What's in the news?

[ealingfox]

Good grief.

 

[Lionator]

Also, this...

 

[Carl the Llama]

Where does he mention being a parachuter?  Bit of an odd detail to add.

[Nick]

12 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

 

God that's embarrassingly poor.

[Toddybad]

Some interesting background to brexit:

 

The secret history of modern Britain is made in obscure corners between men and women taken seriously by no one but themselves. A good time to begin it would be in the winter of 2013/14 when the Institute of Economic Affairs, a rightist outfit that won’t reveal where its money comes from, offered a €100,000 prize to whoever could devise a means of leaving the European Union.

The reason why politicians are now stumbling towards disaster like prisoners marching to the scaffold ought to have been clear from that moment. Obviously, Britain can leave the EU, but only if it is willing to pay an extortionate price. Yet first the institute’s judges, led by Nigel Lawson and Gisela Stuart, then the Leave campaigns of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Dominic Cummings and, finally, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, who even now cannot speak plainly, have refused to acknowledge the harsh truth.

As if to anticipate their failings, the winning entry came from a minor functionary in the British embassy in Manila by the name of Iain Mansfield. He brushed away the difficulties of leaving the EU and offered us our first helping of unicorn cake. Britain, he declared, could enjoy the free movement of capital and goods in the single market, he announced, but stop the free movement of labour.

His triumph marked an ominous moment. Until 2013, even rightwing politicians accepted that they could not have the best of all possible worlds. Britain was tied into an integrated European economy. No government could wrench it away in a couple of years. Britain would have to stay in the customs union, as Liam Fox said in 2012. The most significant thinker in the Brexit movement went further. Richard North, the advocate of “Flexcit”, warned that, as a sudden departure would wreck people’s lives, Britain would have to be like Norway and stay in the single market, “at least in the medium term”, as it dedicated many years, maybe more than a decade, to flexible negotiations about a future arrangement.

Rationally, a flexible approach made sense. But by the winter of 2013 the market for rational politics was faltering. North described how Lawson and his fellow judges excluded from the shortlist entries that said the only way to leave the EU was to follow the Norwegian example. Until that point, he had had regular meetings with Arron Banks, Owen Patterson and Cummings. “But something then happened – I don’t know what. Cummings went dark on me and I was ‘no platformed’.”

You don’t need to be a detective to work out why the darkness fell. How could the Brexit campaign inspire nationalist passions, how could Fox, Lawson, Johnson, Farage and Banks inspire even themselves, if they were to say that the only rational way to leave the EU was to carry on paying money, accepting freedom of movement and receiving laws that Britain had no say in making, while an orderly retreat was organised? Who would vote for that? What would be the point of leaving at all?

Better to take the road to Narnia and promise everything while committing to nothing. After the prize was awarded to a political fantasy, Cummings gave fair warning of what was coming next. Writing in 2015, he admitted that the campaign would offer no exit plan: hard Brexit, soft Brexit or any Brexit in between. “There is much to be gained from swerving the whole issue,” he explained. Opponents of the EU “have been divided for years”. In any case, “the sheer complexity of leaving would involve endless questions of detail that cannot be answered”.

An honourable man, and an honourable political movement, would have found these excellent reasons to think again. Not Cummings and not the Brexit movement. Intellectually, their Brexit was an empty idea. But electorally, allowing millions to believe that the impossible was possible was perfect post-rational politics. As RolandSmith of the Adam Smith Institute, another rightwing thinktank, said last week, the “dirty secret” of the Leave campaign was that it “didn’t have a well-formed idea of how to leave the EU or indeed whether any alternative was really palatable”.

It is easy to portray Cummings, Johnson and Farage as grand villains. Indeed, if we crash out with no deal, we will be hard pressed to find so much misery brought to so many by so few. But the Cameron government, every MP who voted for the referendum, the supposedly ferocious interviewers at the BBC and hard-nosed journalists in the press let them get away with it. None insisted that the voters be told what form of Brexit they were voting for.

As a point of contrast, consider that in 2018 Ireland discussed removing its constitutional ban on abortion. There was an exhaustive debate at a citizens’ assembly on the proposed measures and the government published a policy paper outlining in what circumstances abortion would be legal if the reform were approved in a referendum, so that no one could argue about the result. As a matter of deliberate policy by Brexit’s supporters, and as a consequence of unforgivable negligence by politicians and journalists, Britain’s referendum offered no such clarity.

I hope you can now see the consequences of obscure arguments in political backwaters. Supporters of a “people’s vote” are met with the superficially plausible objection: “But we’ve already had a referendum.” Supporters of May’s deal and the “Norway option” face the objection that the Leave campaign never told them that we would have to accept EU rules once we left. Finally, for the supporters of a hard Brexit and the millions who risk their futures by believing them, crashing out and crying “to hell with it” are the logical consequences of the illogical retreat from reason they began in 2013.

For good or ill, you can guarantee that the arguments that affect us most are the ones that never make it on to evening news. In the case of Brexit Britain, it’s all ill.

[Bellend Sebastian]

WTF?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47015184

 

Scary times, with the caveat that I don't think there's anything in there about historic levels of Holocaust denial so although it's shocking it's difficult to know how unusual it is

[Wymsey]

Bravely watched a Holocaust documentary one night, out of interest, that showed images and videos at the time; both showing victims on the way to being murdered and bodies of victims killed in such a horrific and sickening manner.

Would suggest that these people, who deny such an atrocity happened on planet during that time, actually watch this documentary and others that contained actual recordings of the horror back then.

If I were a survivor of the Holocaust who is luckily still alive to tell the experiences that such had to go through and still very much remember, even to this day, I'd be livid to learn such youngsters/ones that obviously have a lack of historical understanding have such an ignorant view on an event that had/actually still has affected international relations on a massive scale.

 

The one who deny the Holocaust occurred/believe it was somehow 'faked'/'made up' etc would appear to be the type of individuals that would claim any other global news tradegy such as 9/11 was just a unfortunate accident/happened because of something else 99.9% of people didn't believe.

Edited 27 January 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[Countryfox]

 

Interesting article ..   my brain is now in training ..   so don’t worry lads, the FA cup is as good as in the bag next year ..   

 

 

[Toddybad]

On 25/01/2019 at 10:36, deep blue said:

Remain voters didn't necessarily know any more than leave voters about the finer ramifications of exiting the EU, but they didn't need to. They were voting for something they were perfectly happy with. The difficulty with voting "leave" is that it was presented on the ballot form as a simple black-and-white vote but the choices about the actuality of leaving  (i.e. the various shades of Brexit) turned out to be far more complex.

 

This should have been better explored and explained by the government in the lead-up to the vote, and the format of the referendum should have better reflected this. Any shortcomings are not in those voting, but in the whole way in which the referendum was set up and conducted with very little forethought by the government.

The problem really is that vote leave campaigners disowned their promises and have tried to pretend they have a mandate for a far harder brexit than they ever discussed. 

 

See this vote leave ad from the campaign :

 

 

[Wymsey]

Has the so-called Islamic State group finally been eradicated, after hearing no threats to kill US/UK soldiers in Syria etc and promising a new war against the west?

[Innovindil]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/27/secret-filming-shows-sick-cows-slaughtered-for-meat-in-poland

 

Good job we don't want none of that hormone fed beef from America. 

[Toddybad]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/27/secret-filming-shows-sick-cows-slaughtered-for-meat-in-poland

 

Good job we don't want none of that hormone fed beef from America. 

Difference being this is illegal. 

EU runs on the idea that you have to prove safety before you can sell. 

The US works on the basis that you can sell unless something is proven to be unsafe. 

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Has the so-called Islamic State group finally been eradicated, after hearing no threats to kill US/UK soldiers in Syria etc and promising a new war against the west?

You dont kill an ideaology like that. They all run into hiding waiting for their moment to attack. It will  never end until you get rid of all religion or assimilate.  Even then you will still have issues.

 

You kill their family, they never forget they wait for their time and kill yours. Rinse, repeat. Humanity will never obtain peace. It's a pipe dream.  Thats my doom cloud comment of the day 

Edited 27 January 2019 by Jattdogg

[Innovindil]

7 hours ago, Toddybad said:

Difference being this is illegal. 

EU runs on the idea that you have to prove safety before you can sell. 

The US works on the basis that you can sell unless something is proven to be unsafe. 

Polish traders openly advertise sick cows online, using euphemisms such as “traumatised” and “damaged” for animals that typically are too sick to stand. In just one hour dialling telephone numbers published on the internet, two reporters from Superwizjer spoke to dozens of traders willing to discuss a deal. Based on their investigation, they estimated that there were approximately 300 such traders operating right across Poland.

 

“I hear of such things going on in many different places in Europe, but it’s the scale of the information in terms of how organised it appears to be, really quite shocking,” Elliott told the Guardian, after watching the footage.

 

“We are worried that the same thing happens as always happens,” said Tomasz Patora of Superwizjer, “that the authorities will try to claim that this an isolated incident and that they were not at fault, and that things will go back to normal, as it always does.”

 

-------

 

Somehow, it just doesn't make me feel better. 

[Toddybad]

22 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Polish traders openly advertise sick cows online, using euphemisms such as “traumatised” and “damaged” for animals that typically are too sick to stand. In just one hour dialling telephone numbers published on the internet, two reporters from Superwizjer spoke to dozens of traders willing to discuss a deal. Based on their investigation, they estimated that there were approximately 300 such traders operating right across Poland.

 

“I hear of such things going on in many different places in Europe, but it’s the scale of the information in terms of how organised it appears to be, really quite shocking,” Elliott told the Guardian, after watching the footage.

 

“We are worried that the same thing happens as always happens,” said Tomasz Patora of Superwizjer, “that the authorities will try to claim that this an isolated incident and that they were not at fault, and that things will go back to normal, as it always does.”

 

-------

 

Somehow, it just doesn't make me feel better. 

But surely you'd prefer this to be illegal? 

The reason that US chicken is chlorinated is that chickens there are routinely bred whilst sick in disgusting conditions and the chlorine is added to kill bacteria. 

[Innovindil]

Just now, Toddybad said:

But surely you'd prefer this to be illegal? 

The reason that US chicken is chlorinated is that chickens there are routinely bred whilst sick in disgusting conditions and the chlorine is added to kill bacteria. 

Of course, but if it can still be brazenly added to the food supply then it makes little difference. 

 

We are talking about hormone fed beef, not chlorinated chicken. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Toddybad said:

But surely you'd prefer this to be illegal? 

The reason that US chicken is chlorinated is that chickens there are routinely bred whilst sick in disgusting conditions and the chlorine is added to kill bacteria. 

If I’m going to eat diseased meat, I’d prefer it’s been treated to be honest. 

The end result here is worse for us is it not?

[Toddybad]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Of course, but if it can still be brazenly added to the food supply then it makes little difference. 

 

We are talking about hormone fed beef, not chlorinated chicken. 

Which is strange given that chlorinated chicken is a closer example to the polish news.

 

However , whether hormone reared beef is safe is also unknown as it doesn't need to prove it is, just not have it proven that it isn't. 

 

It is banned by the EU as "at least one of the hormones routinely used in US beef production has been judged to be a significant cancer risk by the EU. For the other five hormones used in the US, the available evidence is insufficient to show that their use is acceptably safe." 

 

It should be noted that this ban caused a trade war between the EU and US with 100% tariffs being imposed on multiple products. It has taken years of reproachment to be in the situation w now have where hormone reared beef is banned but other American meat isn't. It is highly unlikely that the UK on its own would have sufficient leverage in a trade deal to continue such a ban. 

[Innovindil]

24 minutes ago, Toddybad said:

Which is strange given that chlorinated chicken is a closer example to the polish news.

 

However , whether hormone reared beef is safe is also unknown as it doesn't need to prove it is, just not have it proven that it isn't. 

 

It is banned by the EU as "at least one of the hormones routinely used in US beef production has been judged to be a significant cancer risk by the EU. For the other five hormones used in the US, the available evidence is insufficient to show that their use is acceptably safe." 

 

It should be noted that this ban caused a trade war between the EU and US with 100% tariffs being imposed on multiple products. It has taken years of reproachment to be in the situation w now have where hormone reared beef is banned but other American meat isn't. It is highly unlikely that the UK on its own would have sufficient leverage in a trade deal to continue such a ban. 

Which is the word we should be focusing on. I'll take unknown over what's currently being served up by Poland right now tbh. The fact that this isn't even the first time this has been observed in recent years should ring alarm bells that the magnificent EU's regulations might not be as almighty as once thought.

 

The fact that these clearly below standard cows can enter the food chain and then have absolutely zero checks beyond point of production should ring more alarm bells.

 

The story even mentions that there's no way of knowing where this beef actually went, so if there's bigger ramifications then it will effect all the legitimate cow rearers too. 

 

I'd call it a monumental **** up. 

[Carl the Llama]

Do 2 wrongs make a right now? Imagine defending any form of mystery meat...

[Innovindil]

11 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Do 2 wrongs make a right now? Imagine defending any form of mystery meat...

Where's the 2 wrongs exactly? 

[davieG]

Rightly or wrongly I presume imported meat would have the source on the label so people could choose the meat they eat. That's easier if it's from the USA as you'll know it's probably treated the Polish stuff you wont know good from bad and again I guess it could be labelled from another Euro county if it's been exported.

 

We don't know how any deal with USA will turn out either where as the polish stuff could be anywhere in Europe now.

[Carl the Llama]

29 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Where's the 2 wrongs exactly? 

You don't see anything wrong with an approach that legally permits substances shown to be a cancer risk in your beef?  Or using substances that haven't been shown to be safe in tests? Nothing at all? I think the Poland story's appalling and thanking God I barely eat any products likely to be affected but I don't see USA mystery meat as a viable solution to the problem, it's just a different problematic process.  Buy local and proven origin if you're really concerned.

Edited 28 January 2019 by Carl the Llama

[Innovindil]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You don't see anything wrong with an approach that legally permits substances shown to be a cancer risk in your beef?  Or using substances that haven't been shown to be safe in tests? Nothing at all? I think the Poland story's appalling and thanking God I barely eat any products likely to be affected but I don't see USA mystery meat as a viable solution to the problem, it's just a different problematic process.  Buy local and proven origin if you're really concerned.

Tbh, I've seen no evidence of such at all. Which in itself it quite amazing. Just recently I've read a report that apparently "proves" that not getting 8 hours solid of sleep a night causes a higher risk of cancer. Doesn't mean I'm going to bed early. 

 

This obsession with living for as long as possible to the point of being borderline paranoid must be some by-product of our own inflated egos and to be frank, I find it rather tedious. 

[Toddybad]

12 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Tbh, I've seen no evidence of such at all. Which in itself it quite amazing. Just recently I've read a report that apparently "proves" that not getting 8 hours solid of sleep a night causes a higher risk of cancer. Doesn't mean I'm going to bed early. 

 

This obsession with living for as long as possible to the point of being borderline paranoid must be some by-product of our own inflated egos and to be frank, I find it rather tedious. 

You've reached the point where you think not eating food containing hormones that EU scientists believe cause cancer is an unhealthy obsession. That's like saying not smoking for health reasons is weird. 

 

Why do you need to see the evidence to believe the EU scientists and medical experts? If you did see the evidence are you suitably qualified to make a judgement? 

 

Climate change, food safety, environmental standards, the economic effects of immigration. Isn't it amazing the number of things right wing non-experts believe they understand better than highly qualified experts. 

 

 

Edited 28 January 2019 by Toddybad