Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Manuel.

Are you referring to the present tory party leadership with their increasing tendency to lie, when they give information out to others?

I suppose Cameron will put his hand on his heart and like the barrow boy he is, say "Honest Guv" to the Privy Council.

Double standards which one is now coming to expect by your icon!

I suggest you listen to Crispin Blunt statements chairman of Defence Committee.

He is not U-turning. He is thinking.

Follow him.


I think in views and his suggestions regarding any actions in Syria are sensible.
Mind he a member of a split party and government.

Or read this

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/17/uk-france-shooting-idUKKCN0T40DY20151117?feedType=nl&feedName=ukmorningdigest

Any solutions Fred?

From the Economist

THE political implications of the attacks in Paris are only just starting to unfurl. But there are early indications that one might be the accelerated growth of (ultimately inevitable) splits in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the ensuing debates has cemented the impression—as if any cement were needed—that Labour’s newish leader is out of his depth, ambivalent about things that should be clear and craven to the ugly blend of sanctimony and moral relativism whose sudden metastasis through his party propelled him to its leadership in September. Mr Corbyn’s insistence that his MPs will not get a free vote on British intervention in Syria, his initial opposition (since reversed) to the use of lethal force in situations like that in Paris and his proximity to the anti-West Stop the War group have fired up MPs who were previously tolerating him, or at least biding their time before he fell.

Last night’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party was, by all accounts, a rebarbative affair in which Mr Corbyn gave vague and unsatisfactory answers and was at times shouted down by his MPs. As if they needed any confirmation of the gormless narcissism now at the helm of their party, some were infuriated when Diane Abbott, the shadow development secretary and one of the few MPs who really supports her leader, started working through a pile of correspondence as debate about Syria raged around her.

Today brought another show of defiance by the sensibles. During a sombre Commons session on the Paris attacks they rose, one-by-one, and gave voice to universalist, liberal, inquisitorial instincts too often absent on the part of Labour’s leadership. Emma Reynolds asserted that the guilt for the attacks lay solely with the attackers (that this even needs saying in today’s Labour is an indication of the moral depths in which the party now lurks). Pat McFadden noted that claiming anything else means “infantilising terrorists and treating them as children”. Mike Gapes urged the prime minister to offer immediate air support for the Kurds. Chuka Umunna echoed Mr Cameron’s commitment to national security and urged him to set out the framework by which British police may use lethal force.

Mr Corbyn is unlikely to go any time soon. He won a huge mandate in September. Moreover, the overwhelming consensus on the moderate wing of the Labour Party is that he should fall, rather then be toppled. Only then, the thinking goes, will a reasonable number of his supporters think again about the nutty politics for which they voted (perhaps, in many cases, as a protest rather than a positive endorsement) and support a more modern, grounded alternative.

Still, the last few days matter for Labour because they have moved the party a little closer to the recognition that its leader is hopeless. This may be accentuated early next month, at the Oldham West and Royton by-election. One of the starkest claims made by Mr Corbyn’s supporters in the leadership campaign was that his straight-talking style would help the party win back Old Labour voters in seats where the populist UK Independence Party is now a serious presence. The by-election will put this to the test and—if my visit to the seat last week is anything to go by—find it wanting.

Arriving home, a resident in a high-vis jacket confesses that he is Labour by habit and UKIP by preference. “He’s an idiot,” he adds matter-of-factly of Mr Corbyn: “his foreign policy is totally out of date.” A couple of houses down an old man in a vest declares himself a convinced socialist, a scion of a “strong army family” and utterly alienated by the unwillingness (as he sees it) of Mr Corbyn, a unilateral nuclear disarmer, to defend Britain.

If Labour’s win in the seat is anything but resounding—as seems entirely possible—MPs across the party should worry about their prospects. But will they act? In my view, having followed the Paris attacks and the party’s response, it is no longer a question of whether it will breach 30% in the next election but whether it will cut 20%. Voters pay very, very little attention to the daily political churn. But a few things go noticed. Labour’s uncertainty about the extent to which it should stand up for British citizens is one, as my afternoon on the Oldham doorsteps (even before the Paris attacks) revealed. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party's image. Its moderates are adopting a (rightly) different emphasis from that of their leader and waiting for him to slip away eventually. But the last days have shown that this is not enough. They must start thinking about actively unseating him and building a grass-roots base to rival the one that put him in a post he did not deserve to win.

After a day of to-ing and fro-ing, Jeremy Corbyn has surrendered to pressure and changed his line. He spent much of the day resisting calls to go to the England France football match but is now on his way.

One long marcher who has been with Jeremy Corbyn throughout the leadership campaign sighed at the time it had taken to get him to go to the match and referred to him as “our politically adolescent leader”.

max - fred doesn't even dare voice a view even as to what sort of action he would support NOW

i suppose i could squelch him, but then i probably wouldn't stamp on a cockroach either

I say say Bamber, you are bitter.

Anyway I haven't got time to bandy words with the likes of you.. I have some social research to do.. good evening for now.

I would and have stamped on cockroaches. They make quite a mess. I dare say you could take the same view of bacteria and not use antibiotics. Of course rats should be treated well and food left out for them. You could bring them indoors in cold weather.

Where the money is coming from...but the yanks cant find it (or our lot)


http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151116/1030199114/isil-financing-g20-putin.html

Possibly, a Con party donor who deals in arms.

Wasn't Maggie Thatcher's son a "gun runner" sometime ago.

Perhaps. I am mistaken.

Was he a staunch party member like Haze.

Did you read it?

That website is part of the sputniknews news agency that was created and is run by the Russian government. Most of the article is nonsense.

I suppose Cameron and Haze are tossing and turning tonight at the thought of Cameron being rejected by his own party.

Even a tory party dominated Defence Committee is telling Cameron and clique their ideas on Syria are inept and the height of stupidity.

Lynton will be disappointed.

=-=-=-=-=

Manuel and Haze,

I have dissected quite a few cockroaches and rats over my time.

Probably, a preferable experience to what I think shaking hands with either of you would be.


-====--==-=

Did you mean this article:




Putin said at the G20 summit that Russia has presented examples of terrorism financing by individual businessmen from 40 countries, including from member states of the G20.

"I provided examples related to our data on the financing of Islamic State units by natural persons in various countries. The financing comes from 40 countries, as we established, including some G20 members," Putin told reporters following the summit.

The fight against terrorism was a key topic at the summit, according to the Russian leader.

"This topic (the war on the terror) was crucial. Especially after the Paris tragedy, we all understand that the means of financing terrorism should be severed," the Russian president said.

Russia has also presented satellite images and aerial photos showing the true scale of the Islamic State oil trade.

#Putin: #ISIS income comes from #oil trade. I showed my colleag

Can see why Cameron is cosying up to Putin.

It's all run by someone(s) Haystack, and they all have agenda's.


why, with the sophistication available in financial circles, they cant cut off the funding is beyond me.

They don't know how to hack it.

Ah, but they do Fred...but perhaps they don't want to.

Now why would that possibly be so Max?

You know full well Stan.