Anything Political

[Brew 5,409]

 

2 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

6 hours ago, Brew said:

Expand  

I said I’m not a fan of it. I have accepted it and the reason it exists. I didn’t say or suggest banning it so you telling me that the people of Nottingham are free to express their opinion is misplaced and unnecessary as I didn’t suggest otherwise.

 

Even with the best will in the world Lets your comment was by implication disparaging, and that's fine if it's your opinion on the political thread.

Not sure anyone has a 'right' but we can express our opinions on NS, even the ones decrying political commentary - the same applies to replies.

 

Whether it's left wing claptrap or an academic treatise we can express an opinion so long as it's legal. Then we're free to read, reply or ignore. 

 

[letsavagoo 961]

Reading down the list of alleged ‘British values’ in the ‘academic treatise’ I found among them was a supposed dislike of people with disabilities. As someone who has disabilities I found it disparaging on a personal level, disagree strongly with and yes I felt I had a right to say so.

 

7 hours ago, Brew said:

Not sure anyone has a 'right' but we can express our opinions

So I can express an opinion (if it’s legal that is) but you’re not sure it’s a ‘right’ to do so. So I withdraw saying ‘have the right’ and say instead ‘should’ reply or ‘must’ reply or whatever term you like. 
 

Finally. To be clear Dj says he agrees with all the list. I realise of course that he isn’t necessarily agreeing with it as such but that he agrees that is what the current government seem to hold as British values. 

I do not agree with the majority of them but do see why some are there. But that’s propaganda for you. 

 

[Brew 5,409]

2 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

So I can express an opinion (if it’s legal that is) but you’re not sure it’s a ‘right’ to do so. So I withdraw saying ‘have the right’ and say instead ‘should’ reply or ‘must’ reply or whatever term you like. 

 

Let me explain my pedantry, a 'right' is something enshrined in law. Nottstalgia is privately owned, privately financed and administered by a small group of private individuals so we post only by their good offices and You can use whatever term you like.

-------------

In my opinion the list is total nonsense, I thought I'd made that clear earlier. The 'academic treatise/claptrap' comment is merely to demonstrate the breadth of postings we see.

 

 

[letsavagoo 961]

That’s a very reasonable explanation brew and I now understand. I felt you were nit picking as you realised. I didn’t mean it in ‘that’ god given manner but I see the validity of your comment and could and should have phrased it better. You did make your feelings on the post quite clear. I did too but far less eloquently. 
I see numerous posts mainly on the political thread I disagree with and dislike but don’t respond. That one was just too much.

[DJ360 6,721]

13 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

then it is not my right as ‘a person of Nottingham’ to express my opinion even if that opinion is that it’s left wing clap trap with no place here. It wasn’t  part of a ‘reasoned political argument but a link to what even dj himself said, will probably be dismissed as a ‘hysterical diatribe’. 

 

You have the right to express your opinion that it is whatever you think it is. You do not have the right to determine that it has 'no place here'. You could try declaring it illegal and/or in contravention of the site AUP, but I doubt you'd get far.

[DJ360 6,721]

14 hours ago, Brew said:

Interesting but not to sure about corrupt. Undoubted some were but I would hazard a guess most were simply of their time.

Reading Dickens, Pepys or Trollope etc. even the good guys would not stand up to modern mores and attitudes.

 

It's easy to condemn over the passage of time, especially from a socialist viewpoint, but judging the societal norms of almost 200 hundred years ago is always going to appear scandalous from wherever you stand.

 

The point I was making was that fundmentally, nothing has changed.  The rich and powerful continue to defend theire position, largely by removing access to wealth and power from the majority.

Lord Clifton (Not, I hasten to add any relation as far as I can tell to our own Cliff-ton ), seems to have been the very definition of a corrupt 'political gangster'.  It would be a big mistake to assume that such characters do not continue to exert power, both within and outside of Parliament. They Do.

[letsavagoo 961]

21 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

You do not have the right to determine that it has 'no place here'.

I wasn’t. Again we get to that word or expression ‘right’ which Brew has just explained. I was giving my opinion it has no place here not trying to dictate or determine it has no place here. Subtle difference. 

I appreciate you corrected my quote ‘is it not my right’

[DJ360 6,721]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

Apart from missing out walking on the grass, parking charges and potholes what is he actually saying? That these things are wrong? That these are things we as a nation should be ashamed of? That the right to a roof over our heads ranks alongside speed limits?

 

I'm, suprised you don't see it for what it is. It's Murphy challenging Sunak's Downing Street Diatribe and seeking clarity on what exactly are the 'British Values', which Sunak was so typically vague about a couple of days ago, but which Sunak claims to wish to uphold.  It was Sunak using the oldest right wing trick in the book by appealing to vague notions of 'Britishness', in order to recruit the hard of thinking to his 'side', against an ill define, but strongly hinted at 'otherness'.  In other words, classic right wing division, fearmongering, scapegoating and deflection from the real issues and his own party's failure.

Murphy employs a written version of a 'Scatter Diagram', plotting opinions, policies and attitudes and assigning them more or less to the left or the right. Like all scatter diagrams it is more properly seen as demonstrating trends and tendencies, than 'hard' data. Not all on either side will conform exactly to the pattern he expresses. It's about tendencies.

As such, not all of the examples he uses carry equal weight and I'd agree that some of them are (deliberately?) frivolous, whilst others are deadly serious.

It is what it is and I for one appreciate it as a useful way of marshalling my thoughts and defining the many motivational differences between left and right. I don't think I'm alone.

[DJ360 6,721]

4 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

Reading down the list of alleged ‘British values’ in the ‘academic treatise’ I found among them was a supposed dislike of people with disabilities. As someone who has disabilities I found it disparaging on a personal level, disagree strongly with and yes I felt I had a right to say so.

 

 

I too have disabilities, and a Blue Badge to prove it, but I'm not clear what you are getting at here.  Are you saying that as a Tory voter you are affronted by the assertion that the Tory Govt. (Whose attitudes and policies Murphy is examining) harbours a dislike for people with disabilities?  Why is that?  As far as I know you are not part of this Govt. and whilst you maintain a right wing political stance you have said more than once that you are not impressed by the present Govt.

 

I'm pretty certain that what Murphy is getting at here is the constant scapegoating of those on benefits or out of work, by the Tories, under Cameron/Osborne and evrry Tory leader since.

 

If you need a reminder, have a look here, though it's a Guardian article and you have my permission to hold your nose whilst reading it.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/30/tories-disabled-people-benefits

 

Contrast the tone with:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12484217/One-million-people-sickness-benefits-forced-jobs.html

 

and:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12530717/Taxpayers-face-10billion-bill-rising-number-pensioners-claiming-disability-benefits.html

[DJ360 6,721]

11 hours ago, Brew said:

Whether it's left wing claptrap or an academic treatise we can express an opinion so long as it's legal.

 

You don't mention 'Right Wing Claptrap'.  Fruedian exception or a deliberate skewing of the debate? I think we should be told!

[Alpha 176]

On 3/2/2024 at 11:32 AM, DJ360 said:

 

Well obviously. 

We used to rule and plunder half of the World, now we don't and in many respects we are now getting our 'come uppance'. I see no simple way out of that mess.

What is certain is that ALL empires fall, sooner or later and that history shows that 'sooner' is becoming the norm. Empires which used to last thousands and then hundreds of years, now last merely decades. ( Compare the Roman and Grecian to the Ottoman, Austro Hungarian, British, then the Russian/Soviet.)

 

Meanwhile our mighty leaders have continued to behave as if we are still 'Top Dog' and have continued to involve us in foreign adventures which have always come back to bite us.

 

There's been much debate since WW2 as to what sort of 'post colonial' country we should become. We seem to have always got it wrong. 

 

(I'll make an exception for the Falklands, which was basically a massive coincidence of opportunism used by Galtieri in a failed attempt to boost his position and a 'Gift' to Thatcher, whose political fortunes benefitted hugely from 'patriotic' fervour.)

 

In the 'post colonial' period, especially since WW2, we have struggled to find our (proper) place in the World. We emerged from WW2 broke, but still highly industrialised and at the forefront of Technology. Sadly, our Technology was largely squandered and our industry badly managed (And not just under Nationalisation)

Geopolitically, our best move was joining the EU and becoming part of a Geographically and Economically strong and coherent grouping.

Leaving the EU has not produced a single benefit, but many penalties and has left us exposed, hanging onto the coat tails of an increasingly divided and undemocratic America.

 

 

Not sure about 'indecisiveness'. I'd say rather too much of that under Thatcher led to the final destruction of our industrial base and of the Social Democracy which served us well from 1945. That woman was solely responsible for creating the 'short termist', greed driven and socially divisive economic environment in which we now exist.

 

 

Far too simplistic, but a typical 'Little Englander' diatribe'.  I have no idea what a 'fanatical mutant' is. The 'anti-nationalists' which so perturb you are either one and the same as the dark forces of international Neo Con Economic manipulation of our economy, or it's public facing shills, like Farage, Rees Mogg, Jenrick, Anderson, Truss/Kwarteng and now Sunak who whip up petty 'patriotism' and jingoism, laced with thinly disguised racism and religious intolerance, as a 'front', for their real objectives.

 

 

 

And yet, our Government seems far more interested in suppressing our hard won right to protest, than in actually tackling crime and anti social behaviour.  What does that tell you?

 

We are hardly unique in failing to control drug trafficking and use. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. What do you suggest?

Recently we have seen whole life sentences handed down to a number of murderers including Wayne Cousins. I fully support that, but not the Death Penalty, which I assume is what you mean by 'terminal' punishment.

Who is it that has cut our Police Force to the bone?

In basic terms, my statement regarding fanatical mutants, refers to those who attempt to subvert reasonable protest into examples of chants for jihad, riot, looting, destruction og property and to disrupt daily life generally. A more benign variant are those who climb on trains, prevent the movement of traffic and tear down statues.

 

As for the control and prevention of drugs, it might be if the reasons for starting on the pathways of drug abuse were discussed as a starting point to determine a strategy fo drug use controls. Mainly, drug use arises through the weakness within the individual in coping with life or for those who in the pursuit of a few ‘kicks’.

 

During a para course one of my colleagues, raised a comment saying that if you want drug ‘kicks’ then get your gear on and jump out of a Hercules!

 

As for terminal punishment, I did mean the death penalty. With this option, society would get rid of the vile and bloodthirsty and save the wastage of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on their keep in prison. It might also act as a deterrent against committing crime in the first place.

[Brew 5,409]

20 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Fruedian exception or a deliberate skewing of the debate

Moi !? Never...   

[Brew 5,409]

5 minutes ago, Alpha said:

It might also act as a deterrent against committing crime in the first place.

It might, it might not,  It's quite difficult to prove either way. ProCon (US), claim each execution prevents between 3 to 18 murders, Amnesty International claim there is no effect . 

The  methodologies both use for proving their case is at best 'iffy', in both cases they quote from the U.S.

 

We know we can't prove a negative so that only leaves historical facts, number of past executions v present day murders which cannot allow for changes in society. Any correlation between the two will always be flawed which probably explains why there are endless arguments about it. Capital punishment is supposed to serve two purposes. deterrence and retribution. We can only say for certain it achieves one of those.

[Brew 5,409]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Murphy employs a written version of a 'Scatter Diagram', plotting opinions, policies and attitudes and assigning them more or less to the left or the right.

I can't, as you'd expect,  agree, I don't think he does anything of the sort.

Marshall is not unintelligent and an experienced author on some complex topics. Had he meant to create a word based scatter diagram I'm sure he would have said do so in order that we of the great unwashed would  belter  understand it.

To my mind it was so woolly you have constructed the scatter map theory to aid yourself in interpreting it, it's the only  way it makes sense to you. Try to see it as we see it. no added bells and whistles, no unnecessary interpretations, see it for what it is and give him credit for writing exactly what he meant to write.

I don't know if he was trying to be satirical, he failed if he was.

[DJ360 6,721]

On 3/3/2024 at 1:22 PM, Brew said:

We can only say for certain it achieves one of those.

And in more than a few cases historically, and some quite recent, retribution was meted out to innocent parties.

[DJ360 6,721]

On 3/3/2024 at 1:47 PM, Brew said:

To my mind it was so woolly you have constructed the scatter map theory to aid yourself in interpreting it, it's the only  way it makes sense to you. Try to see it as we see it. no added bells and whistles, no unnecessary interpretations, see it for what it is and give him credit for writing exactly what he meant to write.

I don't know if he was trying to be satirical, he failed if he was.

 

I didn't say he'd created a 'scatter diagram' consciously, but to my mind that's a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.

 

Remember the context. Murphy was writing a response to Sunak's rambling, ill-defined and blatantly electioneering appeal to 'British Values.' from the priveleged platform of 10 Downing St.

 

It's obvious what Sunak was up to.  He was seeking, yet again, to blame others, to create scapegoats and to justify further attacks on Citizen's rights, especially around the right to peaceful protest.  And yet he couldn't even bring himself to condemn the words of Braverman, Anderson and other divisive figures in his own party and whom he himself appointed.

 

In the absence of any real definition of 'British' values, from a Tory PM, Murphy simply highlighted numerous traits and policies which are DEMONSTRABLY Tory values in an attempt to show what the Tories really represent. Admittedly a pretty wild response, but I'd argue borne out of exasperation. He joined a lot of dots which the UK electorate seem not to join.

It isn't difficult to discover Tory policy decisions, pronouncements etc., which bear out pretty much everything Murphy lists.

[DJ360 6,721]

On 3/2/2024 at 5:33 PM, Brew said:

As someone who sees dark forces at play and conspiracy theories I'm surprised you cannot see behind the Gaza protests. Do you truly believe they are spontaneous expressions of popular protests?

To my mind they are simply too big, too well organised and must cost far more than any protest movement of the modern era.

 

Frankly, in the last few weeks I've barely seen any coverage of protests. I watch BBC news several times a day plus occasional forays into ITV, CH4 and Sky. I'm pretty sure that if there was serious disorder on the streets..especially the streets of London, I'd have heard about it. I haven't.

 

Are the 'Palestine'/Gaza protests 'spontaneous'?  I doubt it, but then what protest is?  They are all organised to an extent, but being held in public places allows for all and sundry to join in if they wish.  I've no doubt that some will have 'extremist' ambitions, but there are plenty of laws in place under which extremists banners, slogans etc, can be challenged by the police. We don't need any more laws surrounding protest. I seem to recall you agreeing with that sentiment not so long ago.

 

Of course I throughly disapprove of and condemn intimidatory behaviour by protesters. Attempts to intimidate MPs by mass protests outside their constituency offices or private homes are absolutely out of order and anti democratic by definition.  However..they are also not new and it is dishonest of Sunak to claim otherwise.

[DJ360 6,721]

 

Finally returning to 'The Rise of the Far Right'

 

 

On 2/29/2024 at 5:55 PM, Brew said:

It's a shambles of half arsed rhetoric.

 

Ok, so we've got your standard blanket dismissal out of the way... What next?

 

On 2/29/2024 at 5:55 PM, Brew said:

The Truss/Bannon set is so far out I had to check if it's true, it is, and it's amazing they can spew this garbage with a straight face.

Bannon led her by the nose throughout cutting across her with leading questions and comments.  We should be grateful and count out blessings she was thrown out on her ear. I'm sure she needs professional help.

But it worries me more she was elected in the first place. 

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Clear collaboration between Tories and American Far Right Criminal Steve Bannon. It would be too simplistic just to dismiss Truss as a 'useful idiot', which she undoubtedly is.. because she has supporters here. I'm not sure of the legal stuff here but her statements about UK politics, Govt. and Civil Service on US TV are at least arguably subversive and seditious.

 

Let's just step back a bit. Truss's economic decisions during her brief disastrous tenure were straight out of the NeoCon playbook, which finds its clearest expression here in the nefarious activities of the 'Institute of Economic Affairs'.

 

As an aside, the IEA promotes itself as an 'Educational Charity', which, if you'll excuse my French, is blatant bullshit. There is no way on earth that such a secretive lobbying organisation, known for its associations with Oil, Tobacco, anti-environmental and general Far Right Corporate Interests, can in any real sense be viewed as a 'Charity'.  It's yet another example of the extreme Right using us all for it's own ends and even inviting us to pay for it.

The IEA reveals its true colours in the first paragraph of its 'manifesto', and then goes on to spend the rest of its website justifying itself and diverting proper challenge. 

 

From: https://iea.org.uk/

Quote

The IEA is an educational charity and free market think tank.

Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of the markets in solving economic and social problems.

 

All sounds fairly innocuous until you actually let what they say sink in.

 

Let me re-phrase it.

 

Quote

Our objective is to convince you that an unregulated free market and a compliant Parliament will make you better off, but we don't actually believe that claptrap any more than you do, so we have to spend lots of our anonymous donors' money on 'Research' to 'Educate'(.a.k.a. Lobbying) our useful idiots and our target Politicians into accepting that Black is White.

 

The IEA, is even more dishonestly named than the 'European Research Group' (ERG), which is not only emphatically NOT a 'research Group', but a faction within the Tory Party, which has been shown to have furthered its cause by the misappropriation MPs expenses.

 

https://leftfootforward.org/2021/08/here-are-the-tory-mps-who-are-paying-tax-payer-cash-to-the-european-research-group/

 

Enough for now. Lunch is calling.  I'll be back.

 

[Brew 5,409]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

'm pretty sure that if there was serious disorder on the streets..especially the streets of London, I'd have heard about it. I haven't.

 

Who said anything about disorder? My point is the size, scope and cost of the Gaza protest has a degree of  'professionalism' not seen at other such protests.

At least one of the leaders is known to have associations with Hamas which leas onto my point, failure to recognise  antisemitism as a driving force is naïve.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I seem to recall you agreeing with that sentiment not so long ago.

 

I did and i do. i even went to the protest in Nottingham  - the turn out was pathetic.

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Murphy simply highlighted numerous traits and policies which are DEMONSTRABLY Tory values in an attempt to show what the Tories really represent.

His rant on British Values is nonsense. What have a disagreement with EU green Deal got to do with being British? or speed limits, or proportional representation?  Sounds more like a list of his per peeves.

 

Exactly which Tory policy disparages or denigrates members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or Oxfam, or Libraries, or , or ,or ,or..............

Are the Tories supposed to dislike The National Trust because it was started by social reformers?

 

Surprisingly some i agree with but when he strays into the realms of fantasy with his metaphorical shotgun he rather loses credence with me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brew 5,409]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Our objective is to convince you that an unregulated free market and a compliant Parliament will make you better off, but we don't actually believe that claptrap any more than you do, so we have to spend lots of our anonymous donors' money on 'Research' to 'Educate'(.a.k.a. Lobbying) our useful idiots and our target Politicians into accepting that Black is White.

 

You're on a roll there Col with a good old fashioned far left rant and interpretation of what you yourself admitted is  a fairly innocuous mission statement.

 

It's perhaps worth pointing out membership fees are tax deductible.

 

And by contrast the latest Labour think tank, Labour Together, came up with this:

 

"Labour Together is a think tank offering bold ideas for Britain under a Labour government".

 

Which actually translates as "We don't publish what they are because we haven't actually thought of any yet, and we don't talk about Northern Ireland because we hope they just go away.

 

The Fabians:

 

We are a left-leaning think tank dedicated to new public policy and political ideas

We are a membership movement, active throughout Britain and open to everyone on the left

We are a democratically governed socialist society, a Labour affiliate and one of the party’s original founders

We champion and celebrate Fabianism, the belief that radical long-term goals are best advanced through empirical, practical, gradual reform views

We don’t have organisational policy, and instead embrace debate and difference

 

We don’t have organisational policy, in fact  we don't have much of anything really. We didn't really  mean the bit about debate and difference. it only applies to those far enough on the left who will agree with us. We  will brook no opposition to our aims and policies - the moment we have any.

We're also member's of Foundation for European Progressive Studies, but we don't talk about that.

Those who wish to celebrate Fabianism through gradual reform (a.k.a virtually non at all), are welcome to join us on the fence, we have plenty of room so long as you don't mention Blair , Brown or Corbyn.

 

Funding? half the shadow cabinet plus Starmer are members. lots of unions, a least five charities, (?) one big pharma company plus a couple of banks. 

[DJ360 6,721]

3 hours ago, Brew said:

failure to recognise  antisemitism as a driving force is naïve.

 

Who's failing to recognise AS? I'm sure there's an element of AS, in the protests, just as there's an element of anti Muslim reaction to the protests.  These things are never tidy. But..how do you separate that from genuine and widespread disgust at Israeli Govt. and IDF actions in Gaza?  We've been here before. Israel has a right to defend itself, not to exterminate the population of Gaza.

My reading is that Starmer is terrified of any hint of AS being pinned on him and Sunak is terrified of upsetting the US.

[DJ360 6,721]

3 hours ago, Brew said:

His rant on British Values is nonsense. What have a disagreement with EU green Deal got to do with being British? or speed limits, or proportional representation?  Sounds more like a list of his per peeves.

 

Exactly which Tory policy disparages or denigrates members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or Oxfam, or Libraries, or , or ,or ,or..............

Are the Tories supposed to dislike The National Trust because it was started by social reformers?

 

You are still missing the point. Sunak rambled on vaguely about ill defined British Values. In response and in the absence of any meaningful definitions by Sunak, Murphy clearly stated that he was going to use Tory policies and actions to seek some clarity on Tory Govt. values, and that's what he did. Surely it is reasonable to assume that Tory actions, policies and pronouncements echo their values?  If they don't, what are they playing at?

 

Libraries. A nice right wing paper this time. You'll have to look well down the page, but the Telegraph mentions Libraries as one of many Public Services set to suffer even more under this lot and at the hands of Hunt.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/05/britains-decrepit-public-services-cope-tax-cuts/

 

Also on LIbraries, from 2016.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35707956

Summary:

 

Quote

 

Almost 8,000 jobs in UK libraries have disappeared in six years, about a quarter of the overall total, an investigation by the BBC has revealed.

Over the same period, some 15,500 volunteers have been recruited and 343 libraries have closed, leading to fears over the future of the profession.

Children's author Alan Gibbons said the public library service faced the "greatest crisis in its history".

 

RSPB etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/02/tory-mps-dismiss-critical-rspb-campaign-as-marketing-strategy

 

A bit more complex and RSPB boss got a bit too angry, but Tory MPs are trying to get RSPB Charity status removed. Oddly, they aren't doing the same for the IEA.

 

I could go on and on but I hope you get the point.  There is Tory Policy and propaganda behind every organisation/entity Murphy lists.

 

[DJ360 6,721]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

You're on a roll there Col with a good old fashioned far left rant and interpretation of what you yourself admitted is  a fairly innocuous mission statement.

 

I said it sounds innocuous. That was my point..it's a serious distortion of their real objective (Not 'mission', which is another very deliberately chosen but innaccurate characterisation.)

2 hours ago, Brew said:

It's perhaps worth pointing out membership fees are tax deductible.

 

So what?

 

Here's the Wikipedia view of the IEA. Rather less edifying than their own 'saintly' propaganda.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Labour Together

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The Fabians:

 

What you are completely missing is that both of the above make no secret of their political affiliations and objectives, their methods, their members and especially their donors. They are openly political campaigning organisations.

 

The very fact that you can post...

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Funding? half the shadow cabinet plus Starmer are members. lots of unions, a least five charities, (?) one big pharma company plus a couple of banks. 

 

... confirms the difference.  Apart from a few 'officers', you can say virtually nothing about who are members, donors etc., of the IEA, and they do not admit to their lobbying activities, despite having been caught in the act.

[Brew 5,409]

39 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Who's failing to recognise AS?

 

Most media for fear of the backlash.

 

Who's claiming extermination? Who is using the highly emotive term genocide?... well that would Hamas, and Hezbollah (who are quietly hoping the IDF destroy Hamas and they can fill the power vacuum),. Hamas the people who openly declare they want Israel wiped of the map, the ones who started this mess. And yet one picture of an old lady crying in the ruin of her and it's the fault of the jews. 

This really can be solved very easily. All the authorise in Gaza need to is extradite those responsible and let the law take it's course. show the world a civilised Palestine.

 

 

4 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

There is Tory Policy and propaganda behind every organisation/entity Murphy lists.

 

 

Perhaps Mr RSPB shouldn't mix charity with political donations i.e to the Fabians. I imagine £13000+ would buy a lot of bird boxes.  I imagine it's the same story for all the other charities . Do you suppose the people who give to charity realise and agree to their money  being used for political purpose's?

I suppose Murphy missed or chose to ignore these little factoids. but hey it's only an old British value gone down the tubes for political gain.

 

You're not too sure about the benefits of independent schools being of benefit to society and therefore not qualified for charity status, but expect HMG to turn a blind eye to (several), recognised charities financing political organisations...

 

In the grand scheme of things libraries have had their day and have little real support for the public. It's a nice pipe dream to sit in a quiet space and read or find information, but they are expensive, not easily accessed and restricted by opening hours. Some here are no doubt regular users but what I'm reasonably sure it's a very small percentage. In todays hard times it's a pity but I'd be inclined to close those with least patronage and look to an online service.

[Brew 5,409]

7 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

What you are completely missing is that both of the above make no secret of their political affiliations and objectives, their methods, their members and especially their donors.

 

And your missing my point they all use the ambiguous corporate speak. High level language that doesn't actually say anything, Corbyn was a master. 

--

A mission statement (a bit out of fashion now days) is just that, you can't say it's called a mission  but it isn't really, if they say it is then that's exactly what it is and arguing semantics won't change it.

 

Tax deductible members fees are an attraction to all parties and gives the recipient not only the fee but also a tax rebate, nothing untoward there