But when she wins the contest, she is still going to put all her weight behind trying to get a deal passed, whatever you think of it, that she has no chance of getting through the house. The only way she could get it passed is by bypassing the house and putting it to the people, but she has ruled that out. You couldn't make it up!
But when she wins the contest, she is still going to put all her weight behind trying to get a deal passed, whatever you think of it, that she has no chance of getting through the house. The only way she could get it passed is by bypassing the house and putting it to the people, but she has ruled that out. You couldn't make it up!
She will try the WA vote and it will most likely fail first time, but by how much? The vote tonight doesn't change the DUP position. All it does is bury the ERG even further.
Ultimately it's still down to the Tory remainers as to whether they support a no confidence (unlikely) or push for a People's vote. Ironically a Peoples vote is probably May's best option as then everybody is bound by the result.
But she has to be cornered into that position and that is a volatile process which is not predictable.
I've been critical of the Labour politicians that the BBC have given airtime to lately, but to be fair to the BBC it did not appoint them as shadow ministers.
But why exactly did they give airtime to Bernard Jenkin MP?
What do you know about him? The name should be familiar since we have been paying him to be an MP since 1992. What has he done, in this time?
He has banged on about Europe. On and on and on. Nothing else for 26 years. Never even considered for a ministerial role. He was on today because he was one of the 48. He's one of the "sovereignty" Brexiteers. He is the Southbank of the Tory party.
There is only one other thing of note in his political career
In May 2009 Jenkin was reported by The Daily Telegraph to have used £50,000 in expenses to pay his sister-in-law rent on the property he uses as his constituency home. Jenkin claimed that he was just paying "an honest and reasonable rent" for the property.[11] On 27 October 2009, it was initially recommended that Bernard Jenkin pay back £63,250 by expenses auditor Sir Thomas Legg. This is the highest amount known to have been recommended after an audit of MPs' claims on second homes expenses.[12][13] This amount was reduced to £36,250 following an appeal.[14]
This is the kind of politician now driving the UK.
It's the same kind of politician that drives the EU too. The EU has MEP expenses issues of its own and they're built in to the system with zero transparency to the tax paying public and little or no oversight from the EU. More than £50,000 a year of unaudited expenses for each MEP that they are supposed to spend on offices in their own country, but could just as easily be spent on any dubious thing they please. Only something like 130 of the 750 MEPs have actually divulged what they spend. It's thought there are about 250 "ghost offices" that supposedly exist but nobody can find.
The UK parliament eventually cleaned house on expenses, the EU continues to allow MEPs to trouser cash as they please.
Just a quick search of - "UKIP MEP expenses fraud" , throws up plenty of guilty names
Indeed, why just pick on Jenkin when everybody's at it, all the way across Europe.
I wouldn't want to "patronise" you again, so I am sure you understood perfectly well my main point in the post about Bernard Jenkin. I'll ask you again though, if you approve of his activities as an MP, today and over the last 26 years? Given the choice in your constituency, whom would you vote for, him, Yvette Cooper or Ed Davey?
Meanwhile here is an example of the supreme irony of the Far Right across Europe joining in the pro Brexit/Yaxley-Lennon march. Check this film clip, if only just 0.11-0.20.
The big bloke in the red tie..he is a Czech MP from the far right SPD. When I found him on Twitter boasting how he had been "invited" to attend the march, I asked if his time in the UK shouldn't be spent talking to some of the 45,000 Czech citizens there who are worried about Brexit. Replied that I obviously don't understand democracy. WTF?
I can just imagine that at some point he got a phone call and started talking in Czech. Wouldn't have noticed the idiots who hearing that, started muttering "Effing Pole! What's he doing here? He should eff off home"
I've been critical of the Labour politicians that the BBC have given airtime to lately, but to be fair to the BBC it did not appoint them as shadow ministers.
But why exactly did they give airtime to Bernard Jenkin MP?
What do you know about him? The name should be familiar since we have been paying him to be an MP since 1992. What has he done, in this time?
He has banged on about Europe. On and on and on. Nothing else for 26 years. Never even considered for a ministerial role. He was on today because he was one of the 48. He's one of the "sovereignty" Brexiteers. He is the Southbank of the Tory party.
There is only one other thing of note in his political career
In May 2009 Jenkin was reported by The Daily Telegraph to have used £50,000 in expenses to pay his sister-in-law rent on the property he uses as his constituency home. Jenkin claimed that he was just paying "an honest and reasonable rent" for the property.[11] On 27 October 2009, it was initially recommended that Bernard Jenkin pay back £63,250 by expenses auditor Sir Thomas Legg. This is the highest amount known to have been recommended after an audit of MPs' claims on second homes expenses.[12][13] This amount was reduced to £36,250 following an appeal.[14]
This is the kind of politician now driving the UK.
It's the same kind of politician that drives the EU too. The EU has MEP expenses issues of its own and they're built in to the system with zero transparency to the tax paying public and little or no oversight from the EU. More than £50,000 a year of unaudited expenses for each MEP that they are supposed to spend on offices in their own country, but could just as easily be spent on any dubious thing they please. Only something like 130 of the 750 MEPs have actually divulged what they spend. It's thought there are about 250 "ghost offices" that supposedly exist but nobody can find.
The UK parliament eventually cleaned house on expenses, the EU continues to allow MEPs to trouser cash as they please.
Just a quick search of - "UKIP MEP expenses fraud" , throws up plenty of guilty names
Indeed, why just pick on Jenkin when everybody's at it, all the way across Europe.
I wouldn't want to "patronise" you again, so I am sure you understood perfectly well my main point in the post about Bernard Jenkin. I'll ask you again though, if you approve of his activities as an MP, today and over the last 26 years? Given the choice in your constituency, whom would you vote for, him, Yvette Cooper or Ed Davey?
The main point I took from your original post was that you don't think much of Eurosceptic Jenkin and that you object to the likes of him taking over the agenda. You then proceed to get in a cheap, needless dig against Southbank and then drag up Jenkin's past expenses shames, which, while they are an indication of the man's character, are wholly unconnected to any of his opinions on Europe. Remainers are on thin ice if they are calling Brexit politicians out on expenses fraud. It is practically built in to the EU parliament which continues to condone and defend MEPs dubious practices and resists any reform. The ECJ have recently just backed them up to the hilt. That's £4400 of taxpayers money a month for each of the 750 MEPs, and the EU tell us we have no right to know what it's spent on, regardless of whether it goes on constituency offices or crack-whores.
As for how I would vote, it's really none of your business. Nobody owns my vote and if anybody wants it they have to earn it. By natural inclination, I'm more likely to vote Labour but I refuse to do so while the party is led by Jeremy Corbyn. For the first time in my life I am considering not voting at all. I never thought I'd ever come to this but I am totally disgusted by our elected representatives
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
That's as maybe - but I've heard the magic mushroom bit is true.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
Except that there is wealth of evidence, not just from lone conspiracy theorists on the internet, about Corbyn's links to terrorists. I listed 100 some time ago. I can post them again if you want. There are photos of him with the terrorists, his own statements where he calls them his "friends", film of him on Iranian TV (yes, that is Iranian state run TV who paid him to go on their shows) and much more.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
This thread has had its nominees, but this might just be the biggest straw man I’ve seen.
It’s almost as if youve copied and pasted and replaced “trump” with Corbyn there.
I've been critical of the Labour politicians that the BBC have given airtime to lately, but to be fair to the BBC it did not appoint them as shadow ministers.
But why exactly did they give airtime to Bernard Jenkin MP?
What do you know about him? The name should be familiar since we have been paying him to be an MP since 1992. What has he done, in this time?
He has banged on about Europe. On and on and on. Nothing else for 26 years. Never even considered for a ministerial role. He was on today because he was one of the 48. He's one of the "sovereignty" Brexiteers. He is the Southbank of the Tory party.
There is only one other thing of note in his political career
In May 2009 Jenkin was reported by The Daily Telegraph to have used £50,000 in expenses to pay his sister-in-law rent on the property he uses as his constituency home. Jenkin claimed that he was just paying "an honest and reasonable rent" for the property.[11] On 27 October 2009, it was initially recommended that Bernard Jenkin pay back £63,250 by expenses auditor Sir Thomas Legg. This is the highest amount known to have been recommended after an audit of MPs' claims on second homes expenses.[12][13] This amount was reduced to £36,250 following an appeal.[14]
This is the kind of politician now driving the UK.
It's the same kind of politician that drives the EU too. The EU has MEP expenses issues of its own and they're built in to the system with zero transparency to the tax paying public and little or no oversight from the EU. More than £50,000 a year of unaudited expenses for each MEP that they are supposed to spend on offices in their own country, but could just as easily be spent on any dubious thing they please. Only something like 130 of the 750 MEPs have actually divulged what they spend. It's thought there are about 250 "ghost offices" that supposedly exist but nobody can find.
The UK parliament eventually cleaned house on expenses, the EU continues to allow MEPs to trouser cash as they please.
Just a quick search of - "UKIP MEP expenses fraud" , throws up plenty of guilty names
Indeed, why just pick on Jenkin when everybody's at it, all the way across Europe.
I wouldn't want to "patronise" you again, so I am sure you understood perfectly well my main point in the post about Bernard Jenkin. I'll ask you again though, if you approve of his activities as an MP, today and over the last 26 years? Given the choice in your constituency, whom would you vote for, him, Yvette Cooper or Ed Davey?
The main point I took from your original post was that you don't think much of Eurosceptic Jenkin and that you object to the likes of him taking over the agenda. You then proceed to get in a cheap, needless dig against Southbank and then drag up his past Jenkin's expenses shames, which, while they are an indication of the man's character, are wholly unconnected to any of his opinions on Europe. Remainers are on thin ice if they are calling Brexit politicians out on expenses fraud. It is practically built in to the EU parliament which continues to condone and defend MEPs dubious practices and resists any reform. The ECJ have recently just backed them up to the hilt. That's £4400 of taxpayers money a month for each of the 750 MEPs, and the EU tell us we have no right to know what it's spent on, regardless of whether it goes on constituency offices or crack-whores.
As for how I would vote, it's really none of your business. Nobody owns my vote and if anybody wants it they have to earn it. By natural inclination, I'm more likely to vote Labour but I refuse to do so while the party is led by Jeremy Corbyn. For the first time in my life I am considering not voting at all. I never thought I'd ever come to this but I am totally disgusted by our elected representatives
The point about Southbank is that he and Jenkin both focus on "sovereignty" as their reason for Brexit; both get the alleged loss of sovereignty wrong on multiple occasions (in Jenkin's case at least because he is a shameless liar), while neither can explain how leaving the EU will make the personal lives of UK citizens better. In Jenkin's case it is even worse because he is supposed to represent his constituents on multiple issues, but the only 'thing' of note on his Wikipedia page beyond his obsession with Europe was that he was one of the high-end expenses fiddlers, which tells me he is a ****.
The issue I have with your view is the implication ( that I drew, anyway) that European politicians are more corrupt because they are European, while we Brits cleared all that up because we are Brits. My point is that it was only cleared up by the behaviour of determined journalists and activists, and now it is creeping back in again. The same type of activists are determined to get the same result re the European MEPs. I want to make the case that power corrupts, everywhere, and it helps nobody to pretend that we Brits are more immune to it than anyone else, especially in a Brexit context. One problem re MEPs is that because of the low voter turnout for the EP, each country elects and sends more extremists, in our case a load of UKIP, who as others point out, fiddled their expenses on an industrial scale as part of their 'mandate" not to represent us but to fuck the place up. They are exactly the MEPs who have resisted the push for transparency. All the activists I know working on this (from various countries) are massively pro the EU as an institution. They are as contemptuous of crooked politicians as you are.
Of course you are not obliged to tell me about how you vote. I was just curious to know whether your response implied that you support Jenkin and his political type. Turns out that we are on almost the same point on the political spectrum. Just another example of the tragic question. Why are we all tearing each other apart over the massive irrelevance that is Brexit.?
Although I'm not a Corbyn supporter & wouldn't vote Labour in a million years, I thought he was bloody brilliant earlier. Pure anger at TM.........and I thought that would have been THE time to go for a no confidence vote in HER government. No idea of how its done but I would have just said that they had no confidence & walked out.
Rumours from room where the Tory MPs are meeting (via radio 5Live) is that May has twice said that she won't be stand as PM at the next general election if she wins.
In the old days - say, pre-2010 - the Conservatives used to present themselves as a competent party, with a strongly-held belief in the rule of law.
Obviously, since then, they have painstakingly, completely and efficiently demolished any vestige of thought that anyone might still have that they are competent at all. That trope has well and truly been shot to bits. There has never been a less competent party of government - certainly not in my lifetime.
But how are they doing on the old "rule of law" bit? Well, a long, long time ago (last year), they proved how important it is to ensure they are not tainted with a reputation for supporting criminal activity by removing the party whip from a member of parliament following serious allegations, specifically, allegations of sex crimes against more than one staff member. He's had the party whip restored today, so he can vote in support of Theresa May tonight.
Theresa May has said she won't lead the Conservative Party into the 2022 election. (Which, on her track record, means she will).
This brings up a couple of interesting points.
1. If the Conservatives win the 2022 election and their leader completes a full term, that will be the first time a Conservative leader will have won a majority and taken the party into the following election for thirty years (John Major in 1997).
2. Theresa May stating that she won't lead the party into the 2022 General Election; but that doesn't mean she won't lead the party into snap elections in 2019, 2020 and a couple more in 2021, which she's bound to have a punt on if she can.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
Except that there is wealth of evidence, not just from lone conspiracy theorists on the internet, about Corbyn's links to terrorists. I listed 100 some time ago. I can post them again if you want. There are photos of him with the terrorists, his own statements where he calls them his "friends", film of him on Iranian TV (yes, that is Iranian state run TV who paid him to go on their shows) and much more.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
Not at all. I prefer Corbyn's politics to the Tory politics that is true, but I am also prepared to face 'the reality' as you put it, but of course the structure of that reality is open to examination.
I don't know a huge amount about him, but of course I observe Corbyn in action.
May I look at what you're 'actually saying'?
You create a long sentence that is introduced by 'What you are actually saying' and then proceeds to put words into my mouth. See how easily it's done? Create something that is open to challenge in a moment, and means the subject of that something would have to take a disproportional amount of time and effort to push back.
You talk about a 'wealth' of evidence, but does that 'actually' mean much? ('wealth' coming from the same debatable place as 'rife' for example).
Does it mean for example that he currently spends 24 hours a day being what you would call a not nice guy in his actions and utterances? Does something move from 'some' evidence to a 'wealth' of evidence when it passes a certain point?
I would even add that using the word 'wealth' (in relation to 'evidence') is emotive and ups the ante. There is even a higher notch called 'overwhelming' evidence, and a lower one called 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I have a link to 'terrorism' in that my Grandfather who had served in the British army in the Sudan and during WW1 helped an IRA man escape capture at a local railway station. I am therefore not simply a friend of terrorists, but am related to them, part of a family of terrorists if you like. Does that constitute a 'wealth' of evidence? Is a single example enough? Two? More? How many?
Charlton Athletic is rife with a wealth of terrorist sympathisers amongst it's support.
My whole point is that for something to gain traction as true or certain does not take much these days. In these days of the internet. Then it is often about the weight that something carries, which of course is also open to examination.
I made the point above that possibly plain old common sense needs re-visiting these days, and one starting point is to assume everything online is bollocks until you have confidence in it, rather than assume everything online is true until it is eventually proved to be bollocks.
This is of course far from an exact science.
However heavy duty scepticism about everything might be an aid in these abstract dark arts days.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
This thread has had its nominees, but this might just be the biggest straw man I’ve seen.
It’s almost as if youve copied and pasted and replaced “trump” with Corbyn there.
Not at all. Just recently I have been reading a book called 'Post Truth' by a writer called James Ball which has led me to ponder on the matter.
One example he gives is that the US Government had been secretly stockpiling 30,000 Guillotines, stored in internment camps, one in Alaska large enough for two million people, ready to wipe out second amendment supporters at a rate of three million an hour once Hilary Clinton got elected. You can't prove it didn't happen.
The entire internet is populated by straw men and women if you like.
If you say I am refuting an argument made by Henry about Corbyn, by talking about something he didn't say at all, then you are incorrect. I am not refuting whether Corbyn is the Devil Incarnate or Nelson Mandela's blood brother, I am pointing out how quick and easy it is to declare something, and I am talking about how the subtle, even unconscious, use of language can infiltrate an issue to make it unreliable and opaque.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
Except that there is wealth of evidence, not just from lone conspiracy theorists on the internet, about Corbyn's links to terrorists. I listed 100 some time ago. I can post them again if you want. There are photos of him with the terrorists, his own statements where he calls them his "friends", film of him on Iranian TV (yes, that is Iranian state run TV who paid him to go on their shows) and much more.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
Not at all. I prefer Corbyn's politics to the Tory politics that is true, but I am also prepared to face 'the reality' as you put it, but of course the structure of that reality is open to examination.
I don't know a huge amount about him, but of course I observe Corbyn in action.
May I look at what you're 'actually saying'?
You create a long sentence that is introduced by 'What you are actually saying' and then proceeds to put words into my mouth. See how easily it's done? Create something that is open to challenge in a moment, and means the subject of that something would have to take a disproportional amount of time and effort to push back.
You talk about a 'wealth' of evidence, but does that 'actually' mean much? ('wealth' coming from the same debatable place as 'rife' for example).
Does it mean for example that he currently spends 24 hours a day being what you would call a not nice guy in his actions and utterances? Does something move from 'some' evidence to a 'wealth' of evidence when it passes a certain point?
I would even add that using the word 'wealth' (in relation to 'evidence') is emotive and ups the ante. There is even a higher notch called 'overwhelming' evidence, and a lower one called 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I have a link to 'terrorism' in that my Grandfather who had served in the British army in the Sudan and during WW1 helped an IRA man escape capture at a local railway station. I am therefore not simply a friend of terrorists, but am related to them, part of a family of terrorists if you like. Does that constitute a 'wealth' of evidence? Is a single example enough? Two? More? How many?
Charlton Athletic is rife with a wealth of terrorist sympathisers amongst it's support.
My whole point is that for something to gain traction as true or certain does not take much these days. In these days of the internet. Then it is often about the weight that something carries, which of course is also open to examination.
I made the point above that possibly plain old common sense needs re-visiting these days, and one starting point is to assume everything online is bollocks until you have confidence in it, rather than assume everything online is true until it is eventually proved to be bollocks.
This is of course far from an exact science.
However heavy duty scepticism about everything might be an aid in these abstract dark arts days.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
Except that there is wealth of evidence, not just from lone conspiracy theorists on the internet, about Corbyn's links to terrorists. I listed 100 some time ago. I can post them again if you want. There are photos of him with the terrorists, his own statements where he calls them his "friends", film of him on Iranian TV (yes, that is Iranian state run TV who paid him to go on their shows) and much more.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
Not at all. I prefer Corbyn's politics to the Tory politics that is true, but I am also prepared to face 'the reality' as you put it, but of course the structure of that reality is open to examination.
I don't know a huge amount about him, but of course I observe Corbyn in action.
May I look at what you're 'actually saying'?
You create a long sentence that is introduced by 'What you are actually saying' and then proceeds to put words into my mouth. See how easily it's done? Create something that is open to challenge in a moment, and means the subject of that something would have to take a disproportional amount of time and effort to push back.
You talk about a 'wealth' of evidence, but does that 'actually' mean much? ('wealth' coming from the same debatable place as 'rife' for example).
Does it mean for example that he currently spends 24 hours a day being what you would call a not nice guy in his actions and utterances? Does something move from 'some' evidence to a 'wealth' of evidence when it passes a certain point?
I would even add that using the word 'wealth' (in relation to 'evidence') is emotive and ups the ante. There is even a higher notch called 'overwhelming' evidence, and a lower one called 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I have a link to 'terrorism' in that my Grandfather who had served in the British army in the Sudan and during WW1 helped an IRA man escape capture at a local railway station. I am therefore not simply a friend of terrorists, but am related to them, part of a family of terrorists if you like. Does that constitute a 'wealth' of evidence? Is a single example enough? Two? More? How many?
Charlton Athletic is rife with a wealth of terrorist sympathisers amongst it's support.
My whole point is that for something to gain traction as true or certain does not take much these days. In these days of the internet. Then it is often about the weight that something carries, which of course is also open to examination.
I made the point above that possibly plain old common sense needs re-visiting these days, and one starting point is to assume everything online is bollocks until you have confidence in it, rather than assume everything online is true until it is eventually proved to be bollocks.
This is of course far from an exact science.
However heavy duty scepticism about everything might be an aid in these abstract dark arts days.
Yes, 100 examples is a "wealth".
Does it matter if each example carries different 'weight'?
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
Except that there is wealth of evidence, not just from lone conspiracy theorists on the internet, about Corbyn's links to terrorists. I listed 100 some time ago. I can post them again if you want. There are photos of him with the terrorists, his own statements where he calls them his "friends", film of him on Iranian TV (yes, that is Iranian state run TV who paid him to go on their shows) and much more.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
Not at all. I prefer Corbyn's politics to the Tory politics that is true, but I am also prepared to face 'the reality' as you put it, but of course the structure of that reality is open to examination.
I don't know a huge amount about him, but of course I observe Corbyn in action.
May I look at what you're 'actually saying'?
You create a long sentence that is introduced by 'What you are actually saying' and then proceeds to put words into my mouth. See how easily it's done? Create something that is open to challenge in a moment, and means the subject of that something would have to take a disproportional amount of time and effort to push back.
You talk about a 'wealth' of evidence, but does that 'actually' mean much? ('wealth' coming from the same debatable place as 'rife' for example).
Does it mean for example that he currently spends 24 hours a day being what you would call a not nice guy in his actions and utterances? Does something move from 'some' evidence to a 'wealth' of evidence when it passes a certain point?
I would even add that using the word 'wealth' (in relation to 'evidence') is emotive and ups the ante. There is even a higher notch called 'overwhelming' evidence, and a lower one called 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I have a link to 'terrorism' in that my Grandfather who had served in the British army in the Sudan and during WW1 helped an IRA man escape capture at a local railway station. I am therefore not simply a friend of terrorists, but am related to them, part of a family of terrorists if you like. Does that constitute a 'wealth' of evidence? Is a single example enough? Two? More? How many?
Charlton Athletic is rife with a wealth of terrorist sympathisers amongst it's support.
My whole point is that for something to gain traction as true or certain does not take much these days. In these days of the internet. Then it is often about the weight that something carries, which of course is also open to examination.
I made the point above that possibly plain old common sense needs re-visiting these days, and one starting point is to assume everything online is bollocks until you have confidence in it, rather than assume everything online is true until it is eventually proved to be bollocks.
This is of course far from an exact science.
However heavy duty scepticism about everything might be an aid in these abstract dark arts days.
Yes, 100 examples is a "wealth".
Does it matter if each example carries different 'weight'?
Why don't you read them and then decide what weight to give them.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
Except that there is wealth of evidence, not just from lone conspiracy theorists on the internet, about Corbyn's links to terrorists. I listed 100 some time ago. I can post them again if you want. There are photos of him with the terrorists, his own statements where he calls them his "friends", film of him on Iranian TV (yes, that is Iranian state run TV who paid him to go on their shows) and much more.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
Not at all. I prefer Corbyn's politics to the Tory politics that is true, but I am also prepared to face 'the reality' as you put it, but of course the structure of that reality is open to examination.
I don't know a huge amount about him, but of course I observe Corbyn in action.
May I look at what you're 'actually saying'?
You create a long sentence that is introduced by 'What you are actually saying' and then proceeds to put words into my mouth. See how easily it's done? Create something that is open to challenge in a moment, and means the subject of that something would have to take a disproportional amount of time and effort to push back.
You talk about a 'wealth' of evidence, but does that 'actually' mean much? ('wealth' coming from the same debatable place as 'rife' for example).
Does it mean for example that he currently spends 24 hours a day being what you would call a not nice guy in his actions and utterances? Does something move from 'some' evidence to a 'wealth' of evidence when it passes a certain point?
I would even add that using the word 'wealth' (in relation to 'evidence') is emotive and ups the ante. There is even a higher notch called 'overwhelming' evidence, and a lower one called 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I have a link to 'terrorism' in that my Grandfather who had served in the British army in the Sudan and during WW1 helped an IRA man escape capture at a local railway station. I am therefore not simply a friend of terrorists, but am related to them, part of a family of terrorists if you like. Does that constitute a 'wealth' of evidence? Is a single example enough? Two? More? How many?
Charlton Athletic is rife with a wealth of terrorist sympathisers amongst it's support.
My whole point is that for something to gain traction as true or certain does not take much these days. In these days of the internet. Then it is often about the weight that something carries, which of course is also open to examination.
I made the point above that possibly plain old common sense needs re-visiting these days, and one starting point is to assume everything online is bollocks until you have confidence in it, rather than assume everything online is true until it is eventually proved to be bollocks.
This is of course far from an exact science.
However heavy duty scepticism about everything might be an aid in these abstract dark arts days.
Yes, 100 examples is a "wealth".
Does it matter if each example carries different 'weight'?
Why don't you read them and then decide what weight to give them.
That doesn't really answer my question. But OK, post the list of 100 again and I can take a look.
Comments
Ultimately it's still down to the Tory remainers as to whether they support a no confidence (unlikely) or push for a People's vote. Ironically a Peoples vote is probably May's best option as then everybody is bound by the result.
But she has to be cornered into that position and that is a volatile process which is not predictable.
The big bloke in the red tie..he is a Czech MP from the far right SPD. When I found him on Twitter boasting how he had been "invited" to attend the march, I asked if his time in the UK shouldn't be spent talking to some of the 45,000 Czech citizens there who are worried about Brexit. Replied that I obviously don't understand democracy. WTF?
I can just imagine that at some point he got a phone call and started talking in Czech. Wouldn't have noticed the idiots who hearing that, started muttering "Effing Pole! What's he doing here? He should eff off home"
As for how I would vote, it's really none of your business. Nobody owns my vote and if anybody wants it they have to earn it.
By natural inclination, I'm more likely to vote Labour but I refuse to do so while the party is led by Jeremy Corbyn. For the first time in my life I am considering not voting at all. I never thought I'd ever come to this but I am totally disgusted by our elected representatives
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
There is a wealth of evidence for Corbyn's support for antisemitic causes and organisations, for example, the wreath laying for Black September members which he at first denied and then claim he was then present but didn't participate but finally a photo of him holding the wreath appeared.
What you are actually saying is "I like Corbyn and his politics so I'm going to dismiss anything I hear about him as "fake news" so I don't have to face up to the reality that he's really not a nice person at all and in no way fit to run a major party let alone the country..
It’s almost as if youve copied and pasted and replaced “trump” with Corbyn there.
The issue I have with your view is the implication ( that I drew, anyway) that European politicians are more corrupt because they are European, while we Brits cleared all that up because we are Brits. My point is that it was only cleared up by the behaviour of determined journalists and activists, and now it is creeping back in again. The same type of activists are determined to get the same result re the European MEPs. I want to make the case that power corrupts, everywhere, and it helps nobody to pretend that we Brits are more immune to it than anyone else, especially in a Brexit context. One problem re MEPs is that because of the low voter turnout for the EP, each country elects and sends more extremists, in our case a load of UKIP, who as others point out, fiddled their expenses on an industrial scale as part of their 'mandate" not to represent us but to fuck the place up. They are exactly the MEPs who have resisted the push for transparency. All the activists I know working on this (from various countries) are massively pro the EU as an institution. They are as contemptuous of crooked politicians as you are.
Of course you are not obliged to tell me about how you vote. I was just curious to know whether your response implied that you support Jenkin and his political type. Turns out that we are on almost the same point on the political spectrum. Just another example of the tragic question. Why are we all tearing each other apart over the massive irrelevance that is Brexit.?
Obviously, since then, they have painstakingly, completely and efficiently demolished any vestige of thought that anyone might still have that they are competent at all. That trope has well and truly been shot to bits. There has never been a less competent party of government - certainly not in my lifetime.
But how are they doing on the old "rule of law" bit? Well, a long, long time ago (last year), they proved how important it is to ensure they are not tainted with a reputation for supporting criminal activity by removing the party whip from a member of parliament following serious allegations, specifically, allegations of sex crimes against more than one staff member. He's had the party whip restored today, so he can vote in support of Theresa May tonight.
This brings up a couple of interesting points.
1. If the Conservatives win the 2022 election and their leader completes a full term, that will be the first time a Conservative leader will have won a majority and taken the party into the following election for thirty years (John Major in 1997).
2. Theresa May stating that she won't lead the party into the 2022 General Election; but that doesn't mean she won't lead the party into snap elections in 2019, 2020 and a couple more in 2021, which she's bound to have a punt on if she can.
I don't know a huge amount about him, but of course I observe Corbyn in action.
May I look at what you're 'actually saying'?
You create a long sentence that is introduced by 'What you are actually saying' and then proceeds to put words into my mouth. See how easily it's done? Create something that is open to challenge in a moment, and means the subject of that something would have to take a disproportional amount of time and effort to push back.
You talk about a 'wealth' of evidence, but does that 'actually' mean much? ('wealth' coming from the same debatable place as 'rife' for example).
Does it mean for example that he currently spends 24 hours a day being what you would call a not nice guy in his actions and utterances? Does something move from 'some' evidence to a 'wealth' of evidence when it passes a certain point?
I would even add that using the word 'wealth' (in relation to 'evidence') is emotive and ups the ante. There is even a higher notch called 'overwhelming' evidence, and a lower one called 'on the balance of probabilities'.
I have a link to 'terrorism' in that my Grandfather who had served in the British army in the Sudan and during WW1 helped an IRA man escape capture at a local railway station. I am therefore not simply a friend of terrorists, but am related to them, part of a family of terrorists if you like.
Does that constitute a 'wealth' of evidence? Is a single example enough? Two? More? How many?
Charlton Athletic is rife with a wealth of terrorist sympathisers amongst it's support.
My whole point is that for something to gain traction as true or certain does not take much these days. In these days of the internet.
Then it is often about the weight that something carries, which of course is also open to examination.
I made the point above that possibly plain old common sense needs re-visiting these days, and one starting point is to assume everything online is bollocks until you have confidence in it, rather than assume everything online is true until it is eventually proved to be bollocks.
This is of course far from an exact science.
However heavy duty scepticism about everything might be an aid in these abstract dark arts days.
One example he gives is that the US Government had been secretly stockpiling 30,000 Guillotines, stored in internment camps, one in Alaska large enough for two million people, ready to wipe out second amendment supporters at a rate of three million an hour once Hilary Clinton got elected. You can't prove it didn't happen.
The entire internet is populated by straw men and women if you like.
If you say I am refuting an argument made by Henry about Corbyn, by talking about something he didn't say at all, then you are incorrect. I am not refuting whether Corbyn is the Devil Incarnate or Nelson Mandela's blood brother, I am pointing out how quick and easy it is to declare something, and I am talking about how the subtle, even unconscious, use of language can infiltrate an issue to make it unreliable and opaque.