who have been brainwashed into receiving their political news from the extreme-right via their propaganda outlets which comprise about 95% of all forms of news media.

This is a straight lift from a recent publication:

"Founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) promotes the giveaway of vital public services to the private sector. Funded and peopled by some of the most iniquitous vagabonds in the corporate world, CPS relentlessly demands more and more control of basic necessary services to be handed to incompetent exploitative capitalist gangsters. CPS wants any public service, anything that is needed, to be given away; the public are then fleeced by the recipients of this gift. The word “free” in the declaration means the freedom of the few to exploit the many."

To read more:

https://ducksoap.wordpress.com/…/19/centre-for-policy-stud…/

"The relationship between free market think-tanks and the Tories is embedded and corrupt, and it is often unclear which node of the relationship is the wagging tail and which is the dog."

To read more:

https://www.google.co.uk/…/…/03/uk-right-wing-con-tanks/amp/

............................................................................

Petition via Azrael...

"Make it illegal for any MP to lie in parliament or knowingly deceive the public."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203502

It is important to read the the content of the hyperlinks contained in that piece before considering the infographic that follows here:

View attachment 23109

Tom

Parliamentary privalage. That is the right of a member of parliament to say something in the house without fear of civil action , or libel is a bedrock of democracy. It would be crazy to seek to remove it. Case in point, a prominent Irish billionaire in the global telecoms business, who has a habit of injunctions whenever he feels infringed, and has the money to do so, has only been brought to account by the ability of , in this case, left wing Irish TDs using Dail privalage to make things known.
Don't need with that one..

If a public office holder, and that would or should include civil servants as well as elected officials deliberately mislead then it should be a potentially sacking offense.
To hold candidates for public office legally responsible for for campaign promises is silly. Since they only get their mandate after the election, so effectively the public have only appointed them after the "offence" has been committed. An elected official starts afresh after the election result. .. obviously does not count in the case of criminal fraud,or crimes against the person.

 

[oldtom]

Does the interviewee in this clip remind you of anybody? Although it's American, it certainly portrays some members of the younger generation in the UK that I have encountered.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1507083336062865

Tom

 

[oldgroaner]

To hold candidates for public office legally responsible for for campaign promises is silly.

No it's critical if we are ever to have Democracy rather than rule by the biggest and best liars.
That why we are in the situation we are today .
Parliamentary Privilege should not extend outside into the Street, it should stop at the Door of the HOC and Lords.

 

[Danidl]

No it's critical if we are ever to have Democracy rather than rule by the biggest and best liars.
That why we are in the situation we are today .

OG I know where you are coming from, but it is an illogical stance. Until the candidate has been elected, they are just a ordinary member of society, a Joe soap. Once they have been elected and accepted office, things are changed. They have access to information not available to the general population,they have authority and responsibility. Things may not be as simple as they may have appeared. As someone once said you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.
It is fully in order for their peers, rivals and constituents, newspapers to query why they are not keeping promises, and to draw inferences when the next election cycle commences. It is for these people to keep the elected representative honest .
Things may be different in the UK, but in a democratic republic, the elected representatives are the rulers pro tempore.

 

[oldgroaner]

. Until the candidate has been elected, they are just a ordinary member of society, a Joe soap.

Sorry but that simply isn't true, they carry an authority with the public not given to the man in the Street and their words MUST be honest, and Joe Public actually tends to believe they are.
You don't really think that being a Politician doesn't convey credibility to the words of an individual so Qualified?
Who would have voted for Brexit if they understood they were being lied to?
Nobody except a few Tory Bstards.
Righly or Wrongly the Public tend to believe the words of these public Figures, and they have a right to do so that should be regarded as sacred and protected by law.
The same strictures that apply to anyone appearing in court should be applied to anyone seeking to be elected or in support of some political action.
We need to expel the liars from our midst.

 

[flecc]

Parliamentary Privilege should not extend outside into the Street, it should stop at the Door of the HOC and Lords.

It doesn't, this privilege is very limited, see this Wikipedia extract:

In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.[1][2] It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament—for example, as a question[3] to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets, such as in the Zircon affair or several cases mentioned by the Labour MP Tam Dalyell.

There is no immunity from arrest on criminal grounds, nor does the civil privilege entirely extend to the devolved administrations in Scotland or Wales.[4] A consequence of the privilege of free speech is that legislators in Westminster systems are forbidden by conventions of their House from uttering certain words, or implying that another member is lying.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

It doesn't, this privilege is very limited, see this Wikipedia extract:

In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.[1][2] It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament—for example, as a question[3] to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets, such as in the Zircon affair or several cases mentioned by the Labour MP Tam Dalyell.

There is no immunity from arrest on criminal grounds, nor does the civil privilege entirely extend to the devolved administrations in Scotland or Wales.[4] A consequence of the privilege of free speech is that legislators in Westminster systems are forbidden by conventions of their House from uttering certain words, or implying that another member is lying.
.

Thank you flecc, that is very interesting. but I find that
"legislators in Westminster systems are forbidden by conventions of their House from uttering certain words, or implying that another member is lying."
So much for free speech!
Such a stricture tends to urinate on that particular Bonfire!

 

[flecc]

"legislators in Westminster systems are forbidden by conventions of their House from uttering certain words, or implying that another member is lying."

They still do imply that though. The classic is:

"That is not my recollection of the events."

Which when said with calm authority by a very senior member leaves no doubt that they are saying, "You are a liar".
.

 

[Danidl]

Sorry but that simply isn't true, they carry an authority with the public not given to the man in the Street and their words MUST be honest, and Joe Public actually tends to believe they are.
You don't really think that being a Politician doesn't convey credibility to the words of an individual so Qualified?
Who would have voted for Brexit if they understood they were being lied to?
Nobody except a few Tory Bstards.
Righly or Wrongly the Public tend to believe the words of these public Figures, and they have a right to do so that should be regarded as sacred and protected by law.
The same strictures that apply to anyone appearing in court should be applied to anyone seeking to be elected or in support of some political action.
We need to expel the liars from our midst.

We are arguing at cross purposes. A candidate is just that a member of the public. An elected candidate is in a slightly privileged position. They can accept or refuse to take their seat and oath. Once they have taken their seat and oath they are then a highly privileged individual and from that instance may be expected to operate at a higher standard. A politician is a description of a person similarities to estate agent. Not a reserved occupation like state registered nurse ,army officer or chartered engineer. It is fanciful to expect them to be held to a higher standard. On the other hand an MP is a highly reserved occupation.

 

[Danidl]

Thank you flecc, that is very interesting. but I find that
"legislators in Westminster systems are forbidden by conventions of their House from uttering certain words, or implying that another member is lying."
So much for free speech!
Such a stricture tends to urinate on that particular Bonfire!

They have free speech but they are conventions and so called unparliamentary language is one of them. It is very simple to get across the notion that you do not believe a word by using terms such as .." that statement is not in conformance with known facts " or as flecc as suggested..

Do you think that when they refer to my right honourable friend they are believing they are honourable or a friend

 

[Wicky]

And it did blow over because the cold war was all a sham
.

Tell that to the Eastern Europeans (Poles, Hungarians, East Germans) and currently Ukrainians who died and are still dying under occupation.

Perhaps this didn't happen and we should ignore it in the hope it will go away. Swedes are taking it seriously and more NATO F-16s have around since Putin begain targetting former territories and have returned forces to the Gotland islands as a consequence.

Russia Simulated A Large-Scale Aerial Night Attack On Sweden (2013)

Erik Arnberg, a reader of The Aviationist, brought to my attention an episode that occurred on the night of Mar. 29, 2013, when Russian military aircraft simulated a large scale bomb run on Sweden.
The episode got much media attention among the Swedish media outlets on Apr. 22, when more details about the simulated attack surfaced.
According to the Svenska Dagbladet, after midnight on Mar. 29 (Good Friday), the Swedish radars detected six fast planes coming from the east, originating from the St. Petersburg area and overflying the Gulf of Finland.
The route the aircraft were flying was far from being suspect: Russian bombers periodically fly across the Baltic Sea to reach the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, located between Lithuania and Poland.
However, on Mar. 29, the two Tu-22M3 Backfire heavy bombers, capable to carry cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, and their four Su-27 Flanker fighter jets escort got dangerously close to the Swedish airspace and, at 2 AM local time, they skirted Gotland island, some 30-40 kilometers off the Swedish territorial waters.
After they carried out their mock attacks (on targets in the Stockholm area and Southern Sweden, according to Swedish military sources who talked to Svenska Dagbladet) they turned back and returned towards Russia.
The episode is similar to those Soviet Union’s exercises typical of the Cold War, when bombers carrying the typical Red Star flew quite close to the Swedish airspace boundaries and got intercepted by Swedish interceptors. Such “visits” ended in 1992 but returned in 2011 when Putin resumed the long-range flights of its strategic bombers.
Although some Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers flew over the Baltic Sea in the last year, what’s unusual in Mar. 29 incident is that the Russian activity took place at night and, above all, it found the Swedish Air Force totally unprepared.

 

[flecc]

currently Ukrainians who died and are still dying under occupation.

I don't know what you mean by this, no Ukrainians are dying under a Russian occupation.

The episode is similar to those Soviet Union’s exercises typical of the Cold War, when bombers carrying the typical Red Star flew quite close to the Swedish airspace boundaries and got intercepted by Swedish interceptors.

Exactly my point. We've been here before and it didn't result in WW3, not could it have.

It's pointless you posting reams of stuff I'm already familiar with. National administrations look after their own, even if the cost of their policies means many die, as true of the USA over the last 100 years as it is of Russia.

That Russia is ensuring it's prepared by launching mock attack exercises is commendable since it shows they are well organised, much better than being in a dangerous chaos. What it doesn't show is that they are prepared to launch what would be a world war against the combined Nato countries. They know that would be suicidal so wouldn't attempt it.

The world has moved on since 1945, that year changed everything in relation to the big powers' relationships, starting with the Yalta conference. There will be local wars and random destructive acts with continuing costs in terms of deaths, but outright confrontation between the giants is out of the question and they are mutually agreed on that.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

They have free speech but they are conventions and so called unparliamentary language is one of them. It is very simple to get across the notion that you do not believe a word by using terms such as .." that statement is not in conformance with known facts " or as flecc as suggested..

Do you think that when they refer to my right honourable friend they are believing they are honourable or a friend

They mean by that the the person they are referring to is a member of the Privy Council surely.