Blair Faced Cheek

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anyone else think the ******** wants put on trial? I reckon he is like Nathan Jessop in a Few Good Men (see Rolls passim). He wants the world to know that he was right, thank him and go quietly on his way.

Or is he just barking mad?

[Peevemor]

Anyone else think the ******** wants put on trial? I reckon he is like Nathan Jessop in a Few Good Men (see Rolls passim). He wants the world to know that he was right, thank him and go quietly on his way.

Or is he just barking mad?

I've always said, he's a charicature of Alan *******. :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've always said, he's a charicature of Alan *******. :agree:

Aye he's a right chunt.

[Peevemor]

Aye he's a right chunt.

:greengrin

[The Green Goblin]

He deserves absolutely everything that`s coming to him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-wheatcroft-plank-by-plank-blairs-case-collapses-1838789.html


GG

[anon1]

Tony Bliar rightly deserves to be put on trial for war crimes / crimes against humanity.

As was rightly raised by Menzies Campbell.. would the commons have voted to go to war had they known there were actually NO WMD's - which we all knew anyway!

[hibsbollah]

The degree to which I hate this man (who I actually voted for in 1997:boo hoo:) actually worries me. I would probably go for a pint in celebration if someone shot him.

[GhostofBolivar]

I despise that mother****er.

He prostituted his party and it's roots, not out of some ideological shift or because he genuinely believed it was a better way, but because the old way hadn't delivered power. He willingly got into bed with greed, avarice and the worst aspects of capitalist culture. He's given us one of the most authoritarian governments in memory and, on top of that, one which has no respect for the rule of law. And when it all went wrong The government stuck their collective head in the sand and hoped it'd all go away.

He led us into two colonialist wars, killing, torturing and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of innocent people. He's destroyed everything that he proclaimed they stood for in 1997 - justice, human rights, "an ethical dimension." He's shown himself to be as immoral and despicable; and held himself to be as above the law and the will of the people as any tyrant or dictator. He prostrated himself before the credo that might is right and the belief that they can do to you anything you can't stop them from doing.

And through it all, after all the lies and deceit, his response has been that history will prove him right if we just trust him. That our children's future, the one he has made inestimably more unstable, will thank him for his hard decisions and the brave new world he created.

Well **** him.

Parliament gave Charles I a trial far fairer than those Charles gave his opponents and enemies. If there was any justice - or even if history just had a sense of poetic rythym - Blair, Brown Campbell, Straw, Short and the rest of them would find themselves in the Hague on war crimes charges. If they got there via one of the CIA's black sites that'd be all the better.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I despise that mother****er.

He prostituted his party and it's roots, not out of some ideological shift or because he genuinely believed it was a better way, but because the old way hadn't delivered power. He willingly got into bed with greed, avarice and the worst aspects of capitalist culture. He's given us one of the most authoritarian governments in memory and, on top of that, one which has no respect for the rule of law. And when it all went wrong The government stuck their collective head in the sand and hoped it'd all go away.

He led us into two colonialist wars, killing, torturing and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of innocent people. He's destroyed everything that he proclaimed they stood for in 1997 - justice, human rights, "an ethical dimension." He's shown himself to be as immoral and despicable; and held himself to be as above the law and the will of the people as any tyrant or dictator. He prostrated himself before the credo that might is right and the belief that they can do to you anything you can't stop them from doing.

And through it all, after all the lies and deceit, his response has been that history will prove him right if we just trust him. That our children's future, the one he has made inestimably more unstable, will thank him for his hard decisions and the brave new world he created.

Well **** him.

Parliament gave Charles I a trial far fairer than those Charles gave his opponents and enemies. If there was any justice - or even if history just had a sense of poetic rythym - Blair, Brown Campbell, Straw, Short and the rest of them would find themselves in the Hague on war crimes charges. If they got there via one of the CIA's black sites that'd be all the better.

Orwellian, really. ie just seeking power for its own sake, rather than for any particular cause (whether you happen to agree with it or not). Every decision taken - including Iraq - through the prism of "will this strengthen or weaken my position of power?". Triangulation gone mad.

[steakbake]

The degree to which I hate this man (who I actually voted for in 1997:boo hoo:) actually worries me. I would probably go for a pint in celebration if someone shot him.

Yes, me too. I was delighted when he won in 1997 and knocked many doors for him during the campaign. I've sometimes wondered what I would do if I actually met him (a very unlikely, but not impossible scenario).

I wonder what Gordon Brown views were while Tony took us to war on a false prospectus? It's not an unreasonable question, I don't think. They worked extremely closely together.

I'd be happy to join you for that pint.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I was quite young at the time we invaded Iraq, and as such can't exactly remember the finer details of the events leading to war.

I'm aware that Tony Bliar had "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and that it was this evidence that persuaded parliament to support the war.

We all know the evidence never existed, so how exactly did he convince parliament to support the war with fabricated evidence?

[Betty Boop]

I was quite young at the time we invaded Iraq, and as such can't exactly remember the finer details of the events leading to war.

I'm aware that Tony Bliar had "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and that it was this evidence that persuaded parliament to support the war.

We all know the evidence never existed, so how exactly did he convince parliament to support the war with fabricated evidence?

The Government published the infamous "dodgy dossier", which was used to outline the threat posed by WMD, and included the 45 minute claim. It was later found that some of the evidence had been copied from a 10 year old student thesis. I remember Robin Cook's resignation speech, when he left the cabinet, one of the finest ever.


http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq01.html

[steakbake]

The Government published the infamous "dodgy dossier", which was used to outline the threat posed by WMD, and included the 45 minute claim. It was later found that some of the evidence had been copied from a 10 year old student thesis. I remember Robin Cook's resignation speech, when he left the cabinet, one of the finest ever.


http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq01.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7345986942222242060#

[GlesgaeHibby]

The Government published the infamous "dodgy dossier", which was used to outline the threat posed by WMD, and included the 45 minute claim. It was later found that some of the evidence had been copied from a 10 year old student thesis. I remember Robin Cook's resignation speech, when he left the cabinet, one of the finest ever.


http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq01.html

Thanks for that, interesting reading. I remember at the time thinking it was crazy given that the UK and US had armed Saddam during the 80s Iran/Iraq war.

I just watched Robin Cooks speech on Youtube, a fine fine speech, yet the majority of parliament still voted in favour of War?

Surely if every MP had scrutinised the evidence presented they would have realised it was bogus, given the stance of NATO, EU and UN on this?
They are not entirely blameless in this IMO, although Tony Blair deserves clear punishment for misleading parliament and the British people to pursue his own agenda.

[Betty Boop]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7345986942222242060#

How right was he? His estimation of the conflict was spot on IMO. :boo hoo:

[Phil D. Rolls]

They are not entirely blameless in this IMO, although Tony Blair deserves clear punishment for misleading parliament and the British people to pursue his own agenda.

He'd have been lynched in any other country by now. But the British public go on moaning about the weather, bloody immigrants and Simon Cowell's comments on last night's X Factor.

If Blair was to lie to me again, I swear I'd do time!!

[GlesgaeHibby]

He'd have been lynched in any other country by now. But the British public go on moaning about the weather, bloody immigrants and Simon Cowell's comments on last night's X Factor.

If Blair was to lie to me again, I swear I'd do time!!

Says it all really. We're (as a society) more interested in obsessive following of ******** celebrities and gossip than real issues. It's pretty pathetic.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Says it all really. We're (as a society) more interested in obsessive following of ******** celebrities and gossip than real issues. It's pretty pathetic.

Bread and circuses. :agree:

[The Green Goblin]

The only regret I have about Blair being hung out to dry for his crimes is the fact that G W Bush will remain safely immune from having to answer for his crimes too.

GG

[Phil D. Rolls]

The only regret I have about Blair being hung out to dry for his crimes is the fact that G W Bush will remain safely immune from having to answer for his crimes too.

GG

All we can do is deal with our own. Worrying what the Americans think is how this whole mess started.

[(((Fergus)))]

Bread and circuses. :agree:

Pies and Hibernian?

[The Green Goblin]

All we can do is deal with our own. Worrying what the Americans think is how this whole mess started.


Well, it looks like `we` may now not even get that chance:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/untouchable-blair-to-give-iraq-war-evidence-in-secret-1839289.html


GG

[Phil D. Rolls]

Well, it looks like `we` may now not even get that chance:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/untouchable-blair-to-give-iraq-war-evidence-in-secret-1839289.html


GG

Brown can kiss second place goodbye. What does Blair have on him?

[The Green Goblin]

Brown can kiss second place goodbye. What does Blair have on him?

I`d have thought they had plenty on each other, after all these years, but let`s face it, Brown is the king of hopelessly deciding on the wrong thing. Whatever he might have on Blair, he`d be sure to have no idea how to use it on him.

What we need now is a whistleblower from inside the enquiry who dishes the dirt hook, line and sinker. Fat chance though....

GG

[GlesgaeHibby]

Well, it looks like `we` may now not even get that chance:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/untouchable-blair-to-give-iraq-war-evidence-in-secret-1839289.html


GG

Surely we as voters in a democracy have the right to hear the findings of this inquiry given that it was our leader, democratically elected to represent us that made the decision to go to war, on our behalf.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Surely we as voters in a democracy have the right to hear the findings of this inquiry given that it was our leader, democratically elected to represent us that made the decision to go to war, on our behalf.

It makes no odds, Blair said he would have made the same decision regardless of the evidence. The whole principle that you use facts to make a decision is no invalid. Instead you use facts (or not as may be) to justify a decision.

So even if we did have the right to hear what has been going on, it seems that is something that they can take away whenever it suits them. Blair is making a laughing stock of the people of this country.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The Italians sure know how to respond to their vicious and corrupt leaders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8410946.stm

Tee-hee-hee! That's been long coming.

[steakbake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j8nRHZXM6I&feature=related

Had it not been for the Iraq War, we wouldn't have this bit of genius.

[Part/Time Supporter]

I was quite young at the time we invaded Iraq, and as such can't exactly remember the finer details of the events leading to war.

I'm aware that Tony Bliar had "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction and that it was this evidence that persuaded parliament to support the war.

We all know the evidence never existed, so how exactly did he convince parliament to support the war with fabricated evidence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8409526.stm

Iraq had (and used) WMD in the 1980s and still had the systems well into the 1990s, hence the weapons inspection program and sanctions regime. The inspectors were kicked out by the Saddam regime in 1998, which led to air strikes by NATO; Clinton was criticised at the time for allegedly doing this to distract from the Lewinsky nonsense.

The problem caused by this is that none of the western powers had accurate intelligence about what Iraq had or was doing after 1998. Basically they just assumed that the Iraqi capability was at least as strong as in 1998, although there was no actual evidence to support this.

[Woody1985]

Well, it looks like `we` may now not even get that chance:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/untouchable-blair-to-give-iraq-war-evidence-in-secret-1839289.html


GG

Someone said on another thread recently that they thought he would do it behind closed doors! What a joke.

I wonder if the still have the room available where they hung Saddam.

[One Day Soon]

I disagree with about 75%, at least, of what's been posted so far on this thread.

What if anything would you guys have done about Saddam?

[Woody1985]

I disagree with about 75%, at least, of what's been posted so far on this thread.

What if anything would you guys have done about Saddam?

What would you have done? And why? Especially if he posed no issue, I suspect it was mainly to massage Bushs' ego from both an American and British point of view.

One thing about the Iraq oil theory. If we went to Iraq for the oil, has it had any impact on our prices and supply?

[One Day Soon]

What would you have done? And why? Especially if he posed no issue, I suspect it was mainly to massage Bushs' ego from both an American and British point of view.

One thing about the Iraq oil theory. If we went to Iraq for the oil, has it had any impact on our prices and supply?

You have answered my question with a question. So, I'll show you mine if you show me yours. What would you have done? I think we can safely dispose of the notion that he posed no issue - Kuwait, Iran, Israel and a vast volume of his own country's citizens attest to that.

This is international politics, the Middle East, a dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism all rolled together so there are no easy answers.

I don't buy the Iraq oil theory for a second. If that was what was wanted it would have been a lot cheaper and simpler to just go in and buy it. Whatever else this was about, it wasn't about oil.

[Woody1985]

You have answered my question with a question. So, I'll show you mine if you show me yours. What would you have done? I think we can safely dispose of the notion that he posed no issue - Kuwait, Iran, Israel and a vast volume of his own country's citizens attest to that.

This is international politics, the Middle East, a dictatorship and Islamic fundamentalism all rolled together so there are no easy answers.

I don't buy the Iraq oil theory for a second. If that was what was wanted it would have been a lot cheaper and simpler to just go in and buy it. Whatever else this was about, it wasn't about oil.

I'm not convinced I would have attmpted to do anything given that the supposed intelligence related to there being no involvement from Iraq for 9/11 it seemed an odd choice.

I think there may have been an issue with his sons as when he as out of the picture but that view is largely based on influence from the media so could be utter balls!

Perhaps it was about a strategic position, specifically next to Iran and or others? Perhaps it was Bush going back to sort of say '**** you all' for the first time round. Whatever the reason, I'm sure we'll never know.

I would like to see someone from Britain or America tried for war crimes but can't see it happening.

A question on that though, given our 'position' in world standings could having a former PM tried on war crimes be to the future detriment of the country?

If and when a time comes when there is another war (excluding Afghanistan) on our shores or elsewhere and there is evidence with even the slightest doubt that we will be attacked I suspect the PM at the time will err on the side of caution. That's just a thought off the top of my head so don't know if there has been a precedent set for that type of thing before.

I think in other countries with leaders that have been in a similar situation try to stay out of world politics whereas we storm about like the hard mans pussy mate who is wide with everyone cos he thinks his mate will sort them out, only to be told the STFU cos he shouldn't have been a cock in the first place.

Does anyone think that America would stand in for us if we declared was on someone, anyone tomorrow? I don't.

[One Day Soon]

I'm not convinced I would have attmpted to do anything given that the supposed intelligence related to there being no involvement from Iraq for 9/11 it seemed an odd choice.

I think there may have been an issue with his sons as when he as out of the picture but that view is largely based on influence from the media so could be utter balls!

Perhaps it was about a strategic position, specifically next to Iran and or others? Perhaps it was Bush going back to sort of say '**** you all' for the first time round. Whatever the reason, I'm sure we'll never know.

I would like to see someone from Britain or America tried for war crimes but can't see it happening.

A question on that though, given our 'position' in world standings could having a former PM tried on war crimes be to the future detriment of the country?

If and when a time comes when there is another war (excluding Afghanistan) on our shores or elsewhere and there is evidence with even the slightest doubt that we will be attacked I suspect the PM at the time will err on the side of caution. That's just a thought off the top of my head so don't know if there has been a precedent set for that type of thing before.

I think in other countries with leaders that have been in a similar situation try to stay out of world politics whereas we storm about like the hard mans pussy mate who is wide with everyone cos he thinks his mate will sort them out, only to be told the STFU cos he shouldn't have been a cock in the first place.

Does anyone think that America would stand in for us if we declared was on someone, anyone tomorrow? I don't.

There's a lot to address here but I will stick for the moment to just this. If the US had not been giving us a lot of below the line backing at the time of the Falklands conflict - regardless of whether you think we should have gotten into that or not - we would have had our backsides kicked all over the place. That saved a very large number of British servicemen's lives.

If you don't think our relationship with the US is a two way street you are very much mistaken.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Crikey, there's still one person in the world who thinks invading Iraq was a wise and moral move.

[hibsbollah]

Crikey, there's still one person in the world who thinks invading Iraq was a wise and moral move.

Nope, Melanie Phillips is a fan as well that makes two:agree:

[Mon Dieu4]

Nope, Melanie Phillips is a fan as well that makes two:agree:

3 :agree:

[hibsbollah]

3 :agree:

Fergus said that?:greengrin

[Mon Dieu4]

Fergus said that?:greengrin

Yeah he fell out with the Iraqi's when he worked in a Combine Harvester Factory in Fallujah :agree:

[IndieHibby]

3 :agree:

Erm.....4 :tin hat:

[GlesgaeHibby]

I disagree with about 75%, at least, of what's been posted so far on this thread.

What if anything would you guys have done about Saddam?

That shouldn't have even been an issue if the Americans (led by George Bush Snr) had taken Saddam out in 1991 during the gulf war, which they should have.

[--------]

I`d have thought they had plenty on each other, after all these years, but let`s face it, Brown is the king of hopelessly deciding on the wrong thing. Whatever he might have on Blair, he`d be sure to have no idea how to use it on him.

What we need now is a whistleblower from inside the enquiry who dishes the dirt hook, line and sinker. Fat chance though....

GG


DORA and the Official Secrets Act, national security and Don't Rock the Boat.

Won't happen.

[Betty Boop]

Tony Blair used “deceit” to persuade parliament and the British people to support war in Iraq, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said today.

In an article in the Times, Macdonald attacked Blair for engaging in “alarming subterfuge”, for displaying “sycophancy” towards George Bush and for refusing to accept that his decisions were wrong.

Macdonald’s comments about Blair’s decision to go to war are more critical than anything that has been said so far by any of the senior civil servants who worked in Whitehall when Blair was prime minister.

Macdonald was DPP from 2003 until 2008 and he now practises law from Matrix Chambers, where Blair’s barrister wife, Cherie, is also based.

In his article Macdonald highlighted a remark Blair made in an interview broadcast yesterday about supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein regardless of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to explain why he thought the former prime minister was guilty of deceit.

But Macdonald also expressed concerns about the Iraq inquiry, suggesting that some of its questioning so far had been “unchallenging” and that Sir John Chilcot and his team would be held in “contempt” if they failed to uncover the truth about the war.

Macdonald wrote: “The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions, and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage.

“It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner, George Bush, and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible.”

‘Sycophant’ Tony Blair used deceit to justify Iraq war, says former director of public prosecutions | Politics | guardian.co.uk.

[--------]

There's a lot to address here but I will stick for the moment to just this. If the US had not been giving us a lot of below the line backing at the time of the Falklands conflict - regardless of whether you think we should have gotten into that or not - we would have had our backsides kicked all over the place. That saved a very large number of British servicemen's lives.

If you don't think our relationship with the US is a two way street you are very much mistaken.


Hi, George W.

Time on your hands since the election, huh? :devil:

[GhostofBolivar]

There's a lot to address here but I will stick for the moment to just this. If the US had not been giving us a lot of below the line backing at the time of the Falklands conflict - regardless of whether you think we should have gotten into that or not - we would have had our backsides kicked all over the place. That saved a very large number of British servicemen's lives.

If you don't think our relationship with the US is a two way street you are very much mistaken.

We got a lot of help from Pinochet during the Falklands too...

[--------]

We got a lot of help from Pinochet during the Falklands too...


Sound chap, old Pinochet. Got a soft spot for him - up in the peat on the moors around Longriggend....

if Dante's right, and I remember my 'Inferno' correctly, right now he's up to his neck in a river of boiling blood in the Seventh Circle.

And Bliar's heading for the 5th level of the Eighth Circle - something to do with boiling tar and demons tearing at you with their claws all the time.

And from what I can make out, Berlusconi qualifies for all nine circles at once - they'll have to share him round. Still, he's always wanted to be a really popular chap; he'll probably enjoy it....

:devil:

[Phil D. Rolls]

We got a lot of help from Pinochet during the Falklands too...

What did he do, give advice on building a stadium in Port Stanley?

[steakbake]

We got a lot of help from Pinochet during the Falklands too...

Malvinas :wink:

Thatcher owed Pinochet a debt. Our government conveniently forgot about him throwing his opponents out of helicopters in order to ensure there were air bases to fly from to attack Argentine positions.

[(((Fergus)))]

Yeah he fell out with the Iraqi's when he worked in a Combine Harvester Factory in Fallujah :agree:

very good :faf:

[khib70]

Hi, George W.

Time on your hands since the election, huh? :devil:
Is that really the best response you can come up with to a perfectly valid point? The arrogant contempt you seem to have (and you're not the only one) for anyone who dares to contradict your predictable and frankly boring anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-Western, cliche compendium is all too familiar to anyone subjected to more than one page of the "Guardian".

Anyone who suggests that America has ever done anything not totally evil must be George W in disguise:yawn:

And as for Pinochet. Thankfully, he's no longer in charge in Chile. But whoever had been in charge at the time of the Falklands - even the sainted Salvador Allende - would have assisted the UK in the Falklands. Chile's long standing border disputes and general dislike of Argentina would have seen to that. Indeed, a left wing Chilean government, would have been more likely to support the UK against a fascist military junta. More likely, I suspect, than a lot of people on this board are ever likely to support the UK on anything.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Is that really the best response you can come up with to a perfectly valid point? The arrogant contempt you seem to have (and you're not the only one) for anyone who dares to contradict your predictable and frankly boring anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-Western, cliche compendium is all too familiar to anyone subjected to more than one page of the "Guardian".

Ha! The unknowing irony is hilarious.

[khib70]

:agree:On so many levels. I could quite legitimately re-post my previous post as a response to the above.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You are all a bunch of hypo-crit's.:kettle: :grr: If people were saying this about paedo's in-stead of Buitoni :greengrin, you's wood give em it tite. :bitchy:

If berelscony was to touch my kid's I sware i'd do time!!!!:chop:

[Betty Boop]

You are all a bunch of hypo-crit's.:kettle: :grr: If people were saying this about paedo's in-stead of Buitoni :greengrin, you's wood give em it tite. :bitchy:

If berelscony was to touch my kid's I sware i'd do time!!!!:chop:

:faf:

[LiverpoolHibs]

:agree:On so many levels. I could quite legitimately re-post my previous post as a response to the above.

So as to reinforce the unintentional irony?

[khib70]

So as to reinforce the unintentional irony?
Nah. More to save making separate posts on two identical pieces of dismissive flippancy, or to use your own terminology, "reductionism".

[LiverpoolHibs]

Nah. More to save making separate posts on two identical pieces of dismissive flippancy, or to use your own terminology, "reductionism".

They're not synonymous.

And I wasn't being dismissive and/or flippant, just pointing out that you were guilty of exactly the same thing in the sentence following the accusation. And that it was amusing.

[khib70]

They're not synonymous.

And I wasn't being dismissive and/or flippant, just pointing out that you were guilty of exactly the same thing in the sentence following the accusation. And that it was amusing.
You probably have a point there:wink: Should probably count to at least eleven before posting.

I was just trying to point out a tendency for anyone who deviates from the party line on this board to be treated as an amusing diversion.

The guy in question was making a perfectly valid point about the relationship with the US in terms of the Falklands war. He was then dismissed by Doddie as George W in disguise and this was followed up by an accurate but not very helpful comment about Pinochet by someone else - to which I gave a rational response, albeit not one you'll necessarily agree with.

[One Day Soon]

You probably have a point there:wink: Should probably count to at least eleven before posting.

I was just trying to point out a tendency for anyone who deviates from the party line on this board to be treated as an amusing diversion.

The guy in question was making a perfectly valid point about the relationship with the US in terms of the Falklands war. He was then dismissed by Doddie as George W in disguise and this was followed up by an accurate but not very helpful comment about Pinochet by someone else - to which I gave a rational response, albeit not one you'll necessarily agree with.

It's one reason why I stopped reading the Guardian. Too many Monbiot types deeply 'embedded' (oh dear there's an emotive Iraq war related phrase) up their own jacksies. 'The world is like this, we all agree on that and as we all read the Guardian we are a) morally unimpeachable, b) correct c) glib in our analysis of how simple it would be to run the country/world properly and d) too busy worshipping at the altar of John Pilger.'

The trend toward lazy assertion allied to repetition of received wisdom in contemporary political discussion is really very alarming.

I particularly enjoyed the contribution from the former Director of Public Prosecutions on this subject. Chilcot will be held in "contempt" if he fails to get to the truth about the war? Christ, I thought juries were supposed be allowed to reach a fair conclusion - not told what conclusion to arrive at? Better still the former DPP appears to have made his mind up in advance about what result the inquiry needs to reach in order for it to be the truth.

And I note that he felt so strongly about it all that after the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003 he felt compelled to accept appointment by the then Prime Minister's senior cabinet law officer - the Attorney General - as the Director of Public Prosecutions. And further angered by the whole entry into war and its continuation he could only force himself to serve in that lucrative post - to which he was ultimately appointed by Tony Blair -for a period of five years up to 2008. The DPP is paid £180,000 a year.

Still its good he's found his voice on this matter now, er, about a year after he left the payroll, at a time when a Tory govt is in prospect, when kicking the Labour establishment isn't going to do future career prospects any harm and when someone who served in a senior establishment position under Blair might need to do or say something to publicly distance themselves from association with that period. FFS.

There is a very respectable case against the Iraq war. I don't support it and this guy's contribution isn't that respectable case.

[hibsbollah]

It's one reason why I stopped reading the Guardian. Too many Monbiot types deeply 'embedded' (oh dear there's an emotive Iraq war related phrase) up their own jacksies. 'The world is like this, we all agree on that and as we all read the Guardian we are a) morally unimpeachable, b) correct c) glib in our analysis of how simple it would be to run the country/world properly and d) too busy worshipping at the altar of John Pilger.'

This trend toward lazy assertion

:faf: oh dear

[khib70]

It's one reason why I stopped reading the Guardian. Too many Monbiot types deeply 'embedded' (oh dear there's an emotive Iraq war related phrase) up their own jacksies. 'The world is like this, we all agree on that and as we all read the Guardian we are a) morally unimpeachable, b) correct c) glib in our analysis of how simple it would be to run the country/world properly and d) too busy worshipping at the altar of John Pilger.'

The trend toward lazy assertion allied to repetition of received wisdom in contemporary political discussion is really very alarming.

I particularly enjoyed the contribution from the former Director of Public Prosecutions on this subject. Chilcot will be held in "contempt" if he fails to get to the truth about the war? Christ, I thought juries were supposed be allowed to reach a fair conclusion - not told what conclusion to arrive at? Better still the former DPP appears to have made his mind up in advance about what result the inquiry needs to reach in order for it to be the truth.

And I note that he felt so strongly about it all that after the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003 he felt compelled to accept appointment by the then Prime Minister's senior cabinet law officer - the Attorney General - as the Director of Public Prosecutions. And further angered by the whole entry into war and its continuation he could only force himself to serve in that lucrative post - to which he was ultimately appointed by Tony Blair -for a period of five years up to 2008. The DPP is paid £180,000 a year.

Still its good he's found his voice on this matter now, er, about a year after he left the payroll, at a time when a Tory govt is in prospect, when kicking the Labour establishment isn't going to do future career prospects any harm and when someone who served in a senior establishment position under Blair might need to do or say something to publicly distance themselves from association with that period. FFS.

There is a very respectable case against the Iraq war. I don't support it and this guy's contribution isn't that respectable case.
:top marks. A fine analysis of the chattering-class and its tame media. Which I note drew the usual considered response.:rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

:top marks. A fine analysis of the chattering-class and its tame media. Which I note drew the usual considered response.:rolleyes:

Well its obvious isnt it? A load of lazy assertions based on nothing more than 'theyve got their head up their erchies over at the Guardian' and then he accuses said paper of using 'lazy assertions':faf:

Honestly, apart from disliking it because it has a generally liberal editorial stance, you have never once given an example of what you object to about the Guardian (except for mentioning it every second post you make) Richard Littlejohn has a similar obsession about it, and invented the hilarious 'guardianista' strapline which i think you'd approve of.

Personally, I like it because it has without doubt the best newspaper website around (regularly winning loads of awards for the quality of its links, interactive services, podcasts etc), has the best sports coverage, check out the James Richardson blog on european football, top notch, and a range of different opinions. Yes, thats right, a range of opinions, not just the same tired right/left dogma.

Maybe you could try telling me what is it that you dislike about it instead of just spewing out your anti-liberal prejudices?

[khib70]

Well its obvious isnt it? A load of lazy assertions based on nothing more than 'theyve got their head up their erchies over at the Guardian' and then he accuses said paper of using 'lazy assertions':faf:

Honestly, apart from disliking it because it has a generally liberal editorial stance, you have never once given an example of what you object to about the Guardian (except for mentioning it every second post you make) Richard Littlejohn has a similar obsession about it, and invented the hilarious 'guardianista' strapline which i think you'd approve of.

Personally, I like it because it has without doubt the best newspaper website around (regularly winning loads of awards for the quality of its links, interactive services, podcasts etc), has the best sports coverage, check out the James Richardson blog on european football, top notch, and a range of different opinions. Yes, thats right, a range of opinions, not just the same tired right/left dogma.

Maybe you could try telling me what is it that you dislike about it instead of just spewing out your anti-liberal prejudices?
Yes it has a good website, but I would dispute the rest. The Times has far better sports coverage, and is generally much better at recognising different sides of issues editorially. It tends to be dismissed by the allegedly liberal-minded because of its ownership (and I'm not a Murdoch, or Richard Littlejohn fan myself), but there's actually very little of the Dirty Digger about it. Writers like Anatole Kaletsky, David Aaronovitch, Matthew Parris and Anne Trenemann are right out of the top drawer.

What the previous poster said about the Guardian was quite salient, and not a lazy assertion at all. The Guardian displays the standard liberal tendency to posit as facts things that are merely one way of looking at things. The Iraq war being "illegal" or "genocidal" for instance. It may be, but that remains to be established. The "heid up the erchie" accusation is borne out for me by the paper's sneery middle-class take on popular culture and it's uncritical championing of the likes of Pilger and Monbiot.

I don't read newspapers to see a better-written version of my own views in print, or to stock up on ammunition to fire off at messageboard dissenters. Nor am I inclined to accept establishment views - and the liberal middle class are the establishment these days. At least as far as the media are concerned anyway. Like the BBC, the Guardian is a well-established and generally well written platform for this establishment viewpoint - uniformly anti-US and anti-Israel, blind to, or tolerant of Islamism and the ecesses of third world socialism.

The previous poster's point regarding the publicity-seeking rant of the former DPP was spot on in my view, and nowhere near being a lazy assertion.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Which is worse, dismissiveness and flippancy or wholesale appropriation of Melanie Phillips' journalistic lexicon?

This (recent?) right-wing, populist, anti-elitist tendency is very, very strange indeed. John Birch Society stuff.

[hibsbollah]

the liberal middle class are the establishment these days.

This is total craziness. How do you define 'the establishment'? Havent we just bankcrupted the country in order to recompense investment bankers for their mad gambling? Arent we engaged in wars overseas with very questionable moral, ethical or legal justification? Isnt the media overwhelmingly dominated by one owner who pushes a relentlessly right wing agenda no matter what the subject?

Anyone who thinks 'the liberal establishment' has any power in this country isnt watching the world properly.

By the way, I cant remember the last time I even saw John Pilger mentioned in the Guardian. I'd be surprised if they let him write for them. They tend to take a very even-handed view on Middle Eastern matters because they have a big Jewish readership, perhaps because of their original roots in Jewish North Manchester. Their main social affairs journalist for more than 30 years, Polly Toynbee, spends most of her time trying to defend new Labour's rightward drift. George Monbiot is their environmental correspondent, and is very anti-fossil fuels, but so is Zack Goldsmith and Prince Charles who are hardly lefties. I just dont think you know very much about the newspaper you profess to hate:confused:

[marinello59]

This is total craziness. How do you define 'the establishment'? Havent we just bankcrupted the country in order to recompense investment bankers for their mad gambling? Arent we engaged in wars overseas with very questionable moral, ethical or legal justification? Isnt the media overwhelmingly dominated by one owner who pushes a relentlessly right wing agenda no matter what the subject?

Anyone who thinks 'the liberal establishment' has any power in this country isnt watching the world properly.

By the way, I cant remember the last time I even saw John Pilger mentioned in the Guardian. I'd be surprised if they let him write for them. They tend to take a very even-handed view on Middle Eastern matters because they have a big Jewish readership, perhaps because of their original roots in Jewish North Manchester. Their main social affairs journalist for more than 30 years, Polly Toynbee, spends most of her time trying to defend new Labour's rightward drift. George Monbiot is their environmental correspondent, and is very anti-fossil fuels, but so is Zack Goldsmith and Prince Charles who are hardly lefties. I just dont think you know very much about the newspaper you profess to hate:confused:

Has Khibs touched a nerve with that one? :greengrin Great discussion:thumbsup:

[khib70]

Which is worse, dismissiveness and flippancy or wholesale appropriation of Melanie Phillips' journalistic lexicon?

This (recent?) right-wing, populist, anti-elitist tendency is very, very strange indeed. John Birch Society stuff.
You've got the cheek to bang on about "reductionism" - and you're now equating criticism of the Guardian/BBC liberal elite with Daily Mail readership and US quasi-fascism?:bitchy: As Marinello says, definitely touched a nerve there.

And while I do agree with some of what Melanie Phillips says, especially on Islamism and climate change, you know very well that I have no time for the casual, intellectualised racism which is a particulary strong thread in her writing.

I was asked to explain my dislike of the Guardian. I did. All I've had in return so far was your ludicrous and insulting attempts to blacken by association, and a string of slogans from Hibsbollah. It was ever thus:rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

and a string of slogans from Hibsbollah. It was ever thus:rolleyes:

I think it was a bit more substantive than 'a string of slogans', but if you dont want to respond to it thats fair enough.

[khib70]

This is total craziness. How do you define 'the establishment'? Havent we just bankcrupted the country in order to recompense investment bankers for their mad gambling? Arent we engaged in wars overseas with very questionable moral, ethical or legal justification? Isnt the media overwhelmingly dominated by one owner who pushes a relentlessly right wing agenda no matter what the subject?
Barely more substantive than slogans methinks. And actually a fine example of what I was objecting to in the first place. A string of subjective takes on various issues, presented as absolute fact. With the addendum that anyone who doesn't agree is either blind or stupid.
Anyone who thinks 'the liberal establishment' has any power in this country isnt watching the world properly.
Yup, there it is

By the way, I cant remember the last time I even saw John Pilger mentioned in the Guardian. I'd be surprised if they let him write for them. They tend to take a very even-handed view on Middle Eastern matters because they have a big Jewish readership, perhaps because of their original roots in Jewish North Manchester.
From Pilger's website"He has been a freelance writer since he and the Mirror parted company in 1986. His articles have appeared worldwide in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The South China Morning Post, the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Australia), Aftonbladet (Sweden), Morgenbladet (Norway) and Il Manifesto (Italy). "More even-handed than the BBC perhaps (although that wouldn't be difficult). Certainly more so than Al-Jazeera (ludicrously easy). But still not objectively even handed at all.

Their main social affairs journalist for more than 30 years, Polly Toynbee, spends most of her time trying to defend new Labour's rightward drift. George Monbiot is their environmental correspondent, and is very anti-fossil fuels, but so is Zack Goldsmith and Prince Charles who are hardly lefties. I just dont think you know very much about the newspaper you profess to hate:confused:

Don't want to respond too strongly for fear of LH accusing me of being a BNP fellow traveller

[steakbake]

Don't want to respond too strongly for fear of LH accusing me of being a BNP fellow traveller

I'm not sure travelling folk are allowed in the BNP? Can anyone confirm?

[hibsbollah]

You've not really responded to my post, slogans or not. How can the 'liberal establishment' be in any sense 'in power' when evidently what happens in this country the exact opposite of what any self-respecting liberal would want? I'm not interested in arguing with you for the sake of it, i'm genuinely interested in how you can make this claim:confused:

As to your claim of BBC liberal bias; you do know the BBC world service is funded by the Foreign Office, dont you? or do you consider the British Foreign Office to also be a tool of the liberal establishment?

[LiverpoolHibs]

You've got the cheek to bang on about "reductionism" - and you're now equating criticism of the Guardian/BBC liberal elite with Daily Mail readership and US quasi-fascism?:bitchy: As Marinello says, definitely touched a nerve there.

Well not really, no. I'm just trying to get a handle on this recent-ish tendency in British politics for (U.S. aping) right-wing populist anti-elitism. I wasn't necessarily comparing your comments to those of the John Birch Society, more that the general inclination seems to be informed somewhat by that school of thought - there's certainly a crossover in rhetoric. No need to get so het up.

N.B. What's with the sudden 'reductionism' fixation?


And while I do agree with some of what Melanie Phillips says, especially on Islamism and climate change, you know very well that I have no time for the casual, intellectualised racism which is a particulary strong thread in her writing.

Again, I wasn't saying you were a supporter of - or apologist for - Melanie Phillips; just that you have 'appropriated wholesale her journalistic lexicon'.

'Chattering classes', 'liberal elite', 'liberal establishment', 'sneering', 'uniformly anti-U.S./Israel' [that one's a real corker]. Etc. ad. infinitum


I was asked to explain my dislike of the Guardian. I did. All I've had in return so far was your ludicrous and insulting attempts to blacken by association, and a string of slogans from Hibsbollah. It was ever thus:rolleyes:

You're getting a touch paranoid, I think.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Don't want to respond too strongly for fear of LH accusing me of being a BNP fellow traveller

Hmmm, yup - there's that paranoia.

Do you genuinely think the BBC is, as an institution, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli?

Bearing in mind that this is the BBC that refused to broadcast the DEC Gaza Appeal...

[khib70]

Hmmm, yup - there's that paranoia.

Do you genuinely think the BBC is, as an institution, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli?

Bearing in mind that this is the BBC that refused to broadcast the DEC Gaza Appeal...
1)Yes. Although it's toned down a bit since Orla Guerin moved on.

2) The BBC only refused after legal advice that they would be breaching the terms of their charter. Until then they were right up for it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

1)Yes. Although it's toned down a bit since Orla Guerin moved on.

2) The BBC only refused after legal advice that they would be breaching the terms of their charter. Until then they were right up for it.

1) Mental.

2) That's a complete lie and I'm fairly sure you know that. They broadcast DEC appeals on Kosovo in the nineties and Lebanon in the eighties - both of which were far more 'charged' situations. They didn't show it due to the uproar (and, ever present, enormous influence) from BICOM and other Israeli lobby groups and the 'partiality' angle was a handy, if nonsensical and mendacious, get-out for them.

[One Day Soon]

:top marks. A fine analysis of the chattering-class and its tame media. Which I note drew the usual considered response.:rolleyes:

Khib

I am very pleased that I took a stroll down this particular byway of Hibs.net. I find the ambiance here very conducive.

It's kind of reassuring too that the usual pejorative responses to anything resembling a counter-culture opinion are trotted out here much as they are in other walks of life.

My favourites though are always the broad assertions as fact of those things which some journalist or some freak with a fixated agenda has previously peddled.

For example, its an illegal war. Really? Tell us why. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but people really do need to evidence the banal stuff they repeat without thinking. Or to put it another way - sauce?

[One Day Soon]

Well its obvious isnt it? A load of lazy assertions based on nothing more than 'theyve got their head up their erchies over at the Guardian' and then he accuses said paper of using 'lazy assertions':faf:

Honestly, apart from disliking it because it has a generally liberal editorial stance, you have never once given an example of what you object to about the Guardian (except for mentioning it every second post you make) Richard Littlejohn has a similar obsession about it, and invented the hilarious 'guardianista' strapline which i think you'd approve of.

Personally, I like it because it has without doubt the best newspaper website around (regularly winning loads of awards for the quality of its links, interactive services, podcasts etc), has the best sports coverage, check out the James Richardson blog on european football, top notch, and a range of different opinions. Yes, thats right, a range of opinions, not just the same tired right/left dogma.

Maybe you could try telling me what is it that you dislike about it instead of just spewing out your anti-liberal prejudices?

Actually Guardianista is rather good, though Lentillista is much, much better. I find Littlejohn just awful but you have to hand it to him, as parodies go Guardianista is quite a good one.

And you should not assume that those of us who criticise 'Liberal' institutions are anti-Liberal. That's a bit lazy too. Some of the fiercest critics of such bodies are themselves Liberals in despair at the wooly thinking and lack of a proper and consistent political framework through which to asess and respond to the various issues of the day.

To put that another way, crap arguments expressed in crap ways by the left make it easier for the eternal axis of conservatism (the vested interests of those enjoying sufficient priviledge that they wish nothing to change) to marginalise opposition and strengthen elitism. Remember the Labour Party of the 1980s? No-one could have done more to damage the case for collectivism or to advance the case for the private provision of services.

[One Day Soon]

Which is worse, dismissiveness and flippancy or wholesale appropriation of Melanie Phillips' journalistic lexicon?

This (recent?) right-wing, populist, anti-elitist tendency is very, very strange indeed. John Birch Society stuff.

Never read Melanie Phillips so cannot comment on her lexicon. Why do assume that someone who is anti-elitist is right wing or populist?

[One Day Soon]

This is total craziness. How do you define 'the establishment'? Havent we just bankcrupted the country in order to recompense investment bankers for their mad gambling? Arent we engaged in wars overseas with very questionable moral, ethical or legal justification? Isnt the media overwhelmingly dominated by one owner who pushes a relentlessly right wing agenda no matter what the subject?

Anyone who thinks 'the liberal establishment' has any power in this country isnt watching the world properly.

By the way, I cant remember the last time I even saw John Pilger mentioned in the Guardian. I'd be surprised if they let him write for them. They tend to take a very even-handed view on Middle Eastern matters because they have a big Jewish readership, perhaps because of their original roots in Jewish North Manchester. Their main social affairs journalist for more than 30 years, Polly Toynbee, spends most of her time trying to defend new Labour's rightward drift. George Monbiot is their environmental correspondent, and is very anti-fossil fuels, but so is Zack Goldsmith and Prince Charles who are hardly lefties. I just dont think you know very much about the newspaper you profess to hate:confused:

Perhaps you need to tell us what you consider a liberal establishment political agenda to be?

And in addition: "Havent we just bankcrupted the country in order to recompense investment bankers for their mad gambling?" No, that would actually be the Sun's position you are outlining there. The country isn't bankrupt and the money put into these banks was put in to keep the global financial sysytem solvent so that people like you and me could continue to live in the extraordinarily cozy lifestyles that we do. Otherwise it would have been next stop the Weimar Republic - if we were lucky. Or is there a 'Liberal' alternative to this approach that I am missing?

Furthermore: "Arent we engaged in wars overseas with very questionable moral, ethical or legal justification?" That would be the position of the Daily Mail meets the Guardian way round the back of the political spectrum where the far right meet the far left in a happy orgy of 'let's kick out these deranged leftist madmen, yes I agree we must stop these revisionist non-socialists together in comradely left/rightward struggle.'

[hibsbollah]

Perhaps you need to tell us what you consider a liberal establishment political agenda to be?

And in addition: "Havent we just bankcrupted the country in order to recompense investment bankers for their mad gambling?" No, that would actually be the Sun's position you are outlining there. The country isn't bankrupt and the money put into these banks was put in to keep the global financial sysytem solvent so that people like you and me could continue to live in the extraordinarily cozy lifestyles that we do. Otherwise it would have been next stop the Weimar Republic - if we were lucky. Or is there a 'Liberal' alternative to this approach that I am missing?

Furthermore: "Arent we engaged in wars overseas with very questionable moral, ethical or legal justification?" That would be the position of the Daily Mail meets the Guardian way round the back of the political spectrum where the far right meet the far left in a happy orgy of 'let's kick out these deranged leftist madmen, yes I agree we must stop these revisionist non-socialists together in comradely left/rightward struggle.'

I don't accept there is a 'liberal establishment' (certainly not in any cohesive sense) therefore if they have an agenda, someone else, who might understand who these mysterious people are, might have a better idea of what their agenda is:greengrin

As to your last two paragraphs, I've missed what their relevance might be, except to reinforce my point, which is that the idea of a 'liberal establishment' is a fantasy.

[khib70]

I don't accept there is a 'liberal establishment' (certainly not in any cohesive sense) therefore if they have an agenda, someone else, who might understand who these mysterious people are, might have a better idea of what their agenda is:greengrin

As to your last two paragraphs, I've missed what their relevance might be, except to reinforce my point, which is that the idea of a 'liberal establishment' is a fantasy.#
With One Day Soon's permission, I'll tell you what the relevance of his last two paragraphs is.

They are examples of Guardianista (I like that term too:greengrin) core beliefs which are trotted out as statements of fact, when they are nothing more than opinions. It's just not the case that if you repeat an opinion often enough, it mutates into hard fact. That's just lazy thinking, coupled with intellectual arrogance - the trademark characteristics of liberal elitists.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Khib

I am very pleased that I took a stroll down this particular byway of Hibs.net. I find the ambiance here very conducive.

It's kind of reassuring too that the usual pejorative responses to anything resembling a counter-culture opinion are trotted out here much as they are in other walks of life.

My favourites though are always the broad assertions as fact of those things which some journalist or some freak with a fixated agenda has previously peddled.

For example, its an illegal war. Really? Tell us why. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't but people really do need to evidence the banal stuff they repeat without thinking. Or to put it another way - sauce?

Conducive to what?

You don't have a counter-culture opinion.

It's fairly easy to ascertain why people question its legality if you really want to find out. Maybe some commentators assume this doesn't need to be explained every time the legality is questioned.


Actually Guardianista is rather good, though Lentillista is much, much better. I find Littlejohn just awful but you have to hand it to him, as parodies go Guardianista is quite a good one.

And you should not assume that those of us who criticise 'Liberal' institutions are anti-Liberal. That's a bit lazy too. Some of the fiercest critics of such bodies are themselves Liberals in despair at the wooly thinking and lack of a proper and consistent political framework through which to asess and respond to the various issues of the day.

To put that another way, crap arguments expressed in crap ways by the left make it easier for the eternal axis of conservatism (the vested interests of those enjoying sufficient priviledge that they wish nothing to change) to marginalise opposition and strengthen elitism. Remember the Labour Party of the 1980s? No-one could have done more to damage the case for collectivism or to advance the case for the private provision of services.

Pahaha. This is getting amazing.

I'm guessing we've got a Nick Cohen/Christopher Hitchens fan on our hands?


Never read Melanie Phillips so cannot comment on her lexicon. Why do assume that someone who is anti-elitist is right wing or populist?

You'll have to point out where I said that, it's a very strange conclusion to come to.

N.B. Can we all stop using 'liberal' in the slightly confused American sense, please.

[khib70]

Conducive to what?

You don't have a counter-culture opinion.

It's fairly easy to ascertain why people question its legality if you really want to find out. Maybe some commentators assume this doesn't need to be explained every time the legality is questioned.



Pahaha. This is getting amazing.

I'm guessing we've got a Nick Cohen/Christopher Hitchens fan on our hands?



You'll have to point out where I said that, it's a very strange conclusion to come to.

N.B. Can we all stop using 'liberal' in the slightly confused American sense, please.
When will you understand that because someone has a different opinion to you, it doesn't follow that they've borrowed it from one of your right wing bogeymen(and women). Again, it's patronising and insulting, if not another attempt to establish guilt by association.

And we know why some people think the Iraq war was illegal. The issue is that it doesn't become illegal because you say so. Once some kind of proper legal authority rules it so, then it will be illegal. I don't think even the ludicrous UNHRC have pronounced on this so far.

[LiverpoolHibs]

When will you understand that because someone has a different opinion to you, it doesn't follow that they've borrowed it from one of your right wing bogeymen(and women). Again, it's patronising and insulting, if not another attempt to establish guilt by association.

I must have missed where I said he'd 'borrowed his opinion' from either Cohen or Hitchens. I thought I'd asked a question (the question mark is a bit of a clue) of whether he was a fan of one or both. Clearly you know better.

And I'm not sure how anyone could call Cohen or Hitchens right-wing. Stupid and boringly contrarian, yes, but certainly not right-wing.


And we know why some people think the Iraq war was illegal. The issue is that it doesn't become illegal because you say so. Once some kind of proper legal authority rules it so, then it will be illegal. I don't think even the ludicrous UNHRC have pronounced on this so far.

Perhaps strangely, I'm sort of with you on that actually. Mainly because the arguments over legality presuppose some intrinsic cross-over between morality and the law that doesn't exist. That somehow everything would be alright if it was deemed a 'legal' act.

[One Day Soon]

#
With One Day Soon's permission, I'll tell you what the relevance of his last two paragraphs is.

They are examples of Guardianista (I like that term too:greengrin) core beliefs which are trotted out as statements of fact, when they are nothing more than opinions. It's just not the case that if you repeat an opinion often enough, it mutates into hard fact. That's just lazy thinking, coupled with intellectual arrogance - the trademark characteristics of liberal elitists.

Permission retrospectively granted khib.

And what an excellent definition of liberal elitists.

[One Day Soon]

Conducive to what?
Conducive to a number of things including the entertainment value of lazy thinking people trying to defend unsustainable propositions on a range of issues. Not to mention the intellectual stimulation of being able debate and discuss with such informed and erudite fellow Hibs.Netters.

You don't have a counter-culture opinion.
How do you know? You have no real idea what my opinions are on anything more than perhaps 1% of everything currently salient upon which I could, but have not yet, express an opinion. If however we take the example of the Iraq War (I presume we are restricting ourselves to that one for the moment) then I would have thought that the presumably sincerely held belief of many on the anti-war side that most of the country took to the streets against war, means that my opinion on this is something rembling counter-culture?

It's fairly easy to ascertain why people question its legality if you really want to find out. Maybe some commentators assume this doesn't need to be explained every time the legality is questioned.
Its fairly easy to ascertain why many, many slavering Yams genuinely believe that there is a refereeing conspiracy against them. That doesn't make it real though. The assumption by such commentators would be a big and daft one. One might even call it lazy and complacent.



Pahaha. This is getting amazing.
We agree on something.

I'm guessing we've got a Nick Cohen/Christopher Hitchens fan on our hands?
You are guessing incorrectly then. Hitchens is in my view an idiot and Cohen rather dull. It is possible to think originally of one's own accord without having to take some collection of meedja lovies as a reference point.



You'll have to point out where I said that, it's a very strange conclusion to come to.
"I'm just trying to get a handle on this recent-ish tendency in British politics for (U.S. aping) right-wing populist anti-elitism." This




N.B. Can we all stop using 'liberal' in the slightly confused American sense, please.

If someone wants to define liberal in this context then that would be fine.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Conducive to a number of things including the entertainment value of lazy thinking people trying to defend unsustainable propositions on a range of issues. Not to mention the intellectual stimulation of being able debate and discuss with such informed and erudite fellow Hibs.Netters.

Ok, that makes more sense than just saying something is 'conducive'.


How do you know? You have no real idea what my opinions are on anything more than perhaps 1% of everything currently salient upon which I could, but have not yet, express an opinion. If however we take the example of the Iraq War (I presume we are restricting ourselves to that one for the moment) then I would have thought that the presumably sincerely held belief of many on the anti-war side that most of the country took to the streets against war, means that my opinion on this is something rembling counter-culture?

I'd limited it to the issue discussed in this thread, yes - otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. You seem to think that your thoughts on the Iraq War amount to a progressive yet down-trodden 'counter culture' opinion. It doesn't. Just because it doesn't chime with the beliefs of your chimerical 'liberal elite' doesn't make it 'counter culture'.


Its fairly easy to ascertain why many, many slavering Yams genuinely believe that there is a refereeing conspiracy against them. That doesn't make it real though. The assumption by such commentators would be a big and daft one. One might even call it lazy and complacent.

Except that has no bearing on anything whatsoever. It's a logical fallacy called a False Analogy. And you keep criticising others for laziness and poor arguimentative technique...


You are guessing incorrectly then. Hitchens is in my view an idiot and Cohen rather dull. It is possible to think originally of one's own accord without having to take some collection of meedja lovies as a reference point.

Fair enough, as I've said it was just a query. That passage really could have been torn from What's Left? mind.


"I'm just trying to get a handle on this recent-ish tendency in British politics for (U.S. aping) right-wing populist anti-elitism." This

Right, and how did you extrapolate from that quote that I think anti-elitism is inherently right-wing or populist?

I'm interested to know at what point the Guardian and the BBC apparently alligned themselves with the Morning Star and Gostelradio and when the Guardian grew to a sufficiently enormous stature and influence to warrant the levels of ire it seems to provoke among people of a certain ilk. 'Curioser and curioser'.

[One Day Soon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2278716#post2278716)
Conducive to a number of things including the entertainment value of lazy thinking people trying to defend unsustainable propositions on a range of issues. Not to mention the intellectual stimulation of being able debate and discuss with such informed and erudite fellow Hibs.Netters.

Ok, that makes more sense than just saying something is 'conducive'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2278716#post2278716)
How do you know? You have no real idea what my opinions are on anything more than perhaps 1% of everything currently salient upon which I could, but have not yet, express an opinion. If however we take the example of the Iraq War (I presume we are restricting ourselves to that one for the moment) then I would have thought that the presumably sincerely held belief of many on the anti-war side that most of the country took to the streets against war, means that my opinion on this is something rembling counter-culture?

I'd limited it to the issue discussed in this thread, yes - otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. You seem to think that your thoughts on the Iraq War amount to a progressive yet down-trodden 'counter culture' opinion. It doesn't. Just because it doesn't chime with the beliefs of your chimerical 'liberal elite' doesn't make it 'counter culture'.

I haven't said that my thoughts on the Iraq War are either progressive or down-trodden. That is your take on it. The assertion that there isn't a liberal-elite is as ridiculous as it is mendacious. It exists, as you well know or ought to, within the arts, the media, a range of public sector organisations, in legal circles, in politics etc. And to put you right, if my opinion represents values in opposition to those of the established culture then it can fairly be described as counter-culture. To be truthful I really could not care less whether my opinion is counter-culture or not. But I can well imagine how hurtful the suggestion would be for a liberal elitist that one of the orthodoxies that they most cherish unto themselves might be in some way caimed by any dissenting opinion which does not in itself adhere to the rigid dogmas of that liberal elite, for example by refusing to mindlessly reassert the received wisdom on Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2278716#post2278716)
Its fairly easy to ascertain why many, many slavering Yams genuinely believe that there is a refereeing conspiracy against them. That doesn't make it real though. The assumption by such commentators would be a big and daft one. One might even call it lazy and complacent.

Except that has no bearing on anything whatsoever. It's a logical fallacy called a False Analogy. And you keep criticising others for laziness and poor arguimentative technique...

Except that it has every bearing upon the matter under discussion since it is a precise parallel. We have a group of mutually self-reinforcing devotees, unhappy that things have not gone the way that they wish, desperately looking around for one man to blame for the failure of the world and their part in it to measure up to what they wish reality to be and then deciding that there must be some conspiracy against them. And then we have the Hearts fans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2278716#post2278716)
You are guessing incorrectly then. Hitchens is in my view an idiot and Cohen rather dull. It is possible to think originally of one's own accord without having to take some collection of meedja lovies as a reference point.

Fair enough, as I've said it was just a query. That passage really could have been torn from What's Left? mind.

Never read it, don't think I have even heard of it. What is it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by One Day Soon http://www.hibs.net/message/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?p=2278716#post2278716)
"I'm just trying to get a handle on this recent-ish tendency in British politics for (U.S. aping) right-wing populist anti-elitism." This

Right, and how did you extrapolate from that quote that I think anti-elitism is inherently right-wing or populist?

I'm interested to know at what point the Guardian and the BBC apparently alligned themselves with the Morning Star and Gostelradio and when the Guardian grew to a sufficiently enormous stature and influence to warrant the levels of ire it seems to provoke among people of a certain ilk. 'Curioser and curioser'.

The Guardian earns my bile because while purporting to be of the left it simply cannot resist - as is the history of the ***** left - posturing on the hard stuff and focussing on making itself and its readership feel good. It is more concerned with defending what it regards as 'pure' political positions than it is with delivering the progressive change upon which people, particularly the most vulnerable, depend. It will always default to the producer interest rather than the consumer interest and it - and its journalists - have the luxury of expressing their pious views from a cossetted and insulated position which means that they never have to face the consequences of the often hair shirted and unrealistic positions which they promote. That's just my opinion of course, it is for others to say why they may dislike or like the paper.

Don't get me wrong though - I dont really like ANY newspapers. They are all just products like chocolate bars, cars or fridges except that they pretend that they are somehow not commercial products. Hilarious.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I haven't said that my thoughts on the Iraq War are either progressive or down-trodden. That is your take on it. The assertion that there isn't a liberal-elite is as ridiculous as it is mendacious. It exists, as you well know or ought to, within the arts, the media, a range of public sector organisations, in legal circles, in politics etc. And to put you right, if my opinion represents values in opposition to those of the established culture then it can fairly be described as counter-culture. To be truthful I really could not care less whether my opinion is counter-culture or not. But I can well imagine how hurtful the suggestion would be for a liberal elitist that one of the orthodoxies that they most cherish unto themselves might be in some way caimed by any dissenting opinion which does not in itself adhere to the rigid dogmas of that liberal elite, for example by refusing to mindlessly reassert the received wisdom on Iraq.

I'm still not sure what this 'liberal elite' is meant to be. It's an American, and as I've said largely chimerical, idea that people - for some reason - seem to want to fit onto British politics. You and others are using 'liberal' in a completely *******ised sense - opposition to the Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism.

You have a genuinely strange idea of how the world works and the forces that act upon it.


Except that it has every bearing upon the matter under discussion since it is a precise parallel. We have a group of mutually self-reinforcing devotees, unhappy that things have not gone the way that they wish, desperately looking around for one man to blame for the failure of the world and their part in it to measure up to what they wish reality to be and then deciding that there must be some conspiracy against them. And then we have the Hearts fans.

No it isn't a precise parallel. Quite the opposite.


Never read it, don't think I have even heard of it. What is it?

Nick Cohen's slightly maniacal critique of the British Left.


The Guardian earns my bile because while purporting to be of the left it simply cannot resist - as is the history of the ***** left - posturing on the hard stuff and focussing on making itself and its readership feel good. It is more concerned with defending what it regards as 'pure' political positions than it is with delivering the progressive change upon which people, particularly the most vulnerable, depend.

I've got absolutely no idea what most of that is meant to mean. What is the 'hard stuff'? What is the '***** left'? What are the 'pure political positions' it spends its time defending?

'Focussing on delivering progressive change' - you do realise we're talking about a newspaper here, aye?

I also have no idea why slightly smug, bourgeois, Hampstead, centre-left liberalism could provoke more anger in someone than the Murdoch media oligopoly. I'd say the gulf in perniciousness was absolutely self-evident. But hey-ho.


It will always default to the producer interest rather than the consumer interest and it - and its journalists - have the luxury of expressing their pious views from a cossetted and insulated position which means that they never have to face the consequences of the often hair shirted and unrealistic positions which they promote. That's just my opinion of course, it is for others to say why they may dislike or like the paper.

Ok, there's a modicum of truth to that. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'consumer interest' in relation to the 'producer interest', however. And again, I'm not sure it has ever purported to be the vehicle for radicalism that you imagine it to be.

And instead of these pointless assertions with no relation to any reality, what 'hair shirted and unrealistic positions'?


Don't get me wrong though - I dont really like ANY newspapers.

We might have reached an agreement. The Guardian is far and away the best of a bad bunch, however.

[hibsbollah]

Fair enough, as I've said it was just a query. That passage really could have been torn from What's Left? mind.

Never read it, don't think I have even heard of it. What is it?



You would genuinely love it. Right up your alley, my brother-in-law got it for me last Christmas and ive barely spoken to him since. Ask Santa for it, you'll be quoting it for weeks to your socialist friends. (thats 'liberal friends' for our American readers):greengrin

Its £7.99 in paperback, heres a recommendation for it (from the Guardian, oddly enough:greengrin)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/30/whatsleftisright

[One Day Soon]

I'm still not sure what this 'liberal elite' is meant to be. It's an American, and as I've said largely chimerical, idea that people - for some reason - seem to want to fit onto British politics. You and others are using 'liberal' in a completely *******ised sense - opposition to the Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism.

The liberal elite in this country is an easily identifiable animal. If you can't see it I'm afraid I can't help you. But think Georges Monbiot, Jonathan Porritt, Claire Rayner, Jon Snow etc and you're getting the idea of the more visible examples. If you want a shorthand of how it behaves I would go for something like this: When a choice is to be made in any given policy area between real change on the one hand and either cosmetic change or posturing and unattainable fundamentalism on the other, it will always default to the latter. This is generally particularly the case when its own self interest is threatened either individually or collectively. A classic example of this would be the media response to Gilligan being exposed for his at best shoddy journalism in the accusations he made about Alastair Campbell which the Hutton Inquiry later found to be untrue. The hysterical 'defend our own at all costs and regardless of the truth' mentality that the liberal establishment showed on that occasion was breathtaking.

You have a genuinely strange idea of how the world works and the forces that act upon it.

I can assure you that I have a very well informed picture of the how the world works - particularly the bits of it which shape public opinion and take decisions about how we all live.



No it isn't a precise parallel. Quite the opposite.
Ah, contradiction. Do you like Monty Python then?



Nick Cohen's slightly maniacal critique of the British Left.
Well if its maniacal perhaps it would be worth a go.



I've got absolutely no idea what most of that is meant to mean. What is the 'hard stuff'? What is the '***** left'? What are the 'pure political positions' it spends its time defending?
eg Decisions on armed intervention that people won't like, former chums in Militant etc and fellow travellers, no nuclear power stations.

'Focussing on delivering progressive change' - you do realise we're talking about a newspaper here, aye?
Masquerading as THE British media platform for radical politics. Except that it isn't.

I also have no idea why slightly smug, bourgeois, Hampstead, centre-left liberalism could provoke more anger in someone than the Murdoch media oligopoly. I'd say the gulf in perniciousness was absolutely self-evident. But hey-ho.
Because at least the right in the form of the Daily Mail and the Sun is relatively open and honest about its agenda. The Guardian purports to be of the left but does more harm than good.



Ok, there's a modicum of truth to that. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'consumer interest' in relation to the 'producer interest', however. And again, I'm not sure it has ever purported to be the vehicle for radicalism that you imagine it to be.
From the Guardian's own website:

"The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, and was first published on May 5 of that year. The paper's intention was the promotion of the liberal interest in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre and the growing campaign to repeal the Corn Laws that flourished in Manchester during this period."

and

""Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard."

Producer interest: The public service is being run in the interests of those who run it.
Consumer interest: The public service is being run in the interests of those who depend upon it.

And instead of these pointless assertions with no relation to any reality, what 'hair shirted and unrealistic positions'?
eg To tackle climate change we need to massively increase tax on aviation, thereby reducing demand and carbon emissions. Except that the reduction will come from those no longer able to afford to travel abroad for foreign holidays while the 'do as we say, not as we do' brigade will carry on flying all they like beacause they can afford to do so.



We might have reached an agreement. The Guardian is far and away the best of a bad bunch, however.
I'm afraid we haven't. The FT is a lot better as is the Times. Even the miserable and weird Independent is better. Though this is two bald men fighting over a comb territory. They are all parodies.



Above

[One Day Soon]

You would genuinely love it. Right up your alley, my brother-in-law got it for me last Christmas and ive barely spoken to him since. Ask Santa for it, you'll be quoting it for weeks to your socialist friends. (thats 'liberal friends' for our American readers):greengrin

Its £7.99 in paperback, heres a recommendation for it (from the Guardian, oddly enough:greengrin)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/30/whatsleftisright


I'm warming to your brother-in-law. I assume it tells some home truths about the British left?

You can't tell the difference between socialist and liberal????!!!!?????:shocked:

[hibsbollah]

You can't tell the difference between socialist and liberal????!!!!?????:shocked:

I can, but the words have been subject to some mid-Atlantic mangling over the years, as you know. Re-the Nick Cohen book; 'Truth' is subjective, but the content seems to chime quite closely with your posts, so I think you'd like it.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The liberal elite in this country is an easily identifiable animal. If you can't see it I'm afraid I can't help you. But think Georges Monbiot, Jonathan Porritt, Claire Rayner, Jon Snow etc and you're getting the idea of the more visible examples. If you want a shorthand of how it behaves I would go for something like this: When a choice is to be made in any given policy area between real change on the one hand and either cosmetic change or posturing and unattainable fundamentalism on the other, it will always default to the latter. This is generally particularly the case when its own self interest is threatened either individually or collectively. A classic example of this would be the media response to Gilligan being exposed for his at best shoddy journalism in the accusations he made about Alastair Campbell which the Hutton Inquiry later found to be untrue. The hysterical 'defend our own at all costs and regardless of the truth' mentality that the liberal establishment showed on that occasion was breathtaking.

I'm not disputing that these people exist, I'm disputing your (and khibs) paranoid construction of them as an organised, homogenous, maleficent bloc.


I can assure you that I have a very well informed picture of the how the world works - particularly the bits of it which shape public opinion and take decisions about how we all live.

You hide it pretty well. It's a pity this 'liberal establishment' didn't exert their untold power and stop the 'War on Terror' before it started...


Ah, contradiction. Do you like Monty Python then?

Not really, no.


Well if its maniacal perhaps it would be worth a go.

It isn't, but I'm sure you'd enjoy it.


eg Decisions on armed intervention that people won't like, former chums in Militant etc and fellow travellers, no nuclear power stations.

Is there a paper in the country that still, as an editorial policy, attempts to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

Whose former chums in Militant? What 'fellow travellers'?

I haven't seen any posturing on nuclear power.


Masquerading as THE British media platform for radical politics. Except that it isn't.

Again, you're imagining this.


Because at least the right in the form of the Daily Mail and the Sun is relatively open and honest about its agenda. The Guardian purports to be of the left but does more harm than good.

More pointless assertion, how is it not 'open and honest' about its 'agenda', what 'harm' does it cause and it what way.


From the Guardian's own website:

"The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, and was first published on May 5 of that year. The paper's intention was the promotion of the liberal interest in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre and the growing campaign to repeal the Corn Laws that flourished in Manchester during this period."

and

""Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard."

Erm yeah, proper firebrands...

Are you serious?


Producer interest: The public service is being run in the interests of those who run it.
Consumer interest: The public service is being run in the interests of those who depend upon it.

Ok, and as I've said there's a modicum of truth to that. They have an almost complete lack of interest in class politics.


eg To tackle climate change we need to massively increase tax on aviation, thereby reducing demand and carbon emissions. Except that the reduction will come from those no longer able to afford to travel abroad for foreign holidays while the 'do as we say, not as we do' brigade will carry on flying all they like beacause they can afford to do so.

Is that an editorial stance or have you just decided that it is?


I'm afraid we haven't. The FT is a lot better as is the Times. Even the miserable and weird Independent is better. Though this is two bald men fighting over a comb territory. They are all parodies.

Erm, ok.

[One Day Soon]

I'm not disputing that these people exist, I'm disputing your (and khibs) paranoid construction of them as an organised, homogenous, maleficent bloc.



You hide it pretty well. It's a pity this 'liberal establishment' didn't exert their untold power and stop the 'War on Terror' before it started...



Not really, no.



It isn't, but I'm sure you'd enjoy it.



Is there a paper in the country that still, as an editorial policy, attempts to argue that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea?

Whose former chums in Militant? What 'fellow travellers'?

I haven't seen any posturing on nuclear power.



Again, you're imagining this.



More pointless assertion, how is it not 'open and honest' about its 'agenda', what 'harm' does it cause and it what way.



Erm yeah, proper firebrands...

Are you serious?



Ok, and as I've said there's a modicum of truth to that. They have an almost complete lack of interest in class politics.



Is that an editorial stance or have you just decided that it is?



Erm, ok.

You seem very articulate but then equally uninformed in surprising areas. Or are you just playing at it?

[LiverpoolHibs]

You seem very articulate but then equally uninformed in surprising areas. Or are you just playing at it?

Such as? Asking you questions about your pronouncement-heavy/evidence-light statements isn't necessarily indicative of being uninformed.

[Leicester Fan]

If I could just put my tu'penneth in I just like to say that the Guardian is for wanqas.

[hibsbollah]

If I could just put my tu'penneth in I just like to say that the Guardian is for wanqas.

A lifetime subscription is on its way:faf:

[One Day Soon]

A lifetime subscription is on its way:faf:

And how much did they charge you for it? :faf: