Tories Tread a Dangerous Path 793


I have always believed that Theresa May is likely to try to block a new Independence referendum – and it is extremely unlikely her defence secretary, the odious Michal Fallon, would have said this so categorically without prior agreement with May. Fallon, taking a break from supplying weapons to the Saudis for killing Yemeni children, displayed huge arrogance towards Scotland, which the Tories believe is firmly under the heel. They refuse to acknowledge that any difficulty arises from the contradictory referendum results in Scotland, where Scots voted both to remain part of the UK, and to remain part of the EU – the second more recently and by a much wider margin.

The Tory view is that Scotland is but a province of the UK. They are of course right – the UK Supreme Court decision makes quite plain that Scotland’s so-called “parliament” does not derive its power from the Scottish people, but only from what Westminster condescends to hand back. Indeed Westminster could abolish Scotland’s parliament tomorrow. For the Tories, a combination of that Supreme Court decision, their Brexit victory, and the elevation of the Tories to 21% in Scottish elections (Fallon quotes public support for Ruth Davison in his interview), mean that they don’t have to offer Scotland anything.

For God’s sake, let them not be proved right.

Do you remember the scene in Braveheart, where the nobles at Stirling Bridge are planning to negotiate and go home, and Wallace forces them into a fight? Well, I know which Sturgeon reminds me of more at the moment. If she is planning to fight eventually she is masking her intentions brilliantly. The problem that worries me is that the SNP is now the Scottish establishment, and as Scotland is still very much part of the UK, they are part of the British establishment too. A lot of our MPs seem to have their feet under the table very nicely at Westminster. The SNP as an institution has not just its Westminster MPs but their secretaries and research assistants and the group staff, and all the people paid with millions of Westminster “Short money”. That is a major group of party apparatchiks making a fat living out of the current system. Plus of course Holyrood and its power and jobs.

The SNP as an institution is doing very nicely out of the status quo, and that is why there are so many siren voices within the SNP arguing that it is too early for a referendum; “we might lose it”, “leaving the EU is not such a disaster”, “there are a lot of anti-EU Independence supporters anyway”.

There is a lot of self-fulfilling prophesy here. As there has been virtually no actual campaigning for Independence since 2014 and the media still spew anti-Independence propaganda daily, it is hardly surprising Independence support is not rising in the polls. It is a miracle it is holding steady.

The Tories are banking on leaving the EU being normalised. People are getting used to the idea, and the ill consequences of leaving the single market will not really bite until we do so. This is where Sturgeon’s Fabian tactics play in to the Tory agenda. Instead of a break with Westminster over EU membership, the Scottish government is allowing public interest to evaporate in a series of dull Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. There matters are kicked into long grass and mollifying but insincere words spoken about how seriously the devolved administrations are being taken. I can see no point in continuing with this charade unless the SNP itself intends to allow the issue to fizzle out in a drizzle of EFTA’s, EEA’s, CTA’s and other dull acronyms.

The racist majority in England and Wales are trying to force us out of the EU. The UK Supreme Court has ruled the Sewel Convention has no legal force. Now the Tories are arrogantly refusing the right of the Scottish people even to hold a referendum. I cannot imagine the degree of humiliation the SNP feels is necessary to pull the trigger on another Independence attempt. The time is now.

If the Tories do succeed in preventing another referendum from taking place, they are playing with fire. It is worth noting that there is no requirement for Scotland to hold a referendum to become Independent.

Independence is not an internal question. It is the existence of a state recognised by its fellow states, and that recognition is expressed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. A referendum is not a requirement for that UN recognition. Please note the rest of this paragraph very, very carefully. The majority of States in the world have achieved independence during my own lifetime. The vast majority of those did so without a referendum. Not only is a referendum not a requirement, it is extremely unusual. Of the 194 states recognised by the UN, only a tiny handful featured a referendum as part of the process of the formation of the state. This is also true within the EU. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic all recently assumed their current form and none of them had a referendum to do it.

If the Tories refuse a referendum, the Scottish Government should respond by declaring Independence. My preferred method of doing this would be to convene a National Assembly, comprising of all Scotland’s MEP’s, MP’s and MSP’s, and for that National Assembly to make the declaration. This would broadly accord with international norms. Independence should be effective from the declaration, but that Independence could if desired be employed to hold the referendum which the Tories had refused.

I do not posit this as the best way to achieve Independence. My preference would be a new referendum now in the new circumstances of the UK leaving the EU, as fairly presaged in the SNP’s successful manifesto for the last Holyrood elections. I am convinced that once campaigning starts, support for Independence will surge as during the last campaign, only this time starting from a much higher base.

The Tories fought the Holyrood election on a manifesto saying no second Independence referendum. They got 21% of the vote. May and Fallon should be aware as they plan to block a referendum: other options are available.


793 thoughts on “Tories Tread a Dangerous Path

1 3 4 5 6 7
  • Republicofscotland

    The US Appeals court has denied the Justice department’s request, for an immediate reinstatement of Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban.

    Immediately US district judge James Robard, came under personal attack from the Justice Department for the decision. Say that the decision was putting American lives at risk.

    The reinstatement of the right to travel from the countries banned by Trump, has shone a spotlight, on who is the architect or architects, of the travel ban in the first place, it has alleged that Steve Bannon and his aide Steven Miller are the authors of the executive order.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/travel-ban-white-house-files-appeal-against-ruling-as-trump-says-well-win#img-1

    If nothing else Donald Trump appears to be a divisive character, he has nominated Neil Gorsuch as a judge on the Supreme court. However the Republicans repeatedly blocked Obama’s nomination for the Supreme court, at the end of last year.

    I expect sparks to fly, when Trump ups his rhetoric over the decision of the US Appeals court, and the Supreme court if his nomination is blocked by the Democrats.

    • michael norton

      RoS
      I understand that he Scottish Donald is somewhat upset by these troublesome judges.
      He sacked that woman prosecutor but can he sack judges, we shall see, they might be found dead from a heart attack sat at the wheel of a car, at the traffic lights like poor old Jimmy. ( Mrs. al-Hillis secret husband in Amerika)

      • Republicofscotland

        “I understand that he Scottish Donald ”

        Michael, Donald Trump was born in NewYork city, in 1946, the 14th of June to be precise. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but does that not make him an American?

        • Old Mark

          By the same reasoning RoS, our Cybernat host Craig is an Englishman, born in Norfolk.

          Both are half Scots by descent, and you’ll recall at one time Trump & Salmond were best buddies.

          • Republicofscotland

            Old Mark.

            Trump, yes he has Scots ancestry, however he was born in New York, that makes him American in my book. That and the fact the natural born citizen clause says to be a POTUS, you must be a natural born American citizen.

            For instance if I recall correctly Arnold Schwarzenegger, could not become POTUS, but he did become Governer of California in 2003, due to his Austrian birth in 1947, even though he eventually did become a US citizen.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

            As for Salmond and Trump, well Alex Salmond inherited Jack McConnell’s failings, it was he (McConnell) who coveted Trump over the Menie golf course, indeed this unionist rag claims McConnell (Labour stooge) broke the ministerial code of conduct, to appease his good buddy Trump.

          • Habbabkuk

            RoS

            As any fule no, the US is one of the few developed countries that still apply the “ius solis” as far as nationality/citizenship is concerned. If you’re born in the US, you automatically acquire US citizenship. Idem Canada.

            One could see that as the manifestation of a truly liberal, open and open-minded society.

            In Europe, Ireland was the last country to apply that principle, which it abandoned in (I think) 2004 because too many women were flying in to have their babies there (in particular women from black Africa according to Irish official sources).

            I wonder what Scotch nationality law would look like in the event of Scotland gaining independence?

          • Republicofscotland

            “I wonder what Scotch nationality law would look like in the event of Scotland gaining independence?”

            ________

            Interesting Habb, I know how you would react (bleating to the mods of slurs demeaning descriptions, asking for the comment to be removed etc.) if I referred to Israeli’s using a condescending term, in which you know fine well you have used here.

            Stooping to Anon1’s or Norton’s level, doesn’t become you.

  • Republicofscotland

    Meanwhile Trump is threatening Palestinian’s, if they go through with suing Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    Trump’s threats include cutting off American aid to the Palestinian people, and reclassifying Palestinian groups as terrorist organisations.

    Instead of trying to broker some kind of peace deal Trump is acting like a attack dog and bully for Israel’s powerful US lobby groups such as the AIPAC.

    It looks like under Trump’s tenure the people of Palestine are in for a tough time of it. It’s time someone told Trump that Palestinian statehood, is recognised by over 140 nations.

    “On Wednesday, Palestinians got more bad news. Netanyahu announced preliminary steps to establish a new Israeli settlement, the first one in over two decades – on stolen Palestinian land, he didn’t explain.”

    “He pledged unlimited East Jerusalem settlement construction, along with escalated expansion of West Bank ones, approving over 6,000 new housing units this year so far, many more to come.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-threatens-palestinians-supports-greater-israel/5572612

    • Brianfujisan

      RoS

      Thank You.. We Do Not get Enough Links to the truth telling G.S site..Great writers over there

      Tell Lies first

      It’s absorbed – Hypnotics

      War

      Anyone see a BIG problem with a war on Iran… Wakey wakey

  • Republicofscotland

    An alternative view as to why the Milo speech at Berkeley university was cancelled due to crowd violence.

    The Refuse Facism left wing group, that caused the violence at Berkeley university and ergo caused Milo to cancel his speech is funded by the Alliance for Global Justice, based in Tucson, and received $2.2 million dollars in funding.

    It is alleged (tax forms cited as evidence) that the Alliance for Global Justice, inturn received $50 thousand dollars in funding itself from the Tides Foundation, a non-profit funded by billionaire progressive philanthropist George Soros.

    It’s a interesting slant on the events that took place outside Berkeley university, the arson and violence, if one were cynically minded, they could think that it was ALL pre-planned, to discredit the left.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/look-who-funds-the-group-behind-the-call-to-arms-at-milos-berkeley-event/#ixzz4XpxeitCp

    • Habbabkuk

      Well, I’m one of the least cynically minded of commenters on here but despite that I agree with RoS’s take on things, which, if I have understood it correctly, is as follows:

      the anti-fascist Left caused arson and violence at a university but, being indirectly funded by Mr George Soros, was actually acting to further Mr George Soros’s aims, which are to discredit the anti-fascist Left. This cunning plan only worked, of course, because Mr Soros is an anti anti- fascist and the anti-fascist Left was too stupid to realise it was being used.

      Have I got that right?

      • Republicofscotland

        “I’m one of the least cynically minded of commenters on here”

        __________

        Good Evening Habb.

        Well I must say that I’m extremely cynical regarding your cynical comment above. ?

        As for your take on the rest of my comment, you’ve tied yourself up in knots, by over complicating the matter.

        It’s simply to discredit the left, but then again we’ve all gotten to known in here, just how melodramatic you can be Habb.

  • Old Mark

    Re the Soros funded ‘Alliance for Social Justice’ and its apparent involvement in the anti Trump disturbances at Berkeley, it is often said that the authoritarian right and the hard left have so much in common they almost come within touching distance at the extremes.

    Isn’t the same also true of the cheerleaders for globalist capitalism (free movement of capital and labour for the benefit of the 1%) and the open borders zealots of the far left ? Soros in a peculiar way is in fact making common cause with the open borders left for good tactical reasons, despite the latter claiming to be opposed to the red in tooth and claw capitalism that Soros also represents.

  • Brianfujisan

    TAKING NAMES aint they just Cnts

    Talking of Just(ice) Just When I ( We ) thought Powers features was Just removed.. We ere Just very .. I jus..Just…Just..

    “The White House press corps wanted to know what being put “on notice” entailed, and Spicer responded by claiming that Iran’s government took actions against a U.S. naval vessel, which would be an act of war. “I think General Flynn was really clear yesterday that Iran has violated the Joint Resolution, that Iran’s additional hostile actions that it took against our Navy vessel are ones that we are very clear are not going to sit by and take,” he said. “I think that we will have further updates for you on those additional actions.

    • michael norton

      Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards
      ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

      Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.

      I am certain that we have been duped by people who make a living out of making false claims of Global Warming.

      • Dave

        Elementary information about carbon dioxide is its essential to life on earth. Humans can’t breathe without it and its the food plants breathe to make them grow. About 93% is trapped within the oceans that cover over 75% of the planet and about 0.038% is in the atmosphere with the rest mostly trapped within vegetation. When the Sun shines the oceans evaporate releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and when its cold the CO2 sinks back into the oceans and general vegetation growth. The natural amount varies according to the heat from the Sun. That is increases in CO2 follows rather than causes an increase in temperature. Also volcanic eruptions beneath the seas add to this and this variation easily eclipses the tiny fraction that is man-made.

        In short its a global scam promoted by a range of interests for different reasons, including new age Marxists (the Melons), EU/Globalists (global scare for global rule), nuclear lobby (civil and military) and the taxman (pay for inter-governmental jamborees).

        • glenn

          You give us a ‘Readers Digest’ summary of what CO2 is, and therefore (!) conclude “In short its a global scam”.

          What scintillating logic! Write up a paper at once, a Nobel Prize is surely yours.

          • Dave

            The Sun is a million times bigger than earth and is a burning ball of gas in the sky that has been burning for millions of years and expected to burn for millions more. It defies the imagination really and the heat from the Sun determines climate and without the Sun (or CO2) there would be no life on earth. Elementary.

          • glenn

            “Elementary”? Simplistic in the extreme, more like it.

            So now you’ve found a Children’s Encyclopaedia, quoted a sentence about what the sun is, and now _that_ is supposed to prove your point.

            You have an, ehem, interesting view of what constitutes proof.

          • glenn

            You didn’t make any points, Dave. You made a few irrelevant observations, and drew a specious conclusion. That’s so obvious that you’re probably just having a laugh, thinking you’re being funny by wasting my time.

          • Dave

            So you agree with the observations, but just think the impact of the Sun, moon, oceans, clouds/water vapour, vast majority of natural and variable carbon dioxide and other factors, is outweighed by the tiny fraction of man made emissions of CO2. Keep the faith!

          • glenn

            “Observations”? You mean, noting there is – in fact – a sun out there has made your argument?

            I might as well pontificate about the fact that the Earth is made of rock and mostly spherical, and say therefore it’s obvious that climate change is occurring – it simply is not an argument.

            But if you’re asking whether I think pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, even while we cut down a large proportion of the world’s forests, is making a difference – then yes, yes I do.

            In the meantime, you’re arguing from incredulity, which apparently trumps the expertise of scientists who have true expertise and huge amounts of data to work with.

          • Dave

            There has always been a deep pessimism within mankind about our future that religious preachers have exploited with their end of the world is neigh sermons. Religions change, but the pessimism remains and is now exploited by the climate change Jehovah’s, but instead of repent your sins, its recycle your waste because the end of the world is neigh and filling different recycling bins is part of the ritual of observance.

            You think the man made emissions of carbon dioxide determines climate and convince yourself by saying it involves billions of tons of CO2, but whatever the figure its a tiny fraction of naturally occurring and variable CO2 and it requires a masochistic vanity to believe this human bit is to blame. A similar vanity led the early church to believe the Sun revolved around earth due to our status as God’s very special creation.

            Just think of the enormity of the world, universe and everything and then consider the man made emissions of CO2 in that light. I can appreciate that all creeds like a bogeyman, an enemy to progress their cause, but the climate scam undermines the green environment, is promoted for other reasons, and is clearly not believed by those who profess to support it, going by their lifestyles.

          • glenn

            Dave, you appear to be suggesting that I had a religious inclination to believe “the end is neigh”, and transferred that onto GW. This is not the case, I do not have religious beliefs in any case.

            It does not seem fantastical to me that pouring billions – billions! – of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, while simultaneously destroying most of the forests which used to counter naturally produced CO2, will seriously imbalance our climate over time.

            Dismissing all this because climate scientists also drive cars (or whatever) is plain silly.

            On the other hand, denial is a powerful force. I can understand that people would want to reject the idea that we are doing great harm, and that our children will have a very miserable future.

            What I don’t respect is people denying actual science on the basis of their own ignorance, and poorly considered incredulity of the whole process, or waving away deep issues because of the supposed hypocrisy of some individuals. This is precisely what you are doing.

          • Anon1

            Glenn

            Know when to give up, mate. Dave has torn you a new one.

            You clearly can’t answer his points without resort to childish ad hom so my suggestion would be to just give up.

            No amount of tax is going to stop the climate changing.

          • glenn

            Anon1: I don’t credit you with very much at all, but thought you’d have at least enough sense to see what simplistic BS Dave is employing here. And if you lacked the integrity to call him out of it (no surprise), I thought you’d have enough low cunning to stay quiet.

            Even if you yourself are stupid enough to go along with the anti-science, know-nothing flat-Earthers who deny climate change.

          • Dave

            I have no way of knowing if you are motives, but clearly you deny forces beyond our control are responsible for determining climate. I too want a green environment, but the tiny fraction of CO2 generated by mankind has no bearing on climate and in fact the scam undermines genuine green policies for other reasons. And once you realise that CO2 is essential to life on earth, we can’t breathe without it, then its time for applied common-sense, whatever the ‘experts’ say.

          • glenn

            Dave, I have no idea of your motives either. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and am responding here in earnest, not trying to win points.

            D: “I have no way of knowing if you are motives, but clearly you deny forces beyond our control are responsible for determining climate.”

            I’m perfectly aware the climate has many influences, primarily the Sun. After all, I’m interested in the science of the subject. For some reason, you’d like to pretend that I (and people like me, no doubt) think there is _no_ influence apart from man-made emissions, a point never made. That is a straw-man argument of the first order.

            Not trying to be argumentative here, just setting the facts straight, because I’m trying to take you seriously.

            D: “I too want a green environment, but the tiny fraction of CO2 generated by mankind has no bearing on climate and in fact the scam undermines genuine green policies for other reasons.

            I don’t know that it does as an absolute fact I’ve proved for myself – but the idea that putting nearly 10 gigatons of CO2 each year into the quite thin atmosphere, where it remains and accumulates, and changing the concentration of this significant greenhouse gas by quite a significant degree cannot be dismissed. Particularly not when you have scholars of a extremely high order stating uncatagorically that this is a dire situation.

            You might conclude every scientist in the field is complicit in a vast conspiracy… I think that unlikely.

            D: “And once you realise that CO2 is essential to life on earth, we can’t breathe without it, then its time for applied common-sense, whatever the ‘experts’ say.”

            Dave, water is essential to life on Earth, we cannot live without it. Would you like to live under several feel of it? Do you really think these simplistic nostrums allow you to dismiss genuine analysis, which is open to criticism and peer review at every level?

            Experts, or ‘experts’ as you put it, are people who know what they’re talking about. Do you get all dismissive of ‘experts’ and would favour a “common-sense” fellow to just use his instinct, if you needed a heart bypass operation?

            You have to go a lot deeper than knee-jerk opinions when it comes to complex subjects. You have to employ science, unless you want an utterly primitive society. That scientific process is telling us that we are in serious danger.

          • Dave

            Your doing it again saying too much of a good thing is bad for you, but ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of CO2 is man made and easily eclipsed by natural variations making it irrelevant and then instead of common sense doubt say all the scientists agree, without explaining why they agree an irrelevant fraction of CO2 determines climate.

            I agree we should listen to experts qualified by common sense, but those experts are climatologists. Science is a multitude of disciplines and a scientist in one discipline is no more qualified than the layman to discuss another discipline. So for example when the former Government Scientific Advisor Prof Sir David King pronounced on the scam to back New Labour government policy he was, as a chemist, not scientifically qualified to do so. Whereas climatologists like Piers Corbyn at weatheraction.com are.

        • Dave

          If you are now saying man made emissions of CO2 is only a contributory factor and not a determining factor, that would be a more reasonable thing to believe, based on you never know, but still wrong, but the scam is based on it being a determining factor, a scare needed to excuse the anti-green policies promoted by a range of interests to counter it, to save the world!

          Otherwise difficult to argue, close all the coal mines (UK has vast reserves), erect wind farms (in areas of natural beauty) and build nuclear power stations (to assist with paying for Trident), if man made emissions of CO2 are only an unknown contributory factor!

          The point you need to grasp is CO2 isn’t a pollutant its a perfectly wholesome and healthy gas, the more the merrier, not that humans have any say in the matter, because man made emissions are only a tiny fraction of naturally occurring and variable CO2 and life on earth thrives in a warmer climate.

          Yes and to avoid flooding requires the economic ability to build the infrastructure to protect us from flooding, which is how humanity has progressed, by trying to manage rather than halt changes in climate with faith science. True I approach issues with applied common sense and then look for expert evidence to fill in the detail, such as provided by climatologist Piers Corbyn at weatheraction.com

          • glenn

            I see you’ve ignored pretty much all I was saying, and are choosing instead to pretend that I “need to grasp CO2 isn’t a pollutant”. Hmm. Did you intend to be so annoying, I wonder?

            You apparently think if a little bit of something is OK, a whole lot more of it must also therefore be just dandy.

            Life on Earth might “thrive in a warmer climate”, but not that which is compatible with human life. But here we’ve got to get all sciencey, would have to “know things” and awkward stuff like that. And clearly, that’s not something you’re willing to get into, preferring instead to rely on woolly, folksy BS, dismissing the collective knowledge of true experts who have spent their lives in solid research with single-line nonsense such as “the climate has always been changing”, “there’s a Sun up there!” and daft suchlike.

            If only these learned researchers in their prestigious institutions could have your simple wisdom, eh Dave? Then they could stop wasting their time.

            Surely you have equally pithy method of waving away cancer, staving off death, or producing free energy? After all, these things have baffled those pointy-headed scientists for many years – why don’t you enlighten us all, and become the saviour of humanity?

          • michael norton

            Even if Carbon dioxide is the climate killer you claim, which it is not, no need to go ape shit,
            as has been said it is a tiny bit of a tiny bit.
            In the fairly near future the world economy will be based on more efficient technologies, like room temp super conductors, graphine light cells, in windows,
            Lithium-Ion electric vehicles, wind turbines are becoming cheaper and more efficient, solar cells similar.
            By 2060 it is estimated that more than 50% of all world electricity will be generated from rays that fall for free from the SUN.

          • Dave

            Your doing it again saying too much of a good thing is bad for you, but ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of CO2 is man made and easily eclipsed by natural variations making it irrelevant and then instead of common sense doubt say all the scientists agree, without explaining why they agree an irrelevant fraction of CO2 determines climate.
            glenn

            I agree we should listen to experts qualified by common sense, but those experts are climatologists. Science is a multitude of disciplines and a scientist in one discipline is no more qualified than the layman to discuss another discipline. So for example when the former Government Scientific Advisor Prof Sir David King pronounced on the scam to back New Labour government policy he was, as a chemist, not scientifically qualified to do so. Whereas climatologists like Piers Corbyn at weatheraction.com are.

          • glenn

            Dave, re. “too much of a good thing is bad for you” (your paraphrasing), which you go on to dispute.

            Try this experiment. Water is also good for you, right? So stick your head in a bucket full of this lovely, wholesome water until you’ve seen the flaw in your argument. Deal? Let me know how you get on.

            So you’re now circling back to that crank Piers Corbyn, a dodgy weatherman, who claims to know better than everyone else about climate (not weather – climate) despite this not being his specialised area of study, or in which he has even the slightest legitimate claim to expertise. May I refer you to previous discussions, and the contributions by Fred on that huckster.

            If you want to settle on any one point and discuss that, I’ll be happy to do so. Take your strongest point and we’ll discuss it – at the moment you’re too slippery. It’s a religion, a hoax, CO2 is lovely! It makes no difference. It’s the Sun. And anyway, a hotter planet will be great!

            I’ve dealt with each, you slip on to the next subject, each in turn as if anew as you rotate between them. Until you choose one – and stick with it for a while – it is, sorry to say, pointless having any further discussion.

          • Dave

            There are many qualified climatologists who dispute the scam and they held an alternative climate conference to the official Paris jamboree. Look it up as there are a range of experts for you to learn from.

            I concede that although essential to life on earth, if we only breathed in carbon dioxide we would die, ditto if we only breathed in oxygen (or water). But man made emissions of CO2 are only a tiny fraction of naturally occurring and variable CO2. Its estimated that about 93% is trapped in the oceans, 0.038% in the atmosphere and the rest within vegetation. So the man made bit, fraction of a fraction, is easily eclipsed by one substantial volcanic eruption. And when the Sun shines and at different temperatures, due to sun spot activity, as it has done over the last, at least, 500 million years the oceans evaporate realising the CO2 in the atmosphere and when its cold (for example at night) it sinks back into the oceans and into general vegetation growth.

            And as Trump rightly points out the scam has led to the de-industrialisation of US and UK with industry moving abroad (coal mines closing) to avoid tax and regulations, but where it still emits the same CO2!

    • nevermind

      Is Nero’s incarnation Trump, a danger to Germany and Europe?

      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1133177.html

      “It is literally painful to write this sentence, but the president of the United States is a pathological liar. The president of the U.S. is a racist (it also hurts to write this). He is attempting a coup from the top; he wants to establish an illiberal democracy, or worse; he wants to undermine the balance of power. He fired an acting attorney general who held a differing opinion from his own and accused her of “betrayal.” This is the vocabulary used by Nero, the emperor and destroyer of Rome. It is the way tyrants think.

      A Serious Threat

      Donald Trump and his fire-starter Stephen Bannon discriminate against certain people by decree, but not against those from countries in which Trump does business. The contempt the president of the United States and his most important adviser have for science and education is so blatant that it’s almost difficult to write. But their disdain for climate and environmental policies has to be stated, because four or eight years of it could become a serious threat.

      • Republicofscotland

        Nevermind.

        You may have a point there, on the Politics show this morning Andrew Neil interviewed Dr, somewhat or other, his name alludes me. Anyway he came across as a staunch Trump backer, and when Neil asked him if Donald Trump would prefer if the EU was broken up, rather than remaining a union, Dr so-and -so seemed to hint at the former would be preferable for Trump.

        Surprisingly Andrew Neil, had a few digs at Trump, which didn’t go doen too well with Dr what his name.

      • Republicofscotland

        Nevermind.

        Continuing on Trump’s possible threat to the EU, Donald Tusk European Council President, said in a letter, (addressed to all the other EU heads) that Trump along with terrorism and Russian aggression, are the main threats to European unity.

        Indeed Trump helped incite the threat by claiming Britain exiting the EU was a great thing, and he (Trump) hoped other nations would leave the bloc as well.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/tusk-europe-trump/515154/

        The EU now needs to move ahead and protect its trading policies, a move that could see Theresa May’s hopeful good deal with the EU, fall on deaf ears.

        One must ask why would Trump prefer the EU trade bloc broken up? Who benefits from it? Well Russia would prefer the bloc to dissolve, possibly to put pressure on Eastern European nations, knowing they don’t have the backing of the EU.

        Trump may also feel that a disintegrated EU, would be less powerful, and much easier to influence.

        The EU bloc appears to be under pressure from several quarters, the US, Russia, and far-right political parties within EU nations.

        • Old Mark

          One must ask why would Trump prefer the EU trade bloc broken up?

          DoTrump & Putin really want the ‘Common Market’ elements of the EU to collapse RoS? Surely it is the EU’s political pretensions that both wish to puncture (in Putin’s case because the EU politically effectively acts as if it were NATO’s little brother and enabler ?)

        • philw

          The US wishes to see a world in which no country, or alliance of countries, is large enough to challenge its hegemony. It desires a world where all nations are its direct protectorates with no ability to counter its wishes. Balkanisation is the on-going policy.

          As long as Russia was seen as a threat, the EU suited the US interest. Russia is no longer a threat and the US is set on course to break it up (the ‘Russian threat’ being hyped in order to prepare the public for the upcoming conflict). Then the EU becomes unnecessary, and being a large bloc, it is in US interest to break it up.

          It is not really anything to do with Trump. Indeed he set back the assault on Russia. Like any ordinary person he seems to see conflict with Russia as insane. He is evidently being heavily worked on though, and is starting to come up with some worrying statements (eg Syria ‘no fly zones’) As for the EU, I’m sure he’d rather see it gone because of its negotiating clout, but I wouldn’t think he would be personally too interested in undermining it. Unlike Obama, whose intervention probably greatly helped the Brexit vote (given the British love of being told what to do by a foreign leader).

      • glenn

        Squonk: You’ve received disappointingly little response, for people who are supposedly interested in this subject of rather ultimate importance, as far as humanity is concerned.

        Perhaps this is more digestible than your references (no disrespect):

        http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/the-house-science-committee-claims-scientists-faked-climate-change-data-heres-what-you-should-know/

        Yet somehow, I doubt that climate change deniers will want to know the actual truth about the matter. The “common sense” folksy BS from tabloid sources is all the wisdom they want to hear. The denial industry here has a softer audience than they faced while denying that smoking caused lung cancer – the very same PR practices, often by the very same people, are being put into play again.

  • Macky

    I haven’t seen anybody either here or anywhere else, make the obvious point that the seven country Trump/Obama ban list is confirmation of a once officially denied reality, blow-back terrorism; remember the outrage that was directed at people who dare to suggest this, only to be met with the baloney of “they hate our freedoms, democracy, etc” !

    • Habbabkuk

      “I haven’t seen anybody either here or anywhere else, make the obvious point that the seven country Trump/Obama ban list is confirmation of a once officially denied reality, blow-back terrorism”
      ______________________

      That might be because most commenters here and elsewhere were too busy making the point that those instances of terrorism which have occurred were instigated by people from countries not on the Trump list?

      Which, if correct, makes nonsense of your blow-back theory, surely?

      PS – good to see you back.

      • Macky

        “Which, if correct, makes nonsense of your blow-back theory, surely?”

        No, but logic was never your strong point; I bet you even think that it’s just a coincidence that all seven countries have suffered direct or indirect US military aggression ! 😀

    • MJ

      Not entirely baloney, just needs a little proof-reading. “They” should read “we” and “our” should read “your”. An easy mistake to make.

  • Laguerre

    I see that in the BBC 4 news this evening, Marine Le Pen’s campaign launch is put as the first item. Brexiter views are now establishment to be propagated apparently.

    Le Pen is not advancing in the polls. The polls for the second round (the decisive one if anyone hasn’t noticed) are 63% for Macron and 37% for Le Pen. Quite a difference.

    The Le Pen launch is more a re-launch. She is trimming her sails to be more acceptable. No more the demand for the death sentence (which you would have thought would increase her vote).

    She doesn’t sound convinced that she will win, so why the BBC support for her campaign?

    • Anon1

      Are you honestly suggesting that the BBC is pro Le Pen? I’ve read some mental stuff on this blog but it’s getting seriously fucking deranged now.

        • Habbabkuk

          You are right to suggest that Mme Le Pen is not advancing in the polls (and certainly right to suggest implicitly that she will not become the next French President) but wrong to suggest that the BBC is biased towards her.

          But even if it were (which it isn’t), so what? Would such a bias be likely to affect the outcome of the French Presidential election? Whom would such a bias favour in internal UK politics and how?

          Let’s debate and discuss.

          • fred

            Polls don’t matter that’s not how democracy works any more.

            Putin tells Julian who he wants to win and Julian decides which emails to release.

          • Habbabkuk

            Fred

            That was a very, very cynical comment. Surely you know that hawking conspiracy theories is against the very ethos of this blog?

            🙂

        • Habbabkuk

          BTW – have you had the opportunity to check out your recent assertion about the UK govt having forcibly sent Polish servicemen of the Polish Armies of the West back to certain Soviet occupied Poland at the end of WW2?

    • K Crosby

      63% for Macron and 37% for Le Pen? she’s 0.2% up on Hitler in the 1932 Presidential election against Hindenburg.

    • nevermind

      yes, Laguerre, full coverage of the tub thumping and her attempt to drop the Le pen second name in an effort to soften her image and distance herself from Daddy.

      The BBC could have chosen to highlight her speech instead of the singing of the Marseillaise. The so called middle off the road banker ‘s coverage was toned down in comparison.
      So the BBC is already swinging around to Trumps line by promoting the break up of the EU, whatever Anon1 is fcuking crying about.

  • v

    The other point that I wanted to make about the French campaign is that while Le Pen represents the nationalist past (quite well, I have to say), Macron, in his thirties, represents the future. He doesn’t present his policies well, but he could do something that others haven’t done, which is adapt to the present world, where everything changes from moment to moment. That would be a first in the Western World, as is not unusual for the French intellectually.

  • Sharp Ears

    How much more ‘tighter’ Bibi? He obviously wishes to see the ME set on fire.

    Israel’s Netanyahu says Theresa May’s govt offers ‘opportunities’
    Labour calls for Mrs May to challenge Israel’s PM as he says he hopes to tighten relations with the UK ahead of a visit to London.
    ‘Israel’s Prime Minister has said ahead of a visit to London he hopes the UK will line up against Iran alongside his country and the US. Benjamin Netanyahu said there are “opportunities” that stem from “a new government in Britain” as he prepared to fly to the UK to meet Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

    He said he aims to speak to both the British government and the US, in a visit “next week”, about “tightening relations” with Israel.’

    http://news.sky.com/story/israels-netanyahu-says-theresa-mays-govt-offers-opportunities-10757889

      • Kerch'ee Kerch'ee Coup

        No and furniture neither, but having met the monkeys, it’s obviously time for May to meet the organ-grinder

        • Phil the ex-frog

          Kerch’ee Kerch’ee Coup
          “but having met the monkeys, it’s obviously time for May to meet the organ-grinder”

          Ah, the US president is but a puppet to the Israeli PM. Beware the all powerful mystic Jew!

          Insightful analysis or just a regurgitated age old racism? It’s the latter obviously.

          • Habbabkuk

            No no, Phil, you’re being very, very cynical. I interpret Kerchee’s and Sharp Ears’s comments as indicative of a desire to debate and discuss seriously and look forward to follow-up comments from them in fulfilment of that objective.

    • Habbabkuk

      Sharp Ears

      Could you talk us through how you equate PM Netanyahu’s aim to tighten UK-Israel relations with a wish to see “the ME set on fire”?

      Let’s debate and discuss.

      • philw

        Netanyahu’s comments were specifically related to Iran. It is no secret that he wants Iran destroyed. Trump seems to be on board. Iran will not fall without a fight. “ME on fire” would not be an inaccurate description of where we are headed. If Russia and China decide that the line in the sand runs in front of Iran, then potentially not just the ME.

        • Habbabkuk

          Thank you for responding on behalf of Sharp Ears.

          I believe there is a (rare) consensus on this board that Russia and China would not go to war in the event of an (extremely unlikely) attack on Iran.

        • lysias

          If the U.S. couldn’t win in Vietnam, where it could bring its sea and air power to bear, it will certainly be unable to conquer Iran. An Iran war would be a quagmire that might well bring down the American state.

          • lysias

            Russia and China wouldn’t have to go to war to defeat the U.S. in Vietnam. It would be quite enough to resupply the Iranians the way they did the Vietnamese.

  • RobG

    I know I probably bang on about Jean-Luc Mélenchon too much (he’s one of the runners in the French presidential race, currently fifth in the opinion polls out of 12 candidates), but RT posted what I thought was an interesting clip about Mélenchon today…

    “French candidate campaigns as a hologram: Melenchon uses projection to attend two rallies at a time…”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0t0kFMBb24

    Interesting not because of the hologram angle, but because of the huge crowds that go to see Mélenchon, which is shown only very briefly in the above RT clip. RT also describe Mélenchon as ‘far left’, which is total bullshit (remember, Russia is a capitalist country thesedays). Benoit Hamon, recently voted in as the ruling Socialist Party’s candidate for the presidency, is way more to the left than Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

    Anyhows, I appreciate that many people will be bored with all this stuff about French politics. Thing is, despite Brexit, the survival or demise of the European Union is now in the hands of French voters, and the forthcoming French presidential election. The first round of the election is in late April. The second and final round, between the top two contenders from the first round, takes place in early May.

    Anon1, you really should stick a fiver down on Mélenchon, because love him or hate him there’s a strong likelihood that he will be the next President of France. Don’t be fooled by the fact that the MSM completely ignore him, just the same way that the MSM have ignored the massive protests in France in recent years, which Mélenchon represents.

    2017 is going to be an interesting year, to put it mildly.

  • Darth

    A routine wordpress component update appeared to have unexpected consequences on the site font. The blog was just reverted to a backup taken immediately prior to the update to investigate the issue. Any comments (if any) made within a few minute window will have been lost.

    • RobG

      They’re all totally discredited neo-con psychos. Most people in France don’t give a shit about them. Most people in France just want affordable housing and a steady income, just like most people in Britain.

      There’s no difference between Brits and French. Likewise with people in the rest of the world.

      The psychopaths are in control, though; divide and rule and all that, that’s the real problem.

      • Laguerre

        “There’s no difference between Brits and French.”

        Oh yes, there is. The British don’t have a revolutionary tradition, and will knuckle under to whatever they’re told. The French will certainly launch another revolution, if their interests are threatened.

  • Sharp Ears

    Trump goon Spicer issues false information against Iran instead of Saudi Arabia

    ‘The White House press corps wanted to know what being put “on notice” entailed, and Spicer responded by claiming that Iran’s government took actions against a U.S. naval vessel, which would be an act of war. “I think General Flynn was really clear yesterday that Iran has violated the Joint Resolution, that Iran’s additional hostile actions that it took against our Navy vessel are ones that we are very clear are not going to sit by and take,” he said. “I think that we will have further updates for you on those additional actions.”

    Major Garrett of CBS News quietly corrected him, saying “a Saudi vessel,” and Spicer then responded almost inaudibly: “Sorry, thank you, yes a Saudi vessel. Yes, that’s right.” He did not in any way address his false claim that it was an Iranian attack, however.

    Pentagon spokesman Christopher Sherwood confirmed to The Intercept that the attack was in fact conducted against a Saudi warship, and that the Pentagon suspects Houthi rebels. “It was a Saudi ship – it was actually a frigate” said Sherwood. “It was [conducted by] suspected Houthi rebels off the coast of Yemen.”’

    Trump Press Secretary Falsely Accuses Iran of Attacking U.S. Navy Vessel, an Act of War
    February 03, 2017
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46368.htm

    • Alcyone

      The pro-Saudi and anti-Iran slant is a little worrying.

      Craig, or any one else knowledgeable comment on it? (Please, no Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia type-of-rubbish comments.)

      Is it because of Iran’s elections due this year? Is it just inertia of momentum of US policy? Is it because the US is presently dependent on Saudi oil (are they?)? Or is it just that Iran is easier game? (And Saudi will be up next?) What about Pakistan, one of the world’s greater exporter exporters of terrorists? How is it that they are still flying under the radar? Does Saudi Arabia have some of Pakistan’s nukes?

      Most unlike Trump not to be frank and forthright about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Even while he has admitted that the US is not so innocent.

      (Insight: Trump is being careful not to push Saudi into the arms of the Chinese; Pakistan is already in their pocket.)

      • michael norton

        In the medium term -long term, it is more likely Iran will win out.
        They are contiguous with Russia and the ex-Soviet Union, Iraq, Turkey.
        When the pipeline hub from the Caspian Sea reaches both The Gulf of Persia and through Iran / Iraq / Syria to the Mediterranean, the Hydrocarbons could either be shipped on or linked into the Golden Triangle of Hydrocarbons of the Eastern Mediterranean.
        Iran has a much bigger population, who have greater abilities.
        They have a much longer history.
        Impossible to see how they will not prevail over the horrible Saudi empire.
        The Americans do not need Saudi oil any more.
        The future is Renewables, Methane and Hydrogen, not oil.

      • philw

        See Sharp Ears February 5, 2017 at 22:01 above

        ” ‘Israel’s Prime Minister has said ahead of a visit to London he hopes the UK will line up against Iran alongside his country and the US. Benjamin Netanyahu said there are “opportunities” that stem from “a new government in Britain” as he prepared to fly to the UK to meet Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

        He said he aims to speak to both the British government and the US, in a visit “next week”, about “tightening relations” with Israel.’

        http://news.sky.com/story/israels-netanyahu-says-theresa-mays-govt-offers-opportunities-10757889

        It is no secret that he wants Iran destroyed. Trump seems to be on board. Iran will not fall without a fight. “ME on fire” would not be an inaccurate description of where we are headed. If Russia and China decide that the line in the sand runs in front of Iran, then potentially not just the ME.

        • michael norton

          I can not really see, what clear and present danger Iran is to the United Kingdom.
          Israel might feel under threat but Israel is not part of the United Kingdom, any more, they chose Independence.
          Israel is not in NATO.
          Israel is not in the European Union.
          Israel is not in The Commonwealth.
          So although Israel may feel under threat we are not.
          Mrs.Theresa May has recently claimed that the U.K. is no longer involved in escapades abroad, no more adventures.
          So Bye Bye BB.

    • Alcyone

      Sharpie, you might be interested in this from wiki:

      “In 1999, Spicer joined the U.S. Navy Reserve as a public affairs officer; he currently holds the rank of Commander.[19] In 2012, he received a master’s degree in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.[20] As of December 2016, he is assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s naval reserve contingent in Washington, D.C”

  • Anon

    So what is satanyahu come to London AGAIN for? The last time he appears to have given the kiss of death to cameron, is triza under the protection of Saint Escriva or she might find herself gone in two months too?

  • Sharp Ears

    Monbiot, citing all of the Liam Fox/Atlantic Bridge/Werritty/Hintze background sees the dangers of the UK falling into Trump’s lap.

    How Corporate Dark Money is Taking Power on Both Sides of the Atlantic
    February 05, 2017
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46383.htm

    He quotes Roosevelt at the end.

    ‘By tying our fortunes to those of the United States, the UK government binds us into this system. This is part of what Brexit was about: European laws protecting the public interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom. Taking back control from Europe means closer integration with the US. The transatlantic special relationship is a special relationship between political and corporate power. That power is cemented by the networks Liam Fox helped to develop.

    In April 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt sent the US Congress the following warning: “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.” It is a warning we would do well to remember.’

    The article is also in the Guardian.

    How corporate dark money is taking power on both sides of the Atlantic
    George Monbiot
    A secretive network of business lobbyists has long held sway in US politics. Now their allies in the UK government are planning a Brexit that plays into their hands
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/02/corporate-dark-money-power-atlantic-lobbyists-brexit

    • Alcyone

      Theresa May needs to learn a trick or two on how to relate with British, why even European and international, business to jump start the British business landscape. Starting now and following through post-brexit. And through lunch and dinner.

      If Britain has forgotten how to make things, so be it, it may be a good thing do start with streamlined processes and new technologies without the baggage and burden of the past. Sometimes it’s easier, cheaper, faster to engineer than to re-engineer?

  • Republicofscotland

    Scottish Tory branch manager, Ruth Davidson, caught out lying on several occasions.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/truth-with-ruth/#more-91350

    Of course Davidson fled her Glasgow consistency, (knowing fine well she’d no chance of re-election) in 2016, to head for the more affluent and Tory minded Edinburgh. Even then the Margaret Thatcher, wannabe, crawled over the winning line, by a margin of 610 votes.

    Davidson is not as popular, as the unionist press make her out to be.

  • Sharp Ears

    Bibi has just strutted into No 10 as if he owns the joint, followed by dozens of operatives in his entourage.

    A working lunch follows.

    Has Treeza issued a similar invitation to the Palestinians?

      • Habbabkuk

        About 34 countries don’t recognise the State of Israel, Alcyone, despite the fact that is has existed for almost 80 years.

        I believe they are all Muslim states.

        Funnily enough, they all recognise something calling itself “Palestine”, which does not exist (at least at present).

    • nevermind

      Who knows sharp ears, there might also be a ceremonial forced genital mutilation or two, on some poor unsuspecting infant, allegedly, to honour the visit of this warmonger.
      Mind, only the initiated may watch, sorry Anon1, why did your selective list above fail to mention this rogue country’s barbaric ritual.

    • Habbabkuk

      “Bibi has just strutted into No 10 as if he owns the joint”
      ___________________

      Factual correction: having seen the footage, it appears that the Prime Minister of the State of Israel walked into No 10 in much the same way as any other visiting Prime Minister.

    • Anon1

      Pulling a niqab off a woman is a disgusting thing to do and I would hope that the man is convicted for assault. You may recall I was utterly opposed to the so-called “burqini ban” in France as well.

      Now, while pulling a niqab of a woman is obviously appalling, it is in a whole different category to the beating, stoning, rape, forced marriage, genital mutilation and other abuse of Muslim women by Muslim men all over the Muslim world that you condone by your failure to condemn, Sally.

      • Sally

        Good to know Anon1, good to know. I agree it is appalling.

        It would also be polite on your behalf if you afforded me an opportunity to condemn these appalling crimes you accuse me of condoning through some random failed, I hesitate to use this word, logic. Pinning baseless unfounded accusations only reflects badly on you, not me.

        I will always take issue with someone who tars everyone with the same brush, who identify with each other throw a shared heritage, faith, nationality etc. like you have done in your reply, It shows an extremely lazy and dangerous mindset. That sort of laziness needs to be challenged.

        The poor treatment of each other is not confined to the Muslim faith. The vast majority of the 1.2 billion Muslims world wide do not engage in the criminal acts you list above on a daily basis. They live one day at a time, providing for their families, just like you or I.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-says-indianas-burma-evangelical-christian-religious-freedom-laws-gives-her-right-to-beat-son-a7220786.html
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bible-father-son-accused-raping-teenage-13-year-old-girl-timothy-esten-ciboro-ohio-toledo-biblical-a7543211.html

        Are these people linked above representative of every Christian? Do you think that Sunderland man threats his wife and kids with any level of respect? Do we conclude all English men are racist, xenophobic, bigots? I’m not even that naive. Why are you?

        • Anon1

          Sally

          “It would also be polite on your behalf if you afforded me an opportunity to condemn these appalling crimes you accuse me of condoning”

          Except that you haven’t condemned them. You have just set out one long apology for them.

          So the difference between you and me is that while I condemn completely the pulling off of the niqab of the woman in Sunderland, you cannot bring yourself to condemn the far worse crimes committed against Muslim women by Muslim men throughout the Muslim world (and the West). You can’t do so because your thinking is so warped by radical leftist ideology that you are unable to criticise Islam. Inevitably you end up making a mockery of your professed support for Muslim women and show yourself to be a gross hypocrite.

      • Alcyone

        Agree Anon. You forgot to mention child marriages, a standard set and approved by many at the top of the pile of the Muslim faith(s). And the daily discrimination of women, not being allowed out of their kitchens, even homes, being treated like baby-factories, not allowed to leave their religion if they wanted to, not even allowed to work or drive a car in tens of millions of cases.

        Btw, a niqab is a full-face covering as distinct from a hijab: Is that now banned in France? The word has entered the Oxford dictionary, although my spell-check doesn’t recognise it. Here’s an example sentence from the lexicographers at Oxford:

        ‘No one is discussing the spread of the niqab (face veil) and its symbolism.’
        https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/niqab

        Where shall we go demonstrate Sally?

        • Sally

          Alcyone,

          The oxford dictionary center obviously………..

          It wasn’t long ago in this country you had to ask a woman’s father permission to marry his daughter. Imagine that. Having the father decide. Strange eh?

          Next you’ll be listing segregation in Mosques, schools and the home, oblivious to the hypocrisy staring you in the face from Westminster. Eton, Harrow…………..pigs heads…………..

          • Habbabkuk

            Sally

            “It wasn’t long ago in this country you had to ask a woman’s father permission to marry his daughter. Imagine that. Having the father decide. Strange eh?”
            ________________

            Let me help you. The point is that that isn’t the case any more and hasn’t been for a long time. Whereas the things Anon! and Alcyone referred to do still go on – and some of them even in the West, where they are illegal.

            But let’s debate and discuss in the spirit of this blog and this community!

          • Alcyone

            Silly, on’t imagine what next I will say. Stay in the moment.

            “You forgot to mention child marriages, a standard set and approved by many at the top of the pile of the Muslim faith(s). And the daily discrimination of women, not being allowed out of their kitchens, even homes, being treated like baby-factories, not allowed to leave their religion if they wanted to, not even allowed to work or drive a car in tens of millions of cases.”

            WHERE shall we go demonstrate?

            “hypocrisy staring you in the face from Westminster. Eton, Harrow…………..pigs heads…………”

            You seem very comfortable being a Type-Zero-Global-Civilisation person, very well adjusted to banality given the level of your arguments.

    • Loony

      Your post is simultaneously ludicrous and hateful.

      So you find an example of an idiot – they are not hard to find. By some form of hallucinogenic logic you flail around seeking to link the actions of an idiot with Brexit.

      Imagine the outpourings of hate and bile if someone posted details of crimes committed by immigrants and sought to link these crimes with people wishing to remain in the EU.

      By raising such absurdities you seek to cheapen and demean the experiences of vast swathes of the population of Southern Europe – who are being hurtled back into a form of neo-feudalism thanks to the EU. Your post does nothing more than demonstrate your sneering hatred and contempt for the citizenry of the south.

      • Sally

        Hi loonly,

        ”Imagine the outpourings of hate and bile if someone posted details of crimes committed by immigrants and sought to link these crimes with people wishing to remain in the EU.”

        Well I will have to imagine as the chances of you finding such crimes are slim. Happy to read some links you supply though.

        Do you think this charming man (you are in our country now, you stupid fucking Muslim) voted remain loony?

        Just to recap, this appalling story today and the appalling story of the Barrister on the train verbally attacking a Muslim woman and child, you have to wonder why these BNP types are such massive pussies. Maybe its just a hatred of women.

        I hope these despicable toxic acts don’t shape the minds of the two young Muslim children as they mature. But then again I wouldn’t blame them if it did.

  • Republicofscotland

    Russia has called out Britain, over Russia, seizing part of the Ukraine, and in my opinion rightly so.

    Moscow’s ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said to his British counterpart Matthew Rycroft, that Britain should “clear its conscience.”

    Churkin was referring to, those unfortunate souls forced off their homelands in the Chagos Islands, he also said that before criticising Russia, Britain should hand back the Malvinas to Argentina, Churkin finished off by saying that Gibraltar should also be handed back.

    Churkin in my opinion does have a point, Putin seized the Crimea, to thwart a Western instigated attempt to put added pressure on Russia, and safeguard the Black sea port for the Russian fleet. However Putin in my opinion should hand back Crimea in the future.

    Britain and the cruel eviction of the Chagossian’s is however another matter. The removing of one people from their lands (Chagossian’s) by a second second nation, (Britain ) for the benefit of a third nation, (USA) is something we’ve seen before post 1948, I think we all know that particular story.

    • Mustard

      Interesting, although you would wonder why Churkin didn’t reference highly contentious Northern Ireland.

      Possibly because the same strategy was used nearly 100 years ago to annex that area of land from Ireland as was used in Crimea? An influx of military and a dodgy referendum that only gave a vote to Unionists.

      Would weaken their argument in the long run I suppose.

  • Habbabkuk

    @ Mr “Sally”

    “I hope these despicable toxic acts don’t shape the minds of the two young Muslim children as they mature. But then again I wouldn’t blame them if it did.”
    ___________________

    I share your hope.

    Unlike you, however, I would blame them if – God forbid! – they were to, for instance, commit acts of terrorism when they grew up as a consequence of having had their minds “shaped”. But I’m probably just an intolerant sort of guy.

    • michael norton

      This will have legs

      Jane Collins libel case: Three Labour Rotherham MPs awarded £54,000
      Ministry of Truth
      Rotherham’s three Labour MPs have each won £54,000 High Court libel damages from UKIP MEP Jane Collins over remarks she made about the town’s child abuse scandal.

      Ms Collins, who represents Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, claimed Sir Kevin Barron, John Healey and Sarah Champion knew about child exploitation in the town but did nothing to intervene.

  • Sally

    Because I like the name Sally. You?

    Funny Habbabkuk, I was just reading a few comments threads from years back some people are still commenting on. 911 and the McCanns being two. Your comments have certainly developed over that time. Quite hostile.

    I’m not trolling by the way. Rich coming from you after reading a lot of your personal attacks.

    Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

      • michael norton

        It has been illegal to carry out FGM in the UK since 1985, but there has not been a single successful prosecution. This failure has been branded a “national scandal” by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

        Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: “FGM is a devastating act of violence that no woman or girl should ever have to suffer and the criminals who perpetrate it should be brought to justice.”

        • michael norton

          So the question is:
          if a girl suffers every hour FGM why are the criminals never brought to justice in the United Kingdom?
          Perhaps the Home Secretary could supply an answer.

    • Habbabkuk

      Readers puzzled by “Sally’s” post at 14h38 should perhaps be made aware that “Sally” is replying to a post of mine suggesting that “Sally” is (1) a bloke and (2) a troll (example given). 🙂

    • Alcyone

      “Quite hostile.”

      Challenging yes, hostile no with the notable exception of feeble brains.

      And oft quite funny too.

      Nice Monday to you too xox

  • Republicofscotland

    So it turns out that the Westminster government (and possibly previous governments as well) doesn’t think it’s necessary to investigate claims of breaches of International Humanitarian Law, before it sells billions of pounds of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

    Ministers have admitted they do not reach any conclusion on whether there have been violations in particular cases, because they say it would “not be possible” in conflicts the UK is not involved in.

    However it is known that UK pilots and the likes of the SAS have been in Saudi Arabia training Saudi troops, preparing them for the oppression of the Yemeni people.

    Add in that a MPs committee, claims it has been presented with clear evidence, that human rights violations are being committed by Saudi Arabia, and that the UN also claims that at least 10,000 people in Yemen have bern killed, by British made Cluster bombs, and you can clearly see that the Westminster government are burying their heads in the sand.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/arms-exports-saudi-arabia-yemen-no-judgement-international-humanitarian-law-theresa-may-cluster-a7538601.html

  • Republicofscotland

    So Israel will continue to openly flout International Law, (and they wonder why the world frowns on them) by adding another 10 kilometers, to the Western wall barricade. The wall, is illegal under International Law, and is commonly known as the “Apartheid Wall, for that is its main objective to keep the Palestinian people out.

    Israel wants the outside world to take it seriously, to be allowed to flourish and participate, yet it has been more than ten years since the International Court of Justice deemed the barricade (wall) as illegal. How can the people of Israel expect the world to listen to their fears and hopes, and sympathise with them, when their own actions, lead to fear and oppression.

    The illegal apartheid wall, will one day fall in a similar fashion to that of the Berlin Wall, the only question, that remains is, will it be brought down from inside or outside Israel. I much prefer the former to the latter.

    • Habbabkuk

      The main objective of the separation barrier is to keep suicide bombers and other terrorists out of Israel.

      An objective it has been rather successful in meeting, I’d say.

      As successful, indeed, as the vigilance of the UK services has been in preventing another 7/7 outrage in the UK.

      • Republicofscotland

        Really!

        I doubt that.

        Built by Israel under the pretence of security more than years ago, the barrier was regarded by the International Court of Justice, (ICJ) as, disproportionate in regards to Israel’s security needs, and a form of collective punishment against the whole Palestinian population in the occupied West Bank.

        The International Court of Justice (ICJ) called for the Apartheid Wall to be dismantled, and labelled it illegal due to the overwhelming economic and social problems it caused for Palestinians.

        • Habbabkuk

          Doubt away as much as you wish, RoS.

          Neither you or the judges of the ICJ have ever run the slightest risk of being blown up by a suicide bombers.

          So neither you nor they are best qualified to pronounce on whether the security barrier is proportionate or not.

          The security barrier works and prevents serious violations of human rights, such as getting blown up by a suicide bomber.

1 3 4 5 6 7

Comments are closed.