[Sloper]

Sorry, i thought you were suggesting that his suicide was murder (as many do) apologies, so very busy I don't even have time to troll.

But yes, the way his name was revealed was a disgrace and have now doubt who was i/c and approved the naming of Kelly.

[Bonjoy]

Yes, with regard to the lies, the rendition and torture yes, you only have to look at the speeches made by the like of David Davis and many others.

DD to his credit spends much of his time criticising his own party's policies. What he says is no measure whatsoever of how his colleagues think and act. One good apple etc.

[Sloper]

It isn't just DD though is it? It is Ken Clarke, Pat McLoughlin, Sir Peter Tapsell, Ed Timpson (elected 2009?), William Hague and others.

Of course there were those who voiced oppisition to the  anti terror bills on the Labour side but far fewer in number and less strident in their opposition.

Let's just look at the Acts passed in 13 years of Labour government vs 18 years of Tory Government shall we?

The scales are not finely balanced, there is no comparison between volume and erosion of civil liberties at all, there is an overwhelming weight of evidence that Labour tends to introduce draconian 'anti terror' legislation and the Tories tend abolish it.  Does anyone remember the people who were arrested for solelmly reading the names of our war dead at teh Cenotaph? 

The refrain which can be inferred from the usual suspects i.e. 'well the tories are just nasty and would have been nastier than Labour' just evinces a lack of knowledge of the subject and/or an inability to construct a proper argument.  It is the 8a.nu of political debate.

[lagerstarfish]

evinces a lack of knowledge of the subject and/or an inability to construct a proper argument. 

this boils my piss

you well know that winning a proper argument (or even being right) counts for fuck all in this so-called democracy

the slimy newts at the controls will continue to do whatever they want to whomever they want

the most I can hope to achieve is to beat Russell Brand to a pulp with my bare hands on live TV - yeah, that's what I'll set as my new years resolution - that'll help

[Sloper]

Your such a looser.

As a fully paid up shape shifting member of the New World Order, it is I who decide the temperature of your urine.

PS, I reckon Russell Brand would have you.

[Bonjoy]

The refrain which can be inferred from the usual suspects i.e. 'well the tories are just nasty and would have been nastier than Labour' just evinces a lack of knowledge of the subject and/or an inability to construct a proper argument.  It is the 8a.nu of political debate.

Bum cheeks. As far as I'm concerned they are both as shit as each other, give or take a few fuck alls when it comes to the creeping erosion of civil liberties. What your comment evinces is your inability to imagine anyone having near equal contempt for both sides.

[Sloper]

I can understand the contempt, the ignorance is more difficult to appreciate.

[lagerstarfish]

I reckon Russell Brand would have you.

I'll be happy to take your money on the night

[Bonjoy]

Ignorance of what? The minutia of who did what in Westminster? Any ignorance there is because the world is big and full of lots of things to know, time is limited and studying the fine detail of Labour/Tory party politics is not top of my give-a-shit-about list. Don't get me wrong if I thought either side where better than a lost cause I might care more. Still finding it difficult to appreciate? It's a waste of my time, they are largely a facile bunch of faceless meat puppets. Slavishly chasing every banal utterance they excrete is a boring way to kill brain cells.

[Sloper]

I reckon Russell Brand would have you.

I'll be happy to take your money on the night

It would be an absolute sell out (no pun intended) and more than worth the risk of a £5 loss, who could we have on the under card?  Jeremy Clarkson vs Piers Moron, that should be good for a few punters Dianne Abbot vs Nigel Farage, again a strong sell on that one, plus an international match up, Putin vs Mandleson (a dirty grudge match)

[Sloper]

Ignorance of what? The minutia of who did what in Westminster? Any ignorance there is because the world is big and full of lots of things to know, time is limited and studying the fine detail of Labour/Tory party politics is not top of my give-a-shit-about list. Don't get me wrong if I thought either side where better than a lost cause I might care more. Still finding it difficult to appreciate? It's a waste of my time, they are largely a facile bunch of faceless meat puppets. Slavishly chasing every banal utterance they excrete is a boring way to kill brain cells.

it's hardly the minutia, it's basic knowledge of the constitution and how we're governed and hardly requires a knowlegde of the attempts to recant from the magna carta; it was plastered all over the Guardain, BBC, Telegraph and so on for the ebst part of a decade, did you miss it?

In short, are you saying you don't care how and by whom you're governed and therefore ignorance is bliss?  I take it you're entirely happy with the consequences of your state of disengagement and will 'suck up' what ever policies the government enacts because you can't be bothered. . . . and people wonder how extremist parties get their votes. 

[Bonjoy]

What are you crapping on about man? How on earth can you infer what I do or don't know about those or any subject from the recent and minor contributions I've made to this thread? Your assumption vis-a-vis my ignorance comes from a position of almost complete ignorance of mine. I don't recall making anything other than a passing observation regards a comment of yours and some critique of your casual insults. All you could possible infer from which is that I don't much like the two big teams, though I do have time for individuals on both sides and I take minor issue with your crass hypocrisy. You need to get some new thinking glasses.

[Sloper]

My commetn was based on your statement 'As far as I'm concerned they are both as shit as each other, give or take a few fuck alls' and your earlier allusion to the fact that the Tories would have behaved in the same manner.

Maybe you need to express yourself a little more clearly.

If it was a long lunch I hope it was a good one (I had to cancel mine and am rather put out by the absence of a few oysters and glass of wine etc) that and I've had a day of dealing with fuckign twats (and I do not include you in that category) who are 'going to have it all over the daily mail' etc etc chiz, yawn & etc

I will refrain from posting later as I am in a bad mood and may have a beer on the way home.

[Stubbs]

Sloper with regards to Iraq/Afghanistan, lying re WMD, Rendition, torture, could you have seen a Conservative govt taking different actions?

Yes, with regard to the lies, the rendition and torture yes, you only have to look at the speeches made by the like of David Davis and many others.

I assume you know that that recent redacted report named over 100 countries who were complicit in the rendition (and therefore the torture), so it seems a bit unlikely we would have been left out...

[psychomansam]

Ignorance of what? The minutia of who did what in Westminster? Any ignorance there is because the world is big and full of lots of things to know, time is limited and studying the fine detail of Labour/Tory party politics is not top of my give-a-shit-about list. Don't get me wrong if I thought either side where better than a lost cause I might care more. Still finding it difficult to appreciate? It's a waste of my time, they are largely a facile bunch of faceless meat puppets. Slavishly chasing every banal utterance they excrete is a boring way to kill brain cells.

You might appreciate this:
http://jacobstringer.com/the-dick-theory-of-society/

[Oldmanmatt]

I just don't know how to respond to you, Slopes, without getting too specific. But many equally questionable things happened to my certain knowledge, under both Thatcher and Major.
The only difference that I can see is one of Media attention.
And I'd say that is a product of the Internet/Wikileaks era we now live in that we did not then.
So, no, not party politics; only Realpolitik.

[Sloper]

I think we need to draw a distinction between things that are 'morally questionable' and torture which is, along with crimes against humanity in a special class of offences which is deemed so serious that it is triable regardless of the jurisdiction: as such there is no comparison between morally questionable activities and things that are exceptionally offensive.

We also need to distinguish between matters which occured but were outwith the chain of command or allowed at junior officer level (these can never be prevented) and matters which occur because they are directed / facilitated by the state / quasi state: the use of diego garcia & refueling of CIA flights in the UK would have required a certain level of authority and acquiescence at least.

In a political system, all politics is party politics: the defence of real politik is a very weak one, if indeed it is a defence at all (I tend to consider it not to be a defence).

[Oldmanmatt]

I agree, wholeheartedly, with your sentiment. I wish the world were otherwise.
I admire your faith in the law and concur with it's (your faith's) noble ambitions.

I do not share your faith in the upper echelons of the chain of command.

I have reason to state, categorically, that it is misplaced.
 

[Sloper]

I agree, wholeheartedly, with your sentiment. I wish the world were otherwise.
I admire your faith in the law and concur with it's (your faith's) noble ambitions.

I do not share your faith in the upper echelons of the chain of command.

I have reason to state, categorically, that it is misplaced.

'Gentlment sleep easy in their beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf' is an adage that is as true today as when Blair wrote it in the 1930s; however I think that there is a categorical diffence in the present case than the former cases as the memoranda found in Libya attest.

[Jaspersharpe]

Indeed, a progressive tax reform.

That should swing the election.  YYFY

LOL!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/labour-five-point-poll-lead-tories

[petejh]

LOL!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/labour-five-point-poll-lead-tories

Ooh.. it's getting interesting at the top going into the January transfer window... wonder if City will try to sign a short-term replacement for Agüero (Balliotelli anyone..)? Who plays in purple? 

[Sloper]

Indeed, a progressive tax reform.

That should swing the election.  YYFY

LOL!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/labour-five-point-poll-lead-tories

You're old enough to remember the 1992 election, remind me how far ahead was Kinnock 6 months before the election (and that's without the Scottish factor, the Kippers and the fact that the 1992 election was held int he shadow of a deep recession and 13 years of tory government).

[Jaspersharpe]

That's not the point, at all. 

[Sloper]

Well what is the point then?

Is it that Labour's position (when in opposition) has always weakened in the 6 months before the GE?

Is it because Ed Miliband is recagred as a statesman like figure with strong economic credibility?

Is it because the economy is tanking?

Is it because you're desparate for Labour to win?

Methinks the last option.

[tomtom]

The economy has flatlined.

Debt has increased and the Torys have failed on their promise to remove the deficit. This is despite the largest and most rapid privatisation program the UK has ever seen.

I don't really want any of them to win, but I think an outright Tory govt would be a disaster for this country. A complete disaster.