Anything Political

[MargieH 7,614]

Jill, if four legs are good, centipedes et al must be outstandingly good..

I think we’re getting a bit too deep here  I’m stopping now !

[DJ360 6,738]

Jim, It's pretty obvious that many people failed to pick up on..or at least act upon Savile's  activities. I can honestly say I always found him creepy, and about as sincere as Hughie Green, even as far back as his performance of his record 'Ahab the Arab' back in the early 1960's, but knew nothing concrete until the stories started seeping out much later.

I'm sure many better informed people, especially those who appear to have given him a free pass to gain access to hospital patients in the middle of the night.. are equally, if not more culpable.

 

As I read it, the report you quote refers rather vaguely to some missed opportunity, which he at least acknowledges.

[Brew 5,429]

It's a very long report, and I chose a couple of salient points to illustrate how we don't know all the facts.

Fair play, he apologised, but the whole report raises awkward questions about how the CPS works. As I understand it, the test of credible witnesses was something of a sticking point, but that does presuppose some bugger knew what was going on.

I don't doubt Starmer's version, but...

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

Apropos nothing at all, the Chair of the select committee that took evidence from Starmer about the failings in Rochdale was Keith Vaz, a man who himself has very dubious standards.

 

As for Boris, we were talking not long ago about giving the people a bone to chew while there are far more serious things happening just out of sight. Partygate was dying on the front pages and something of a diversion was needed, but I may be a little too cynical

[DJ360 6,738]

I doubt it is possible to be too cynical about either this Govt. or the press which largely supports it.

 

 

[benjamin1945 16,227]

Invade? never......i dont think.... do you?

[Brew 5,429]

Carried from the Ukraine topic...

 

Do we really want another conspiracy theory?

Bullough gives a very believable version of London Money laundering. But offers only rumour, conjecture and innuendo as proof. A syllogism  that only works if we accept the assumptions to be true.

There are thousands of shell companies registered in London and probably  more in New York and Tokyo, but Simply pointing a finger at them and insinuating they're tied to the Kremlin is hardly proof.

Left-wingers will no doubt accept what he says as gospel, some, will be a little more circumspect.

 

He points to the Azerbaijani case in the high court as proof of corruption, fine, but if the authorities, as he claims. are doing nothing... how did she get there?

There is corruption in the city, just as there is in every financial centre. The Leeson case, the Ponzi scheme, the LIBOR scandal and the sub-prime 2008 crash, all point to it, there is nothing new in that, nor any Russian in sight.

[DJ360 6,738]

The difference being that it is obvious that the Russian 'Oligarchs' only became such with the collusion and approval of the Russian Govt.  Do you really think that an arse like Putin would allow anyone in Russia to accumulate wealth and power if it was not to his benefit?

 

36 minutes ago, Brew said:

There are thousands of shell companies registered in London and probably  more in New York and Tokyo, but Simply pointing a finger at them and insinuating they're tied to the Kremlin is hardly proof.

 

Bullough clearly states that not all shell Co's are 'bent', or tied to the Kremlin.

 

Why are you so reluctant to accept the obvious in relation to Russian Dirty Money?

You quote the Law.. but don't seem to consider that, to quote Mr Micawber.. 'the Law is a Ass..'

[Brew 5,429]

An ass it may be but unless we live by it, it we live in a world of chaos and the one with the biggest stick wins.

 

Why am I reluctant, why would I accept something just because others say it and accept it as true? What is so obvious?

There is dirty money flying about of that I have no doubt, but why is there so little evidence? The writer may believe what he says, he may even be right, but prove it! Saying the sky is green don't make it so.

The Russian billionaires it is claimed became rich by foul means, long before Putin stuck his oar in by the way, but crooked by who's rules?

We judge by our rules and sense of fair play, not theirs. Consider our understanding of Russian law, do we really know what they did was illegal?

Like Google and others paying tax, much maligned and condemned, but are they crooks, or just obeying the law?

 

To suggest the police etc. are doing nothing is clearly unfair

[Brew 5,429]

 

Col said:

"Also in the background to Ukraine, this article fleshes out the role of Johnson and the Tories as, at best naive and at worst treasonous in their actions and associations".

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/08/white-flag-boris-johnson-and-the-appeasement-of-vladimir-putin/

 

It seems to me that publications like ByIine. Open democracy, Insight etc. are all much of a muchness. All claim to be furthering high quality investigative journalism yet are universally left wing and rely on apophenia to publish nothing but negativity and attacks on the Tories.  They didn't really doctor the photographs to make them look as demonic as possible.... did they?

 

Dragging the UK into a socialist government led by a Trotskyite pacifist would do much to further Russian interests in Europe... but then again I may be seeing patterns that don't exist.

[Rob.L 1,091]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Dragging the UK into a socialist government led by a Trotskyite pacifist would do much to further Russian interests in Europe... but then again I may be seeing patterns that don't exist.

Are you saying that Keir Starmer is a “Trotskyite pacifist”? Or indeed a socialist? You must be seeing something that others can’t, including most of Corbyn’s fan base who view him as a “red Tory”

 

As for furthering Russian interests, the current government has done far more than anyone to help in that respect by legitimising Putin’s oligarchs - including putting one into the House of Lords despite his connections to Putin and to the KGB.

[Brew 5,429]

Did I mention Starmer?

 

1 hour ago, Rob.L said:

As for furthering Russian interests, the current government has done far more than anyone to help in that respect by legitimising Putin’s oligarchs

 

And your proof for the current glut of Russophobia is?... Apart from guilt by association.

 

The peer?

Do you mean Lebedev? The man who got into an argument on live TV and punched a guy's lights out, over anti-corruption.

The same man who risks 7 years jail if he goes back for getting on the wrong side of Putin. The man who has given millions to charity? Is that the man you want to tar with the same brush as Lloyd George, Joseph Kagan and others.? Except in their case there was clear corruption, Your case against Lebedev is?

[Rob.L 1,091]

You said “Dragging the UK into a socialist government led by a Trotskyite pacifist”.

 

Who is the leader of the Labour Party?

[Brew 5,429]

Your'e drawing conclusions, wrongly, in this case.  Think of the topics under discussion, think of Russians influencing elections and view the hypotheses in global, not parochial terms.

 

The articles mentioned are written by fairly hard left writers who it would seem want the Tories to fall. Should that happen, and a militant group seize control of the Labour party, as Militant Tendency once did, they're hardly likely to put a voiceless milksop like Starmer in charge.

 

Is it possible? M15 thought this lot a significant subversive threat:

 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/militant-tendency-mi5/

 

Then again I did add the codicil I may be seeing monsters under the bed.

[Rob.L 1,091]

Ifs, and buts, and maybes, linked by quite tenuous attempts to paint Labour as at risk of being taken over by Militant Tendency. 

 

Starmer has done a lot of work behind the scenes to remove any possible influence the hard left have on the Labour Party.

 

As regards Russian influence on elections, you might want to have a read of the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. The same report that has been ignored by the government.

 

https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CCS207_CCS0221966010-001_Russia-Report-v02-Web_Accessible.pdf

 

And as you mentioned MI5, it might be worth considering that the security services advised very strongly against putting Lebedev in the House of Lords, but were overruled by Johnson.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnsons-russian-crony-evgeny-lebedev-got-peerage-after-spies-dropped-warning-3dp6sw29x

 

[DJ360 6,738]

Jim, I can understand your naturally 'small c' conservatism, but I'm increasingly struggling with your determination to excuse the Tories for their obvious and verifiable favouring of Russian money in recent years.  As I've always said..money, from whatever source, is and always has been the major infuence on Tories.

[siddha 825]

Rob.L  I appreciate you attempt to introduce some balance to what is so often a skewed discussion in this thread. Keep it up

I generally enjoy reading all contributions and having my worst fears confirmed. Not that this forum is necessarily representative .............

Were you by any chance educated at a school on Northville Street in the 50s?

[Rob.L 1,091]

6 hours ago, siddha said:

Were you by any chance educated at a school on Northville Street in the 50s?

Defintely not me. I know we start school early in this country, but I wasn’t  born until 1956!

[Brew 5,429]

14 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Jim, I can understand your naturally 'small c' conservatism, but I'm increasingly struggling with your determination to excuse the Tories for their obvious and verifiable favouring of Russian money in recent years.  As I've always said..money, from whatever source, is and always has been the major infuence on Tories.

Col, money always has and always will be a major influence on politics regardless, until we wake up and change the rules.

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

Let's take a step back. I did not mention Starmer or the present set up of weak and weedy opposition.

Nor have I denied Russian donations, it is after all declared and documented. What I do not know, and nor do any of us here, is how much influence it has had,if any, or if there is an ulterior motive behind them.

We can harbour suspicions, make assumptions and pander to the hoi polloi populist memes but actual verifiable information of corruption, that has not been dealt with by the appropriate authority, I’ve yet to see.

 

Col mentioned an article by Oliver Bullough on ‘dirty money’.

This was Bullough's answer when questioned by the Foreign Affairs committee about where the money went:

 

“I tried my best – I mentioned property, private schools, luxury goods – but I think she and I both knew I’d fluffed it. I should have brought along specific examples, with times and dates and names. The embarrassing truth is that, although I have written about Russia and its neighbours for two decades, during which I have increasingly specialised in analysing corruption, it had never really occurred to me to ascertain precisely how much stolen Russian money had found a home in the UK, or to chart exactly where it had ended up”.

 

A respected investigative  journalist, noted for his anti-Russian invective and it never occurred to him to check his facts? Seriously? So what exactly was the information he based his articles on, rumour and hearsay?

 

The point I’m making is how do we know that which is true and that which just an ill-founded opinion?

People keep saying ‘obviously’, and I’ve yet to see anything obvious.

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

The article about Dugin demonstrated plans for destabilising Europe and most countries around the world. Again, I have no idea if Putin is a follower or if it forms any part of the present situation.

 

But it calls for various ways of upsetting the status quo, false and fallacious articles, rumour, conjecture, conspiracy theories etc. Marginalising the UK has already happened.

We may disparage and dismiss it as the raving of someone who needs professional help, but we do so at our peril.

 

Tell a lie and repeat it often enough and people will come to accept it as true.

 

Now with that in mind, and in a flight of fancy, I suggested the likes of openDemocracy, Byline and Insignia with their never ending left wing rants could be, NOT ARE, an example of stirring unrest and dissatisfaction among the hard of thinking.

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

Rob, I may be a little older than you and actually remember the days when Militants infiltrated Labour. At one point they had more employees than the Labour Party itself.

You pin your faith on Starmers actions to prevent it, but they are only a little different to the rules in the 60s before Militant managed to have them rescinded. And it was Kinnock who did the heavy lifting to break their hold.

 

To imagine something similar could not happen again is naïve.

 

The report you quote makes it quite clear the influx of money started around 1994, it grew unchecked from the time Putin came to power, 1999 - I wonder who was PM then?

 

 

[DJ360 6,738]

 

[DJ360 6,738]

 

[Brew 5,429]

57 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Twitter- Jones

Nah, read the first paragraph... not for me. Far too fond of attacking the man, not the policy or actions, he reads like a name calling playground bully. Some will agree and support him I suppose...

 

Pogrund's mixture of fact and rumour is better.

[DJ360 6,738]

You need to read as much as you can thoughit's noteasy if you aren't subscribed to Twitter, which I'm not. Johnson has been up to his neck in Russian money with links to Putin since he was London Mayor.

This might have been just about tolerable in the brief period after the collapse of the USSR when there was some possibility of Russia becoming democratic, but Putin soon put a stop to that.

In earlier times, when Treason was whatever the Monarch said it was, I've little doubt that Johnson would be accused of treason, though since we aren't technically at war with Russia, that's unlikely now.

[Brew 5,429]

Sorry Col, but no, and frankly I'm somewhat surprised you offer Twitter diatribes as evidence. Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok etc have no credible checks or balances, it seems to me anyone can say what they like, including lies and libels with impunity.

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

You say Johnson has been 'up to his neck in it' since he was mayor.

 

Following a report by Transparency International entitled ‘Corruption on your doorstep – How corrupt capital is used to buy property in the UK’.

 

"Boris Johnson has called for a huge tax rise to stop foreigners using the London housing market to launder money".

 

Johnson said:

 

“I’m sure in many cases you’re looking at dirty money of one kind or another.

“You’re certainly right to think that you’ve got loads and loads of international despots and criminal rings who are using phoney companies to buy real estate as a way of getting security.

“Many of these people are simply paying that tax rather than revealing their identity.

“Well, if they want to pay for the luxury of anonymity, let them pay through the nose. Whack it up.”

 

This was in 2015 when he was London Mayor, not PM, and strange to say the Twitter pundits seem to have missed it, forgotten it or simply ignored it. Never let the truth stand in the way of a good headline...

 

But:

Naomi Heaton, chief executive of property buying fund London Central Portfolio, accused Transparency International of “lies, damned lies” and an illustration of “how sick our society has become”.

She said: “The desire to create scapegoats, dissension, envy and hatred seems to have no limits.

"Where are the old fashioned values of rational thought and proven assumptions? It is so much simpler nowadays to make a controversial assertion – you do not even need to back it up. Pretty similar to the way the election campaigns are being run at the moment."  There's more to it, mostly facts and figures.

 

The Overseas Company Ownership database for England and Wales says only four of 94,000 properties where the registered legal owner is an overseas company, are listed as being owned by Russian companies.

 

 

There is much, much more in a similar vein, so who do we believe? Some bucket mouth on Twitter cherry-picking items to bolster his own ego, knowing there is little likelihood of being challenged by adoring acolytes who think he's 'telling it like it is',  or reputable sources?

[DJ360 6,738]

Plus the timing of this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...er-lebedev-without-security-after-nato-summit

"Boris Johnson met an ex-KGB agent during a highly controversial trip to attend a party two days after attending a high-level Nato summit that focused on Russia, the Observer can reveal … The two met in Italy in April 2018, a month after the attack using the novichok nerve agent in Salisbury, when Johnson, in what appears to be a highly unusual break with protocol, apparently left behind his personal security detail and flew to a lavish party at a palazzo near Perugia hosted by Lebedev’s son Evgeny."

Which was the same April party as described in the Byline Times. And the same one as https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/boris-johnson-security-evgeny-lebedev-perugia-party

 

 

[DJ360 6,738]