urban.spaceman Posted 22 October 2019 Share Posted 22 October 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 22 October 2019 Share Posted 22 October 2019 6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said: Isn't this mostly a strawman? As if anyone with much self-awareness or social clout at all would actually call someone who specifically criticised Shamima and/or the death-worshipping fascists she chose to join (as opposed, say, to a generalisation based on religion or skin colour) racist or whatever. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 This is brilliant https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50137450 Hitman was hired to take out someone. That hitman hired another hitman, who hired another, who hired another, who hired another. The last one botched it up by trying to fake the murder though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-50150070 39 bodies found in Essex lorry container 3 minutes ago Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share Police say 39 bodies found in lorry container in Essex - driver has been arrested This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version. You can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperEadem Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 Terribly sad that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusko187 Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 Strange they've come out and named the driver already and saying he's detained on suspicion of murder, he only collected the trailer around 1am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 23 minutes ago, Rusko187 said: Strange they've come out and named the driver already and saying he's detained on suspicion of murder, he only collected the trailer around 1am. I suppose if you're the driver and there's 39 dead guys in the back of your truck you're quite likely to be arrested on suspicion of murder whilst enquiries are made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusko187 Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 2 hours ago, stripeyfox said: I suppose if you're the driver and there's 39 dead guys in the back of your truck you're quite likely to be arrested on suspicion of murder whilst enquiries are made. If it's a sealed refrigerated container though... I mean they must know something as they've not arrested him, if I'm reading the timings right he could have only been in possession of the trailer for an hour, if that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxesDeb Posted 23 October 2019 Share Posted 23 October 2019 8 minutes ago, Rusko187 said: If it's a sealed refrigerated container though... I mean they must know something as they've not arrested him, if I'm reading the timings right he could have only been in possession of the trailer for an hour, if that. Yes it seems more likely that he was the person who raised the alarm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50146358 The latest. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50161376/republican-congress-members-storm-impeachment-hearing Why do this when it's clear how bad it will look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 7 hours ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50146358 The latest. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50161376/republican-congress-members-storm-impeachment-hearing Why do this when it's clear how bad it will look? I guess they've spent so much time supporting the walking cheese puff that they figure it's better for their careers at this point to just double down on the insanity. Besides, this probably will work to distort the narrative: The personality cult are no doubt going to be banging on about shady dems trying to fake evidence in private hearings for the next few months, regardless of how many people fact check it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 7 hours ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50161376/republican-congress-members-storm-impeachment-hearing Why do this when it's clear how bad it will look? No idea. Everyone from the Republican party to Extinction Rebellion seem to be at it now - in such an echo chamber they dont realise how they look ridiculous and hurt they cause they are trying to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, FoxesDeb said: Yes it seems more likely that he was the person who raised the alarm It does seem that way. yes. I've seen reports* that this Mo Robinson chap has been released without charge. There's even stuff all over his facebook page - seems a decent enough chap judging by the amount of support. Not suprised at all that he would be arrested or questioned in connection with it as a matter of routine, but seems bad that the press have named him. If the guy is totally innocent and he was the one who made the grim discovery and then called the emergency services then I really feel for him. EDIT *BBC News not reporting that he has been released yet Edited 24 October 2019 by stripeyfox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 (edited) He really is the thickest, most abhorrent c**t. The people who support him are f**king thick n'all. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/trump-us-building-wall-colorado/index.html?utm_source=fbCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-10-24T01%3A15%3A07&utm_term=link&fbclid=IwAR0Gc8TL4xJiFSSLWWU2qKvCth3fsKNAZIBH3wBODwHPsvOjbm-D3XG3uu0 Edited 24 October 2019 by RoboFox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 37 minutes ago, stripeyfox said: It does seem that way. yes. I've seen reports* that this Mo Robinson chap has been released without charge. There's even stuff all over his facebook page - seems a decent enough chap judging by the amount of support. Not suprised at all that he would be arrested or questioned in connection with it as a matter of routine, but seems bad that the press have named him. If the guy is totally innocent and he was the one who made the grim discovery and then called the emergency services then I really feel for him. EDIT *BBC News not reporting that he has been released yet Absolutely. He could turn out to be a real wrong'un but while there's still a chance he's an innocent 3rd party it's highly irresponsible for the news media to be plastering his name and photo all over the place next to sentences telling us he's being questioned on "suspicion of murder". How are there not laws against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 10 hours ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50146358 The latest. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-50161376/republican-congress-members-storm-impeachment-hearing Why do this when it's clear how bad it will look? Why hold hearings behind closed doors? Is that even legal? Also, I'm no specialist, so I wonder whether people from outside are actually allowed to take part in the hearings or not. As for the Taylor statement, it smacks of bias to a large extent. But to be clear here, transparency is a big issue in the US - so both parties need to realize they have to be more honest to their voters and the population in general. It's a circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 2 hours ago, RoboFox said: He really is the thickest, most abhorrent c**t. The people who support him are f**king thick n'all. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/trump-us-building-wall-colorado/index.html?utm_source=fbCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-10-24T01%3A15%3A07&utm_term=link&fbclid=IwAR0Gc8TL4xJiFSSLWWU2qKvCth3fsKNAZIBH3wBODwHPsvOjbm-D3XG3uu0 Or the US media use every opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill, because it sells better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 15 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: Or the US media use every opportunity to make a mountain out of a molehill, because it sells better. Yeah, but he literally said it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 22 minutes ago, RoboFox said: Yeah, but he literally said it though. As a joke. Allegedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: I guess they've spent so much time supporting the walking cheese puff that they figure it's better for their careers at this point to just double down on the insanity. Besides, this probably will work to distort the narrative: The personality cult are no doubt going to be banging on about shady dems trying to fake evidence in private hearings for the next few months, regardless of how many people fact check it. There's something in that, though as I think the lines are pretty starkly drawn anyway I'm not sure what this would do to shore up their base and/or bring other people in as it's already pretty well-shored. 3 hours ago, MattP said: No idea. Everyone from the Republican party to Extinction Rebellion seem to be at it now - in such an echo chamber they dont realise how they look ridiculous and hurt they cause they are trying to achieve. One despairs of finding an unpolarised and collaborative environment in international politics these days. 38 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: Why hold hearings behind closed doors? Is that even legal? Also, I'm no specialist, so I wonder whether people from outside are actually allowed to take part in the hearings or not. As for the Taylor statement, it smacks of bias to a large extent. But to be clear here, transparency is a big issue in the US - so both parties need to realize they have to be more honest to their voters and the population in general. It's a circus. Because it would tend to charge an individual with a crime or misconduct, yes, and no, in that order. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-congress I'm curious as to why a figure like Taylor who has been in the business for some time serving administrations of all types would be inclined to be biased. 20 minutes ago, RoboFox said: Yeah, but he literally said it though. Yeah, but he didn't mean it, and it's not a subject of government policy so it doesn't mean much and should simply be ignored...ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50165596 The Paris Agreement should either be reinforced or replaced by something that has more enforcing teeth...but that still doesn't mean it's a good thing that the US chooses to thumb its nose at it too. Oil and gas as a source for anything other than making plastics in the future is a fools errand that will be paid for in full in due course - unless we change course. Glad coal has largely failed to revive and the states are pushing back, though. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50166557 Sherman clearly didn't do enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 19 minutes ago, leicsmac said: There's something in that, though as I think the lines are pretty starkly drawn anyway I'm not sure what this would do to shore up their base and/or bring other people in as it's already pretty well-shored. One despairs of finding an unpolarised and collaborative environment in international politics these days. Because it would tend to charge an individual with a crime or misconduct, yes, and no, in that order. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-congress I'm curious as to why a figure like Taylor who has been in the business for some time serving administrations of all types would be inclined to be biased. Yeah, but he didn't mean it, and it's not a subject of government policy so it doesn't mean much and should simply be ignored...ya know? The rules you quote concern the public and the media, but not Congress members as far as I can tell. So, again - are members of the House and the Senate legally prohibited from attending a closed hearing or are closed hearings allowed on a partisan basis? The main points Taylor mentions do appear rather far-fetched to me and indicate by no means that Trump actively aimed at a quid pro quo. I can see a lot of hearsay and assumptions in Taylor's statements again, desperately trying to find anything conspiracy-related. The Sondland quote says more about Sondland than it does about Trump, a "Mystery Woman", Taylor's own stance on Ukraine, relating to another source (Morrison, hearsay)... Pretty thin basis for an argument against Trump, if you ask me. And Taylor is clearly more on the Democrats' side, based on his employment history. And also no questions asked why his testimony was leaked to the WP that quickly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: The rules you quote concern the public and the media, but not Congress members as far as I can tell. So, again - are members of the House and the Senate legally prohibited from attending a closed hearing or are closed hearings allowed on a partisan basis? The main points Taylor mentions do appear rather far-fetched to me and indicate by no means that Trump actively aimed at a quid pro quo. I can see a lot of hearsay and assumptions in Taylor's statements again, desperately trying to find anything conspiracy-related. The Sondland quote says more about Sondland than it does about Trump, a "Mystery Woman", Taylor's own stance on Ukraine, relating to another source (Morrison, hearsay)... Pretty thin basis for an argument against Trump, if you ask me. And Taylor is clearly more on the Democrats' side, based on his employment history. And also no questions asked why his testimony was leaked to the WP that quickly? Yes and no, in that order. Because, as is consistent with policy, Repubs are present and well-represented at this meeting - those who were supposed to be there and weren't violating the rules by not removing their electronic devices, that is. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/23/impeachment-republicans-trump-055688 "One Republican who has been able to attend the proceedings, Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, acknowledged that the closed-door nature of the impeachment proceedings are consistent with the House’s procedures." I guess we'll see what the bipartisan committee make of Taylor's testimony in due course. WRT the media leak once the testimony was complete, I fail to see how that's important or relevant to the process itself. Edited 24 October 2019 by leicsmac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SO1 Posted 24 October 2019 Share Posted 24 October 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, leicsmac said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50165596 The Paris Agreement should either be reinforced or replaced by something that has more enforcing teeth...but that still doesn't mean it's a good thing that the US chooses to thumb its nose at it too. Oil and gas as a source for anything other than making plastics in the future is a fools errand that will be paid for in full in due course - unless we change course. Glad coal has largely failed to revive and the states are pushing back, though. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50166557 Sherman clearly didn't do enough. Using war criminals responsible for the destruction and murder of millions to condone your point of view. How sad. I feel sorry for you. I've lived in the South now for over 10 years and for the most part have found people friendly and warm. Your insults undermine the integrity I thought you had. Edited 24 October 2019 by SO1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 25 October 2019 Share Posted 25 October 2019 3 hours ago, SO1 said: Using war criminals responsible for the destruction and murder of millions to condone your point of view. How sad. I feel sorry for you. I've lived in the South now for over 10 years and for the most part have found people friendly and warm. Your insults undermine the integrity I thought you had. Evidently you feel I went too far with the Sherman ref and for that I apologise. Frustration at those so blinded by their own privilege that they are willing to go to civil war to defend Trump in the same way many Southerners went to war to defend the institution of chattel slavery simply got to me. I have experienced some of the South myself and by and large had the same experience as you have - but there clearly is some work still to be done. NB. While I agree that by simple metrics Sherman was a war criminal, he, like LeMay, MacArthur, Harris and many others were never going to see the inside of a courtroom for it, and that's because the first rule of war is that a winner never commits war crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts