View Poll Results: 10 days left, what'll it be?

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hard Brexit (crash out)

    45 48.91%
  • No Brexit (Remain by revoking A50)

    24 26.09%
  • Withdrawal Agreement (after a new session is called)

    0 0%
  • Extension + Withdrawal Agreement

    3 3.26%
  • Extension + Crashout

    9 9.78%
  • Extension + Remain

    11 11.96%
  1. #24301
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Yeah, of course not.
    And a Twitter comment disregarding what Odey has literally said about his stance on Brexit is reliable?

    Holy shit dude. No more Koolaid for you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    And? Isn't that a reasonable position to take? You know, wait to see if there is actual evidence to support a claim? But, yeah, I forgot it's Brexit - kangaroo courts all the way!

    Neil does not align himself with them. He will take people to task regardless of which side of the debate they occupy or their political leanings nor will he condemn anyone without evidence. In my opinion we need more journalists like him.

    Lots of people didn't vote for May's deal - do we only complain about them based on how Brexity their positions are?
    More journalists of the Tory Spectator variety?

  2. #24302
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    And a Twitter comment disregarding what Odey has literally said about his stance on Brexit is reliable?

    Holy shit dude. No more Koolaid for you.
    Eh? What?

    If Hammond has evidence to support his claim then why has he not gone to police?

    But, yeah, let's get the pitchforks and torches ready!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    More journalists of the Tory Spectator variety?
    He is not a Spectator journalist.

  3. #24303
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Eh? What?

    If Hammond has evidence to support his claim then why has he not gone to police?

    But, yeah, let's get the pitchforks and torches ready!
    Not Police jurisdiction, it’s a matter for the Cabinet Office, to whom he’s been reported. Insane complications of Parliamentary Justice.
    He is not a Spectator journalist.
    No, he’s the fucking chairman.

  4. #24304
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Not Police jurisdiction, it’s a matter for the Cabinet Office, to whom he’s been reported. Insane complications of Parliamentary Justice.

    No, he’s the fucking chairman.
    Complete nonsense! Of course it's a police matter if Johnson is truly pursuing a Brexit which will make his friends rich.

    He is, but that has no bearing on his ability as a journalist.

    Look if this going to go the usual way with you - where you spend the next so many hours telling lie after lie - I'll leave the discussion here.

  5. #24305
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Complete nonsense! Of course it's a police matter if Johnson is truly pursuing a Brexit which will make his friends rich.

    He is, but that has no bearing on his ability as a journalist.

    Look if this going to go the usual way with you - where you spend the next so many hours telling lie after lie - I'll leave the discussion here.
    He’s the chairman of the Spectator which is very Tory biased, and he does write articles and perform interviews for it.

    He is biased. Whatever hat he puts on for the BBC, that’s not his normal hat and his Twitter hat is very much his own views. Being good at interviewing people for TV doesn’t have a thing to do with any of that.

    Furthermore, the allegations aren’t just from Hammond, they’re also backed up by other MPs and his sister, they all know the score. He has been reported for investigation accordingly.

    It’s not like it hasn’t been an obvious, basically open secret with these allegations in the wind since the whole referendum was confirmed.

    Yet here you are with your fingers in your ears, saying it ain’t so because Andrew Neil says ‘wait and see’. While the opposition and his former allies are looking at ways to kick him out over this before the end of the week.

    Do you want him to actually get on his FB live and tell the world to camera he’s in it for this before you believe it?

  6. #24306
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    He’s the chairman of the Spectator which is very Tory biased, and he does write articles and perform interviews for it.

    He is biased. Whatever hat he puts on for the BBC, that’s not his normal hat and his Twitter hat is very much his own views. Being good at interviewing people for TV doesn’t have a thing to do with any of that.

    Furthermore, the allegations aren’t just from Hammond, they’re also backed up by other MPs and his sister, they all know the score. He has been reported for investigation accordingly.

    It’s not like it hasn’t been an obvious, basically open secret with these allegations in the wind since the whole referendum was confirmed.

    Yet here you are with your fingers in your ears, saying it ain’t so because Andrew Neil says ‘wait and see’. While the opposition and his former allies are looking at ways to kick him out over this before the end of the week.

    Do you want him to actually get on his FB live and tell the world to camera he’s in it for this before you believe it?
    The Spectator is right wing. He does not write articles in it - as a BBC employee he has to be impartial.

    That is bollocks.

    The claim is that Johnson "is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit" which may well be the case however that is not proof of any wrong doing. People are allowed to back political figures regardless of their financial position or employment.

    Yeah, more bollocks.

    This is more of your lies.

    If Johnson is pursuing a course of action for the purpose of benefiting his backers then he is committing a very serious crime - one which should result in spending many years at her majesty's pleasure - however there needs to be more evidence than currency speculators like him and would like a hard Brexit.

  7. #24307
    After a turbulent week that would under normal circumstances have forced the PM to resign;

    'Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 36% (-1)
    LAB: 24% (+2)
    LDEM: 20% (+3)
    BREX: 11% (-1)

    via @OpiniumResearch
    Chgs. w/ 20 Sep'


    https://twitter.com/britainelects/st...23950598713345

  8. #24308
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallisto View Post
    He could have if he didn't have any anti semetic sentiments instead of praising the book go "This is a pile of anti semetic garbage and anyone who wants to read something that shows the ills of imperialism go read xyz.". Also there's a major difference between Lovecraft/Howard and the book in question. The formers are fiction the latter claims to be non fiction. You can be ok with the formers work (Personall I tend not to be) but keep a discrete distance from the author racist views.

    But when a book is inherently "It's all the jews fault." and claims to be anti fiction, then yeah there's a really big problem there. You can't call it brilliant when the whole premise of it is anti semetic from start to finish.
    Most of the book is about Imperialism and the role of capitalist oligarchy, in fact Corbyn was quite specific about what aspect of the book he was calling "brilliant":

    What is brilliant, and very controversial at the time, is his analysis of the pressures that were hard at work in pushing for a vast national effort in grabbing new outposts of Empire on distant islands and shores. His painstaking analysis of the costs, and the alleged benefits, of Empire is very powerful.
    You can read his entire foreword here:

    http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokes.../130Corbyn.pdf

    Yes the author was anti-Semitic, but that was unfortunately common at the time.

    If you give a pass to fiction, then what about Henry Ford, Hugo Boss or Coco Chanel? Is anyone who quotes Ford, wears a Hugo Boss suit or Chanel earrings an anti-Semite?

    I'm sorry, it's fair to criticise him for the foreword and ask him to condemn the anti-Semitic parts of the book, but you're massively oversimplifying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  9. #24309
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Most of the book is about Imperialism and the role of capitalist oligarchy, in fact Corbyn was quite specific about what aspect of the book he was calling "brilliant":



    You can read his entire foreword here:

    http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokes.../130Corbyn.pdf

    Yes the author was anti-Semitic, but that was unfortunately common at the time.

    If you give a pass to fiction, then what about Henry Ford, Hugo Boss or Coco Chanel? Is anyone who quotes Ford, wears a Hugo Boss suit or Chanel earrings an anti-Semite?

    I'm sorry, it's fair to criticise him for the foreword and ask him to condemn the anti-Semitic parts of the book, but you're massively oversimplifying.
    If they call works of there's that's pretty much "The Jews did this." then yes. I'm sorry but as someone who has been attacked often for having mix ethnic background I have zero tolerance for that shit. Corbyn should have just not endorsed it and gone with a book that instead blames politicians Kings and emperors for Imperialism. Not the Jews.

    As for the others it all depends on simple issue. Is what is being quoted essentially done on the basis of Everything shit is because of x ethnicity/race. " if so then fuck em and I hope they suffer.

    That's the difference. You simply put can not quote that book any part and separate it from the anti semetic part. Because that entire book is one long anti semetic rant that should be condemned for what it is. Not nuanced.

    It also doesn't help Corbyn case when this is not the only thing that raises alarm bells. There's the whole Labour MPs and members who are Jewish being attacked and instead of immediate suspension, inquiry and if found guilty expulsion with naming and shaming, he fucking at best dithered on it. Then there's his calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends and laying weaths to memorialize terrorists whose goals are snyi israeli. But also push anti semetic views as a whole.

    This is not just one small thing but number of things if it wasn't someone with a cult of personality around him would have been removed from leading the opposition years ago.

  10. #24310
    Oh dear, https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/...ection-battle/

    If Lab are going to lead the government, and therefore the country, they need to get this kind of crap under control.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Today's Express has 'Boris would win an election in jail!' emblazoned across their front page. I fear they may be correct.

  11. #24311
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    The Spectator is right wing. He does not write articles in it - as a BBC employee he has to be impartial.

    That is bollocks.

    The claim is that Johnson "is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit" which may well be the case however that is not proof of any wrong doing. People are allowed to back political figures regardless of their financial position or employment.

    Yeah, more bollocks.

    This is more of your lies.

    If Johnson is pursuing a course of action for the purpose of benefiting his backers then he is committing a very serious crime - one which should result in spending many years at her majesty's pleasure - however there needs to be more evidence than currency speculators like him and would like a hard Brexit.
    He doesn’t need to be any more impartial on Twitter than Garry Lineker.

    And a cursory search through the site does uncover some older articles he wrote, but honestly the more I looked the more I was wondering how anyone could actually approve some of the articles on there, some of them islamophobic and some openly transphobic. And one, now deleted, supporting no deal Brexit.

    I had precious little respect for him before but being chairman of a rag like that, just nope.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Oh dear, https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/...ection-battle/

    If Lab are going to lead the government, and therefore the country, they need to get this kind of crap under control.
    Just about every Labour constituency group has used, or are in the process of using these new powers of selection to check and reaffirm that they have the right people standing.

  12. #24312
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    He doesn’t need to be any more impartial on Twitter than Garry Lineker.

    And a cursory search through the site does uncover some older articles he wrote, but honestly the more I looked the more I was wondering how anyone could actually approve some of the articles on there, some of them islamophobic and some openly transphobic. And one, now deleted, supporting no deal Brexit.

    I had precious little respect for him before but being chairman of a rag like that, just nope.
    More nonsense. Gary Lineker is not a BBC news employee (he is also a freelancer), Neil is.

    The last article he wrote was in 2014 and of the handful of articles he has written all are pretty much politically neutral.

    Neil is not the editor but no matter how much you try to deflect none of this changes the fact that there is no evidence to support claim in the article you linked.

    As I said, yesterday, I am not going waste time with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Just about every Labour constituency group has used, or are in the process of using these new powers of selection to check and reaffirm that they have the right people standing.
    'Right people standing' just about says it all.
    Last edited by Pann; 2019-09-29 at 08:01 AM.

  13. #24313
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    More nonsense. Gary Lineker is not a BBC news employee, Neil is.

    The last article he wrote was in 2014 and of the handful of articles he has written all are pretty much politically neutral.

    Neil is not the editor but no matter how much you try to deflect none of this changes the fact that there is no evidence to support claim in the article you linked.

    As I said, yesterday, I am not going waste time with you.



    'Right people standing' just about says it all.
    Gary Linker is a BBC employee though, one of their highest paid in fact. He’s just not exclusive to BBC, but then nor is Andrew Neil. You accuse me of lying and you manage one so bold faced as that?

    Sure, Neil is not the editor of the Spectator, but I have my doubts that in 5 years, and taking that level of promotion with the company that his views have shifted much. His profile even says ‘Tweets reflect my analysis, and mine alone’, that’s not his BBC hat.

    As for ‘Right people standing’, any vocal critic of their own party is going to have trouble. Boris himself already kicked 20 something of his own MPs out for that, while Dominic Grieve faced a similar vote for the Tories - though it does mean rather less when the national party has much more control over who it drops as candidates into seats to keep them safe and in Parliament.

    These votes are taking place nationwide. But it only seems to be news in a Labour constituency where the incumbent is Jewish, the vote hasn’t even taken place yet whether she will actually be replaced.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2019-09-29 at 08:19 AM.

  14. #24314
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessicka View Post
    Gary Linker is a BBC employee though, one of their highest paid in fact. He’s just not exclusive to BBC, but then nor is Andrew Neil. You accuse me of lying and you manage one so bold faced as that?

    Sure, Neil is not the editor of the Spectator, but I have my doubts that in 5 years, and taking that level of promotion with the company that his views have shifted much. His profile even says ‘Tweets reflect my analysis, and mine alone’, that’s not his BBC hat.

    As for ‘Right people standing’, any vocal critic of their own party is going to have trouble. Boris himself already kicked 20 something of his own MPs out for that, while Dominic Grieve faced a similar vote for the Tories.

    These votes are taking place nationwide. But it only seems to be news in a Labour constituency where the incumbent is Jewish, the vote hasn’t even taken place yet whether she will actually be replaced.
    I said Lineker is not a news employee. But the BBC disagree with you, '...the BBC responded by saying: "Gary is a freelance broadcaster and this is a personal Twitter account."' but what do they know? However Lineker does not work in news or current affairs and therefore is not bound by the same guidelines as Neil who does.

    'The guidelines state that BBC staff and freelancers who work for BBC News and Current Affairs must not:

    State or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party

    Express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate

    Advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other 'controversial subject'

    Exhort a change in high-profile public policy'


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46566574



    None of this is relevant to the point that there is no evidence to support your claim.

    So? What does Johnson's actions have to do with this? Johnson behaving badly does not excuse others doing the same.

    ITV seem to disagree with your claim -'She is the second Labour MP to be “triggered” through the party’s new ballot procedures which make it easier for local members to force a contest.'

    https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/...ection-battle/

    As do the BBC - 'She is the second Labour MP to face the party's new ballot procedures which make it easier for local members to force a contest.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49869114

    The Guardian seem to think it is only her and Diana Johnson that face/have faced possible deselection.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...our-party-vote

    As do many other news outlets so it is not, as you claim, nationwide.

    Weird that both of them are critics of Corbyn, huh?!?
    Last edited by Pann; 2019-09-29 at 08:32 AM.

  15. #24315
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    From that same BBC article:

    A Labour Party spokesperson said: "Under longstanding party rules, reselection processes have to be held in between general elections."

    "These are taking place in every Labour-held constituency across the country and in any reselection sitting MPs are automatically on the ballot paper," the spokesperson added.


    Not all votes have taken place, but they have to, and obviously vocal critics of the leader are going to have questions asked of them. She’s not actually been deselected. It’s part of a process which would allow the local party to do so. It’s a local issue. She’s not the first, she probably won’t be the last.

    As for Andrew Neil, he’s not directly expressing those views. He’s honouring the guidelines. But where he places himself and how he frames these things gives a lot away.

    But then we’re talking about the same organisation that’s tried to be impartial on racism.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2019-09-29 at 08:53 AM.

  16. #24316
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Oh dear, https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-29/...ection-battle/

    If Lab are going to lead the government, and therefore the country, they need to get this kind of crap under control.
    What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

    What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

    Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

    Please, enlighten me.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.

    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Brexophilia: The act of rubbing yourself against dead political ideas for sexual pleasure.

  17. #24317
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

    What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

    Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

    Please, enlighten me.
    Maybe the title should read “Labour members want local candidate that supports Labour leader they voted for”.

    _____

    Anyhow, this Arcuri business gets murkier and murkier. She admits an affair, and £700k mysteriously appears in her company bank accounts. Meanwhile all her businesses are variously insolvent, collapsed, or on the verge of collapse. Obviously a great businesswoman the UK should be backing, even though she has nothing actually going on in the UK.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2019-09-29 at 09:17 AM.

  18. #24318
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    What kind of crap? The kind of crap where local members of the party can request a democratic process to see if the long-standing MP still has the support of local party members? The kind of process that ensures the MP is automatically on the ballot, rather than having to gather the votes to get there? Is that the kind of "crap" you are talking about?

    What would you rather? That MPs were tied to the office for life once they were elected for the first time? Because if we don't have some kind of process like this, how exactly do you manage who gets put forward to represent Labour going forward?

    Or are you just suggesting that you can't do this with someone that's Jewish, because it automatically makes you anti-semitic?

    Please, enlighten me.
    The kind of crap where parties seek to remove those who are seen to disagree with the leadership - you know like the kind of thing that Johnson does?

    I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?

    I'm sure you'll disagree (at length) but I guess Lab are really happy being in opposition.

  19. #24319
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?
    Not really. Local party members is not at all the same with local Labour voters. Give it some time, they'll drive those voters out as soon as they can.
    Hail Lilith and see you in Hell!

  20. #24320
    The Insane Jessicka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    The kind of crap where parties seek to remove those who are seen to disagree with the leadership - you know like the kind of thing that Johnson does?

    I must say that it is strange that someone who seems extremely popular with her constituents - she increased her vote share by over 10% and gained nearly 68% of the vote on 62% turnout in 2017 - would need to prove that she still has support of local party members. Weird huh?

    I'm sure you'll disagree (at length) but I guess Lab are really happy being in opposition.
    The difference between Labour and Boris in this, is Boris is a top-down decision. Labour’s is a bottom up.

    This is very important. They are not equivalent, don’t represent them as such.

    I suppose it’s perfectly fair that Dominic Grieve remained a Conservative MP after his local party attempted to deselect him through a VONC?

    If the local party want her to stay on, they have the opportunity to show it. Rather than have someone like Ester McVey helicoptered in as she was Tatton after losing her Wirral seat.
    Last edited by Jessicka; 2019-09-29 at 10:30 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •