peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Peter that's totally irrelevant to the point at hand though, isn't it? Like Drat's diversionary comment about the EDL and passports. Yes, it's just a jibe. Guilty as charged. Yes, if only it was that simple... They can't expose sources or methods of intelligence collection in court without totally compromising future operations. That's a carte blanche to do anything they want. They used it extensively in Northern Ireland. When it was found to be counterproductive and they had to go back to the tiresome business of actually producing evidence and allowing people to answer it in a proper court, what happened? Besides which the alleged offences are in Jordan not the UK (apart from the obvious identity fraud you seem unmoved by) so he should not be a British problem. Jordan is our ally and despite those good relations guarantee after guarantee about his physical and legal treatment has been sought and given. It's getting bloody rude not to send him back. For our own citizens yes, when foreign terror suspects enter the country by criminal means then that sets a precedent for the 'rights' they should subsequently be entitled to, imo. There are good grounds for not believing those "guarantees". And the fact of a country being our ally doesn't mean that it will abide by either the rule of law or proper process. The US is a pretty good example of that, to their lasting shame, and ours. Yes, I'm completely unconcerned that asylum seekers may use false documents to get out of the country they are escaping from. What else would you expect? Are they likely to have all the right papers and find the government they are so desperate to escape from is going to facilitate that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You can always tell the character of a man when he eats oysters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 If the security forces have grounds for believing him to be a danger, then they should bring charges, show their evidence, and be prepared to argue their position in court. If they do not wish to abide by the rule of law, then there should be no mechanism for them to lock up him or anyone else for years with no access to legal representation. It's a very basic principle which is supposed to be the cornerstone of a democracy. I most vehemently agree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 13, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 13, 2012 It's a mess alright. I agree with large parts of what both peter and Jon (AWOL) have said, and as their views on the eventual outcome are different, to me at least it shows the intricacies of the problem. It's beyond reasonable doubt he's a wrong 'un, even though he's become a bit of a comedy figure, apparently, for the serious jihadists and Al Quaida folk abroad. He came here under false pretences. He's wanted for trial on terrorism offences in Jordan, and were it not for Jordans record on torture, he'd be gone. So he's in limbo at huge expense to the UK taxpayers. Everyone's in limbo while courts argue if he'll be tortured if he's sent back. And the politicians continue to make themselves look incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 A couple of things about the BBC issue which cause me concern. This new geezer in charge of the Beeb is being advised by Rupert's son-in-law. From what I have seen, the Spectator's dismissive piece on Tim Davie is if anything understated. He looks like a clueless clown, sauntering in front of the cameras (did he not expect them?) clutching a takeaway coffee, with no tie and shirt unbuttoned, like a twenty-something Assistant Production Executive or some such. Then giving an interview in which he was so much out of his depth, you wanted to throw the poor **** a lifejacket. What's happening here? And Whittingdale, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, is also on very close terms with the Murdoch clan. When the parliamentary hearings into News International started last year, Elizabeth Murdoch had 386 "friends" on Facebook. Among them, there was only one MP. It was Whittingdale. Since Murdoch has been openly calling for the break-up of the Beeb for many years, and since his papers are using the current problems to push this self-serving agenda even harder, we should all be very wary of this influence. There can be no way that people close to the Murdoch empire should have any voice at all in the BBC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 A couple of things about the BBC issue which cause me concern. This new geezer in charge of the Beeb is being advised by Rupert's son-in-law. From what I have seen, the Spectator's dismissive piece on Tim Davie is if anything understated. He looks like a clueless clown, sauntering in front of the cameras (did he not expect them?) clutching a takeaway coffee, with no tie and shirt unbuttoned, like a twenty-something Assistant Production Executive or some such. Then giving an interview in which he was so much out of his depth, you wanted to throw the poor **** a lifejacket. What's happening here? And Whittingdale, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, is also on very close terms with the Murdoch clan. When the parliamentary hearings into News International started last year, Elizabeth Murdoch had 386 "friends" on Facebook. Among them, there was only one MP. It was Whittingdale. Since Murdoch has been openly calling for the break-up of the Beeb for many years, and since his papers are using the current problems to push this self-serving agenda even harder, we should all be very wary of this influence. There can be no way that people close to the Murdoch empire should have any voice at all in the BBC. Whilst i agree with most of that , Do you have to wear a tie in order to run the BBC ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Ye gods! A byelection just got interesting. Never thought I'd see the day. mischief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Whilst i agree with most of that , Do you have to wear a tie in order to run the BBC ? No, and it would be good for the head of the Beeb not to wear one, and to do things like walk around and chat to the canteen staff, lighting technicians and all sorts. But.. If you are a stopgap fixer, in the middle of a crisis so great that it has transfixed the organisation and commands attention in all the media and dominates political discussion, if you understand the situation at least well enough to keep insisting in your interviews that you have "taken a grip", then you should also be alert to the need to communicate non-verbally that you know your arse from your elbow. So don't conduct an interview where you look yards offscreen at a badly-placed cue card; don't play up the estuary accent; don't get cocky, then fail to answer questions; don't walk off screen during a televised interview; but if you do walk off, then walk off, don't stop half way like you aren't quite sure; and don't wander in to the building like some teenager on work placement, communicating about as much gravitas as Jeffrey Archer. Would that our understanding of clothing and the social messages it conveys were more nuanced and mature. But since they're not, and you don't have time to sway that social reality, and you're in a 30-second clip which people will judge you on, just wear the **** tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Ye gods! A byelection just got interesting. Never thought I'd see the day. mischief joncraigSKY @joncraig I'm told 114 party members "stormed out" of meeting tonight to select Labour's Rotherham by-election candidate. Reason: no local candidate. How many times has Labour imposed a central office candidate, unknown and unwanted, with complete disregard for local members' views? And could there be any connection between this and the preponderance of safe, dull, biddable, obedient, uninspiring dimwits that have taken over? It's like the Stepford Wives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You can always tell the character of a man when he eats oysters Oysters at the Dorchester Hotel? It's more surprising that neither of the two hoytie toyties seems to have realised that oysters are rubbish if you eat them more than about five minute's walk from where they grew. In a unique case of me being two degrees of separation from poshness, Lady McA wearily told a friend of my mum's that she has to read Debrett's to keep track of her family tree, so that oyster-eating comment sounds about right, ha ha. (Being upper class and being classy are not the same thing, I fink I was trying to say. I'd settle for one or the other, though.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 14, 2012 Best oysters I ever had were in a boat off Chesil Beach - straight out of the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 14, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 14, 2012 A couple of things about the BBC issue which cause me concern. This new geezer in charge of the Beeb is being advised by Rupert's son-in-law. From what I have seen, the Spectator's dismissive piece on Tim Davie is if anything understated. He looks like a clueless clown...so much out of his depth There can be no way that people close to the Murdoch empire should have any voice at all in the BBC. He looks like a clueless clown because he is a clueless clown. He's a PR/Marketing man - utterly useless and unskilled in anything "real". And taking advice from a Murdochian (and yet another PR man) just serves to further prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 14, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 14, 2012 From Lord Reith to work experience youth. O tempora, o mores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 http://www.nationalh...haction.org.uk/ New political party. Good luck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 16, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 16, 2012 http://www.nationalh...haction.org.uk/ New political party. Good luck to them. We'll see this kind of thing more and more often as the public increasingly tire of the traditional three parties. It can only be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 We'll see this kind of thing more and more often as the public increasingly tire of the traditional three parties. It can only be a good thing. I agree, not only is it a good thing its the right thing. We don't need more suits following a party line, we need more independent thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Though arguably just like governments don't know how to run a NHS , I suspect doctors and nurses don't know how to run a country ( though one could argue neither do our government) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 16, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 16, 2012 Though arguably just like governments don't know how to run a NHS , I suspect doctors and nurses don't know how to run a country ( though one could argue neither do our government) 5 of the 6 doctors that are currently MP's are Tories so you may just have a point there (The other is SDLP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 a night of red faces especially for the Tory party. Previously we have seen many a rent-a-quote about validity of strike ballots in respect to the percentage of people voting. Oops, it seems that the hundreds of millions spent by the Gvmt for the PCC are then worthless? Also previously Cameron called it a "disaster for Labour" when they polled just over 1000 in the Henly by-election, the Tory party last night got 750 odd in the Manchester one. Good to see they have probably lost their deposit also. I see that Teresa May screwing things up again also, the woman is a walking disaster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted November 16, 2012 Single-issue parties are pointless, except as consciousness-raising groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts