The recent ulm thread "Palestine Action (re\0trials" appears to be
motivated by an article in an American website "The Grayzone" by Max Blumenthal.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/>
Given the article discusses issues that it claims are covered by a UK
media blackout, including court reporting restrictions, is it permitted
to post a link to the article in ulm? Is it permitted to discuss the
issues mentioned in the article.
In general, how safe is it to discuss issues like this, things that are clearly in the public domain, but presumably are censored in the UK. Not that I could find any mention of the reporting restrictions.
The dishonesty and corruption of our legal and political institutions
really does feel to me like something we should be discussing.
On 19/04/2026 10:52, Pancho wrote:
The recent ulm thread "Palestine Action (re\0trials" appears to be
motivated by an article in an American website "The Grayzone" by Max
Blumenthal.
Grayzone is a highly partisan website. I think you should take it with a whole heap of salt.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/> >>
Given the article discusses issues that it claims are covered by a UK
media blackout, including court reporting restrictions, is it permitted
to post a link to the article in ulm? Is it permitted to discuss the
issues mentioned in the article.
In general, how safe is it to discuss issues like this, things that are
clearly in the public domain, but presumably are censored in the UK. Not
that I could find any mention of the reporting restrictions.
The dishonesty and corruption of our legal and political institutions
really does feel to me like something we should be discussing.
You could be a bit more critical of your sources first?
"The jury has not been notified about the rCyterroristrCO designation, and the British media cannot report this information under a court order. Activists will also be prohibited from telling jurors how their efforts sought to impede the Gaza genocide."
Taking the first allegation: It's not possible for the jury to be
unaware of the charges as they need to produce a verdict on each count.
And, the second allegation is the subject of a lengthy thread on ULM
which explains why grandstanding in court is not allowed.
"By falsely alleging Palestine Action deliberately targeted people with violent acts, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper committed contempt of court rCo but a court order prohibits British media from reporting this. "
That's simply not true.
The recent ulm thread "Palestine Action (re\0trials" appears to be
motivated by an article in an American website "The Grayzone" by Max Blumenthal.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/>
Given the article discusses issues that it claims are covered by a UK
media blackout, including court reporting restrictions, is it permitted
to post a link to the article in ulm? Is it permitted to discuss the
issues mentioned in the article.
In general, how safe is it to discuss issues like this, things that are clearly in the public domain, but presumably are censored in the UK. Not that I could find any mention of the reporting restrictions.
The dishonesty and corruption of our legal and political institutions
really does feel to me like something we should be discussing.
On 19/04/2026 10:52, Pancho wrote:
The recent ulm thread "Palestine Action (re\0trials" appears to be
motivated by an article in an American website "The Grayzone" by Max
Blumenthal.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-
terrorism-uk/>
Given the article discusses issues that it claims are covered by a UK
media blackout, including court reporting restrictions, is it
permitted to post a link to the article in ulm? Is it permitted to
discuss the issues mentioned in the article.
In general, how safe is it to discuss issues like this, things that
are clearly in the public domain, but presumably are censored in the
UK. Not that I could find any mention of the reporting restrictions.
The dishonesty and corruption of our legal and political institutions
really does feel to me like something we should be discussing.
This reminds me of the article in the New Yorker about Lucy Letby which
we weren't allowed to read about in the UK until Letby's trial had
finished.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found- guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it
That, at least, was a quite well informed and sensible article even if
it would perhaps have risked prejudicing a jury.
The report about the Palestine Action trial, referenced above, is of
very poor quality. Whenever an activist claims that the judge is biased, that's a red flag to tell you that the activist is probably talking bollocks.
On 2026-04-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/04/2026 10:52, Pancho wrote:
The recent ulm thread "Palestine Action (re\0trials" appears to be
motivated by an article in an American website "The Grayzone" by Max
Blumenthal.
Grayzone is a highly partisan website. I think you should take it with a
whole heap of salt.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/> >>>
Given the article discusses issues that it claims are covered by a UK
media blackout, including court reporting restrictions, is it permitted
to post a link to the article in ulm? Is it permitted to discuss the
issues mentioned in the article.
In general, how safe is it to discuss issues like this, things that are
clearly in the public domain, but presumably are censored in the UK. Not >>> that I could find any mention of the reporting restrictions.
The dishonesty and corruption of our legal and political institutions
really does feel to me like something we should be discussing.
You could be a bit more critical of your sources first?
"The jury has not been notified about the rCyterroristrCO designation, and >> the British media cannot report this information under a court order.
Activists will also be prohibited from telling jurors how their efforts
sought to impede the Gaza genocide."
Taking the first allegation: It's not possible for the jury to be
unaware of the charges as they need to produce a verdict on each count.
And, the second allegation is the subject of a lengthy thread on ULM
which explains why grandstanding in court is not allowed.
"By falsely alleging Palestine Action deliberately targeted people with
violent acts, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper committed contempt of court rCo >> but a court order prohibits British media from reporting this. "
That's simply not true.
Indeed. I think the large majority of the claims on that page are
somewhere in-between "massively exaggerated" and "completely untrue".
We would not allow things in ulm that were unlawful to post, but
I don't think we need to worry overly about imaginary invisible
injunctions.
On 4/19/26 13:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 19/04/2026 10:52, Pancho wrote:
The recent ulm thread "Palestine Action (re\0trials" appears to be
motivated by an article in an American website "The Grayzone" by Max
Blumenthal.
Grayzone is a highly partisan website. I think you should take it with a >>> whole heap of salt.
<https://thegrayzone.com/2026/04/12/uk-jail-palestine-action-terrorism-uk/>
Given the article discusses issues that it claims are covered by a UK
media blackout, including court reporting restrictions, is it permitted >>>> to post a link to the article in ulm? Is it permitted to discuss the
issues mentioned in the article.
In general, how safe is it to discuss issues like this, things that are >>>> clearly in the public domain, but presumably are censored in the UK. Not >>>> that I could find any mention of the reporting restrictions.
The dishonesty and corruption of our legal and political institutions
really does feel to me like something we should be discussing.
You could be a bit more critical of your sources first?
"The jury has not been notified about the rCyterroristrCO designation, and >>> the British media cannot report this information under a court order.
Activists will also be prohibited from telling jurors how their efforts
sought to impede the Gaza genocide."
Taking the first allegation: It's not possible for the jury to be
unaware of the charges as they need to produce a verdict on each count.
And, the second allegation is the subject of a lengthy thread on ULM
which explains why grandstanding in court is not allowed.
"By falsely alleging Palestine Action deliberately targeted people with
violent acts, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper committed contempt of court rCo >>> but a court order prohibits British media from reporting this. "
That's simply not true.
Indeed. I think the large majority of the claims on that page are
somewhere in-between "massively exaggerated" and "completely untrue".
We would not allow things in ulm that were unlawful to post, but
I don't think we need to worry overly about imaginary invisible
injunctions.
We should find out about the injunctions soon, after the trial.
Obviously a story from a single source needs to be verified, but the
problem with our current MSM and authoritarian establishment is that
they do favour censorship and the stifling of inconvenient facts.
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read
from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I can't think of one current news provider that I would trust to give me
a reasonable overview of all news.
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read
from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full
picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the
Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age
of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
I can't think of one current news provider that I would trust to give me
a reasonable overview of all news.
I would agree that you should certainly use multiple sources. But many sources should be disregarded entirely, unless you're specifically
trying to discover what lies people are being fed rather than anything
about the truth. Something has to contain over 50% truth for you to
become more - rather than less - informed by reading it.
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read
from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full
picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the
Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age
of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as
news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom".
He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he
spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth.
I can't think of one current news provider that I would trust to give me >>> a reasonable overview of all news.
I would agree that you should certainly use multiple sources. But many
sources should be disregarded entirely, unless you're specifically
trying to discover what lies people are being fed rather than anything
about the truth. Something has to contain over 50% truth for you to
become more - rather than less - informed by reading it.
This is fundamentally wrong. In general, it is often far easier to check
if information is true or false, than it is to discover true information from scratch.
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read
from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full >>>> picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age
of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as
news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity
influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been
influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom".
He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he
spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the
article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth.
But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
I can't think of one current news provider that I would trust to give me >>>> a reasonable overview of all news.
I would agree that you should certainly use multiple sources. But many
sources should be disregarded entirely, unless you're specifically
trying to discover what lies people are being fed rather than anything
about the truth. Something has to contain over 50% truth for you to
become more - rather than less - informed by reading it.
This is fundamentally wrong. In general, it is often far easier to check
if information is true or false, than it is to discover true information
from scratch.
This is fundamentally wrong. It is generally far harder to disprove a
false claim than it is to make one. A liar can invent 50 lies in the
time it takes to disprove one of them.
And people simply don't do that anyway. If you read an article which
makes 20 claims, of which 15 are bullshit and 5 are true, almost nobody
is going to put in the quite significant amount of effort required to
sort one from the other. So almost everyone is going to end up less
informed after reading the article than before.
If you're also planning on reading multiple sources in order to be
"better informed", you'll have even less time for fact-checking
everything you read. So there is no chance whatsoever you will end
up closer to the truth unless you curate your reading list to weed
out peddlers of lies and nonsense.
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read >>>>> from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full >>>>> picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age >>>> of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as
news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity
influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been
influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom".
He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he
spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the
article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth.
But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation about reporting restrictions.
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read >>>>>> from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full >>>>>> picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age >>>>> of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as >>>> news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity
influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been >>>> influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom". >>>> He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he
spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the
article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth. >>>
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
To take just one of his major points, in bold at the start of the
article, which I am picking because it is the one most amenable to
fact checking (since it, uniquely, isn't alleging secret conspiracies
behind closed doors):
Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a maximum of
four years if convicted, and serve less than half their sentences.
Under the draconian terror designation rCo which jurors have not been
notified of rCo the activists could spend as many as eight years in
prison. Their release would have to be approved by a dedicated board
for terror cases.
I can't find anything to back any of that up whatsoever. The maximum
sentence for burglary or criminal damage is 10 years, or life if it's aggravated burglary. The sentencing guidelines don't specify a "maximum"
of 4 years either. And if it's somehow "terorrist burglary", which as
far as I can see simply isn't a thing, I can't find anything to specify
that the maximum would either be increased by 4 years or equal to 8 years
or anything that could result in that amount of time in custody.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't
understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in
Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation
about reporting restrictions.
Zarah Sultana is also clearly happy to talk absolute nonsense, so you're merely reinforcing my negative opinion of Blumenthal there.
On 4/21/26 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read >>>>>>> from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full >>>>>>> picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>>>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age >>>>>> of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as >>>>> news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity
influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been >>>>> influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom". >>>>> He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he >>>>> spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the >>>>> article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth. >>>>
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
To take just one of his major points, in bold at the start of the
article, which I am picking because it is the one most amenable to
fact checking (since it, uniquely, isn't alleging secret conspiracies
behind closed doors):
The main points were the secrecy, hiding things from the jury, reporting restrictions. Jury mushroom management.
Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a maximum of
four years if convicted, and serve less than half their sentences.
Under the draconian terror designation rCo which jurors have not been >> notified of rCo the activists could spend as many as eight years in
prison. Their release would have to be approved by a dedicated board
for terror cases.
I can't find anything to back any of that up whatsoever. The maximum
sentence for burglary or criminal damage is 10 years, or life if it's
aggravated burglary. The sentencing guidelines don't specify a "maximum"
of 4 years either. And if it's somehow "terorrist burglary", which as
far as I can see simply isn't a thing, I can't find anything to specify
that the maximum would either be increased by 4 years or equal to 8 years
or anything that could result in that amount of time in custody.
Perhaps he is referring to:
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
The restriction of early release. I don't know, I would like more transparency. I would like to know how to determine if reporting restrictions do exist.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't
understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in
Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation >>> about reporting restrictions.
Zarah Sultana is also clearly happy to talk absolute nonsense, so you're
merely reinforcing my negative opinion of Blumenthal there.
Nonsense you say.,. I see Zarah got kicked out of the commons today for calling Keir a liar.
Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving
Keir unwanted giving will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment.
I would have gone with disreputable or corrupt, rather than liar, but
I think Zarah is in the right ballpark.
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/21/26 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read >>>>>>>> from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full
picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>>>>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age >>>>>>> of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as >>>>>> news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity >>>>>> influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been >>>>>> influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom". >>>>>> He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he >>>>>> spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the >>>>>> article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth. >>>>>
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
To take just one of his major points, in bold at the start of the
article, which I am picking because it is the one most amenable to
fact checking (since it, uniquely, isn't alleging secret conspiracies
behind closed doors):
The main points were the secrecy, hiding things from the jury, reporting
restrictions. Jury mushroom management.
Yes, I don't have any reason to believe any of those things are
happening, and no way I'm aware of of finding any evidence either way.
Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a maximum of >>> four years if convicted, and serve less than half their sentences. >>> Under the draconian terror designation rCo which jurors have not been >>> notified of rCo the activists could spend as many as eight years in >>> prison. Their release would have to be approved by a dedicated board >>> for terror cases.
I can't find anything to back any of that up whatsoever. The maximum
sentence for burglary or criminal damage is 10 years, or life if it's
aggravated burglary. The sentencing guidelines don't specify a "maximum" >>> of 4 years either. And if it's somehow "terorrist burglary", which as
far as I can see simply isn't a thing, I can't find anything to specify
that the maximum would either be increased by 4 years or equal to 8 years >>> or anything that could result in that amount of time in custody.
Perhaps he is referring to:
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
That doesn't sound anything like what he's describing, and from
a brief reading would not appear to have any way of applying to
these defendants.
The restriction of early release. I don't know, I would like more
transparency. I would like to know how to determine if reporting
restrictions do exist.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't
understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in >>>> Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation >>>> about reporting restrictions.
Zarah Sultana is also clearly happy to talk absolute nonsense, so you're >>> merely reinforcing my negative opinion of Blumenthal there.
Nonsense you say.,. I see Zarah got kicked out of the commons today for
calling Keir a liar.
You're only reinforcing my point.
Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving
Keir unwanted giving will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment.
Sorry, I can't work out what on earth you're saying there.
I would have gone with disreputable or corrupt, rather than liar, but
I think Zarah is in the right ballpark.
Both you and she are completely wrong. He's not disreputable, or
corrupt, or a liar. He's just a fucking despicable cowardly shitbag.
A common counter
example would be when someone starts a conversation by saying they are
not something... My default instinct is to assume that they are only
denying it because they are what they claim not to be. It is a lie, but
I'm more informed for hearing it.
Ollie Robbins
knows giving Keir unwanted [advice] will impact his career prospects. So
he doesn't. Keir fosters that working environment.
On 21/04/2026 23:30, Pancho wrote:
Ollie Robbins knows giving Keir unwanted [advice] will impact his
career prospects. So he doesn't. Keir fosters that working environment.
Out of interest, what ARE the career prospects of someone who is head of
the Foreign Office (assuming he doesn't get sacked)? He couldn't get
much higher in the Civil Service, could he?
I agree that the appointment of Mandelson was done back to front, but somebody should have confronted Starmer and told him it had to be
cancelled. If Robbins couldn't bring himself to do that, then what on
earth was he good for?
I agree that the appointment of Mandelson was done back to front, but somebody
should have confronted Starmer and told him it had to be cancelled. If Robbins
couldn't bring himself to do that, then what on earth was he good for?
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/21/26 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read >>>>>>>> from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full
picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>>>>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age >>>>>>> of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as >>>>>> news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity >>>>>> influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been >>>>>> influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom". >>>>>> He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he >>>>>> spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the >>>>>> article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth. >>>>>
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
To take just one of his major points, in bold at the start of the
article, which I am picking because it is the one most amenable to
fact checking (since it, uniquely, isn't alleging secret conspiracies
behind closed doors):
The main points were the secrecy, hiding things from the jury, reporting
restrictions. Jury mushroom management.
Yes, I don't have any reason to believe any of those things are
happening, and no way I'm aware of of finding any evidence either way.
Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a maximum of
four years if convicted, and serve less than half their sentences.
Under the draconian terror designation - which jurors have not been >>> notified of - the activists could spend as many as eight years in
prison. Their release would have to be approved by a dedicated board >>> for terror cases.
I can't find anything to back any of that up whatsoever. The maximum
sentence for burglary or criminal damage is 10 years, or life if it's
aggravated burglary. The sentencing guidelines don't specify a "maximum" >>> of 4 years either. And if it's somehow "terorrist burglary", which as
far as I can see simply isn't a thing, I can't find anything to specify
that the maximum would either be increased by 4 years or equal to 8 years >>> or anything that could result in that amount of time in custody.
Perhaps he is referring to:
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
That doesn't sound anything like what he's describing, and from
a brief reading would not appear to have any way of applying to
these defendants.
The restriction of early release. I don't know, I would like more
transparency. I would like to know how to determine if reporting
restrictions do exist.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't
understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in >>>> Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation >>>> about reporting restrictions.
Zarah Sultana is also clearly happy to talk absolute nonsense, so you're >>> merely reinforcing my negative opinion of Blumenthal there.
Nonsense you say.,. I see Zarah got kicked out of the commons today for
calling Keir a liar.
You're only reinforcing my point.
Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving
Keir unwanted giving will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment.
Sorry, I can't work out what on earth you're saying there.
I would have gone with disreputable or corrupt, rather than liar, but
I think Zarah is in the right ballpark.
Both you and she are completely wrong. He's not disreputable, or
corrupt, or a liar. He's just a fucking despicable cowardly shitbag.
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present >> their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found. But it had done its job.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present >>> their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took >> place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the >> view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found. >> But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and politicians; but one that is generally held.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present >>>> their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took >>> place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the >>> answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil >>> Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to >>> support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the >>> view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that >>> those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the >>> war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found. >>> But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view
of the same topic?
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible to the rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of different parties; Tory/Reform good, Labour bad. It must lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance, trying to sustain this position.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present >>>> their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow >>>> or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took >>> place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the >>> answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil >>> Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to >>> support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the >>> view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that >>> those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the >>> war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found. >>> But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view
of the same topic?
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/21/26 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we should read >>>>>>>> from many ideologically different news sources, in order to gain a full
picture of what was going on. I think his example was that he read the >>>>>>>> Morning Star. I think it was good advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the modern age >>>>>>> of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As well as >>>>>> news media, we have always had: books, TV, film, theatre, celebrity >>>>>> influencers, religion, educational institutions. These have always been >>>>>> influential, and highly biased.
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging Freedom". >>>>>> He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes this position, he >>>>>> spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the three main claims in the >>>>>> article are broadly speaking true, or at least grounded in some truth. >>>>>
nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth
listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
To take just one of his major points, in bold at the start of the
article, which I am picking because it is the one most amenable to
fact checking (since it, uniquely, isn't alleging secret conspiracies
behind closed doors):
The main points were the secrecy, hiding things from the jury, reporting
restrictions. Jury mushroom management.
Yes, I don't have any reason to believe any of those things are
happening, and no way I'm aware of of finding any evidence either way.
Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a maximum of >>> four years if convicted, and serve less than half their sentences. >>> Under the draconian terror designation rCo which jurors have not been >>> notified of rCo the activists could spend as many as eight years in >>> prison. Their release would have to be approved by a dedicated board >>> for terror cases.
I can't find anything to back any of that up whatsoever. The maximum
sentence for burglary or criminal damage is 10 years, or life if it's
aggravated burglary. The sentencing guidelines don't specify a "maximum" >>> of 4 years either. And if it's somehow "terorrist burglary", which as
far as I can see simply isn't a thing, I can't find anything to specify
that the maximum would either be increased by 4 years or equal to 8 years >>> or anything that could result in that amount of time in custody.
Perhaps he is referring to:
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
That doesn't sound anything like what he's describing, and from
a brief reading would not appear to have any way of applying to
these defendants.
The restriction of early release. I don't know, I would like more
transparency. I would like to know how to determine if reporting
restrictions do exist.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't
understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in >>>> Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation >>>> about reporting restrictions.
Zarah Sultana is also clearly happy to talk absolute nonsense, so you're >>> merely reinforcing my negative opinion of Blumenthal there.
Nonsense you say.,. I see Zarah got kicked out of the commons today for
calling Keir a liar.
You're only reinforcing my point.
Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving
Keir unwanted giving will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment.
Sorry, I can't work out what on earth you're saying there.
I would have gone with disreputable or corrupt, rather than liar, but
I think Zarah is in the right ballpark.
Both you and she are completely wrong. He's not disreputable, or
corrupt, or a liar. He's just a fucking despicable cowardly shitbag.
On 21/04/2026 23:30, Pancho wrote:
Ollie Robbins knows giving Keir unwanted [advice] will impact his
career prospects. So he doesn't. Keir fosters that working environment.
Out of interest, what ARE the career prospects of someone who is head of
the Foreign Office (assuming he doesn't get sacked)?-a He couldn't get
much higher in the Civil Service, could he?
I agree that the appointment of Mandelson was done back to front, but somebody should have confronted Starmer and told him it had to be
cancelled. If Robbins couldn't bring himself to do that, then what on
earth was he good for?
Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving
Keir unwanted giving will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment.
Sorry, I can't work out what on earth you're saying there.
I thoink the second iteration of "giving" was meant to be "advice".
On 21/04/2026 10:57, Pancho wrote:
A common counter example would be when someone starts a conversation
by saying they are not something... My default instinct is to assume
that they are only denying it because they are what they claim not to
be. It is a lie, but I'm more informed for hearing it.
Brilliant logic! I'm NOT a billionaire. I don't have 3 Nobel prizes. ...
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible to the >> rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of different parties;
Tory/Reform good, Labour bad. It must lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance, >> trying to sustain this position.
Whereas those who espouse rCOLabour good, Tories badrCO are correct by default?
On 4/23/26 10:12, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible to the >>> rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of different parties;
Tory/Reform good, Labour bad. It must lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance,
trying to sustain this position.
Whereas those who espouse rCOLabour good, Tories badrCO are correct by default?
With the current local elections coming up I'm at a total loss to find
the good.
On 4/22/26 00:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/21/26 11:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-21, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 10:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-20, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/26 08:04, Jon Ribbens wrote:
My O'Level history teacher impressed on the class that we
should read from many ideologically different news sources, in >>>>>>>>> order to gain a full picture of what was going on. I think his >>>>>>>>> example was that he read the Morning Star. I think it was good >>>>>>>>> advice.
I think your history teacher was probably talking before the
modern age of YouTube and disinformation campaigns.
There has always been propaganda, disinformation campaigns. As
well as news media, we have always had: books, TV, film,
theatre, celebrity influencers, religion, educational
institutions. These have always been influential, and highly biased. >>>>>>>
I know Max Blumenthal slightly from watching YouTube "Judging
Freedom". He is clearly against US imperialism, and promotes
this position, he spins and exaggerates. However, I expect the
three main claims in the article are broadly speaking true, or
at least grounded in some truth.
But he is clearly willing to publish absolute nonsense, which means >>>>>> nothing he writes is worth reading. Just the same as it's not worth >>>>>> listening to anything Trump says, because it has no connection to
reality. Or indeed certain people in ulm.
The word "clearly" should only be used about facts that are common
ground in a discussion. That is not the case here.
To take just one of his major points, in bold at the start of the
article, which I am picking because it is the one most amenable to
fact checking (since it, uniquely, isn't alleging secret conspiracies
behind closed doors):
The main points were the secrecy, hiding things from the jury, reporting >>> restrictions. Jury mushroom management.
Yes, I don't have any reason to believe any of those things are
happening, and no way I'm aware of of finding any evidence either way.
I do have reason to believe, Blumenthal, Zarah Sultana. It might not be compelling, but it is evidence.
As a basic point on conspiracy. People do conspire, just as they do tell
the truth. Lack of evidence should not necessarily bias us toward
assuming someone is telling the truth. It is nuanced, we have a lot of background evidence, commonsense, that influences credibility.
Under normal circumstances, the defendants would face a
maximum of four years if convicted, and serve less than half
their sentences. Under the draconian terror designation rCo
which jurors have not been notified of rCo the activists could
spend as many as eight years in prison. Their release would
have to be approved by a dedicated board for terror cases.
I can't find anything to back any of that up whatsoever. The maximum
sentence for burglary or criminal damage is 10 years, or life if it's
aggravated burglary. The sentencing guidelines don't specify a "maximum" >>>> of 4 years either. And if it's somehow "terorrist burglary", which as
far as I can see simply isn't a thing, I can't find anything to specify >>>> that the maximum would either be increased by 4 years or equal to 8 years >>>> or anything that could result in that amount of time in custody.
Perhaps he is referring to:
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
That doesn't sound anything like what he's describing, and from
a brief reading would not appear to have any way of applying to
these defendants.
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes as terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that.
It sounded to me as if loss of early release fitted the description.
The benefit of someone like Blumenthal is not that their articles are scrupulously "spell" checked, but that the articles reveal the basic
essence of what is going on.
The restriction of early release. I don't know, I would like more
transparency. I would like to know how to determine if reporting
restrictions do exist.
I do not accept Blumenthal's comments are absolute nonsense, I don't >>>>> understand why you think they are nonsense. Zarah Sultana's comments in >>>>> Parliament on 14th April tend to agree with Blumenthal's main allegation >>>>> about reporting restrictions.
Zarah Sultana is also clearly happy to talk absolute nonsense, so you're >>>> merely reinforcing my negative opinion of Blumenthal there.
Nonsense you say.,. I see Zarah got kicked out of the commons today for
calling Keir a liar.
You're only reinforcing my point.
Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving
Keir unwanted giving will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment.
Sorry, I can't work out what on earth you're saying there.
"Keir is a shining example of the integrity of legal professional. A
classic example of how things are done. Ollie Robbins knows giving Keir unwanted *information* will impact his career prospects. So he doesn't.
Keir fosters that working environment."
I would have gone with disreputable or corrupt, rather than liar, but
I think Zarah is in the right ballpark.
Both you and she are completely wrong. He's not disreputable, or
corrupt, or a liar. He's just a fucking despicable cowardly shitbag.
I disagree, I think there is a real intent to deceive. Keir is
perverting the letter of the law rather than trying to follow the spirit.
FWIW, I don't think any politician is cowardly.
Anonymous Usenet posters like me are cowardly. I don't mind being
cowardly.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took >>>> place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the >>>> answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil >>>> Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to >>>> support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the >>>> view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that >>>> those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the >>>> war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found. >>>> But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes >> men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however
unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view >> of the same topic?
No I didn't.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants
should present politicians with the facts.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't happen.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they should, then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear
to be the case.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/26 10:12, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible
to the rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of
different parties; Tory/Reform good, Labour bad. It must lead to a
lot of cognitive dissonance, trying to sustain this position.
Whereas those who espouse rCOLabour good, Tories badrCO are correct by
default?
With the current local elections coming up I'm at a total loss to find
the good.
YourCOre not alone in that. Politicians of all persuasions are losing their shine, and large parts of the electorate want something better.
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then allow or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took >>>> place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the >>>> answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil >>>> Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to >>>> support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the >>>> view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that >>>> those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the >>>> war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found. >>>> But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes >> men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however
unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view >> of the same topic?
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible to the rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of different parties; Tory/Reform good, Labour bad.
It must lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance,
trying to sustain this position.
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/26 10:12, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible to the >>>> rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of different parties; >>>> Tory/Reform good, Labour bad. It must lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance,
trying to sustain this position.
Whereas those who espouse rCOLabour good, Tories badrCO are correct by default?
With the current local elections coming up I'm at a total loss to find
the good.
YourCOre not alone in that. Politicians of all persuasions are losing their shine, and large parts of the electorate want something better.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Apr 2026 at 09:28:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent seems to feel a compulsion to make a distinction, invisible to the >> rest of us, between the behaviour of politicians of different parties;
Tory/Reform good, Labour bad. It must lead to a lot of cognitive dissonance, >> trying to sustain this position.
Whereas those who espouse rCOLabour good, Tories badrCO are correct by default?
Around the world it appears that no electoral system is much good atYourCOre not alone in that. Politicians of all persuasions are losing
their shine, and large parts of the electorate want something
better.
It is rather unfortunate that our electoral system is spectacularly
unsuited to solving this problem.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 13:58:33 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
YourCOre not alone in that. Politicians of all persuasions are losing
their shine, and large parts of the electorate want something
better.
It is rather unfortunate that our electoral system is spectacularly
unsuited to solving this problem.
Around the world it appears that no electoral system is much good at
solving problems of this nature, and the result is the paralysis that
we see in so many places and organisations.
No, I don't have any real suggestions, but I do take the view that
there is a maximum size of organisation that can make sensible
decisions, and that is generally a country.
No, I don't have any real suggestions, but I do take the view that
there is a maximum size of organisation that can make sensible
decisions, and that is generally a country.
What size is "a country"? They vary between 1,000 and 1,400,000,000
people.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:15:41 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
No, I don't have any real suggestions, but I do take the view that
there is a maximum size of organisation that can make sensible
decisions, and that is generally a country.
What size is "a country"? They vary between 1,000 and 1,400,000,000
people.
It's less about size per se than it is about a shared understanding of
your fellow members of the electorate.
On 2026-04-23, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:15:41 -0000 (UTC)[...]
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What size is "a country"? They vary between 1,000 and 1,400,000,000
people.
It's less about size per se than it is about a shared understanding
of your fellow members of the electorate.
Well, again, that's likely to be much more cohesive in a country of
a thousand people than one of 1.4 billion. The European Union as a
group of people (to take an example entirely at random) probably has
a far greater "shared understanding" than, say, the populations of
China or India.
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes as terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then >>>>>> allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have >>>>> realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and >>>>> politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the >>>>> answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil >>>>> Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to >>>>> support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that >>>>> those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the >>>>> war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and >>>> politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and >>> you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be >>>> getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes >>> men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however
unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view >>> of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants
should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't
happen.
That's not the point.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that
sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:06:29 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-04-23, Brian Morrison <news@fenrir.org.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:15:41 -0000 (UTC)[...]
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What size is "a country"? They vary between 1,000 and 1,400,000,000
people.
It's less about size per se than it is about a shared understanding
of your fellow members of the electorate.
Well, again, that's likely to be much more cohesive in a country of
a thousand people than one of 1.4 billion. The European Union as a
group of people (to take an example entirely at random) probably has
a far greater "shared understanding" than, say, the populations of
China or India.
You might think that, I couldn't really comment on why you think it.
I don't think of the EU as a group of people, it's actually a number
of groups of people separated by national boundaries.
And oddly they are asked to vote in elections organised on national
lines I believe, although the EU institutions don't generally take
notice of those national votes very often.
On 23/04/2026 10:31, Pancho wrote:
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes as
terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that.
Is Blumenthal really suggesting the judge can decide what charges are brought, or alter the charges? If so, that's clearly untrue.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then >>>>>>> allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have >>>>>> realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and >>>>>> politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the >>>>>> answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and >>>>> politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and >>>> you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be >>>>> getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however
unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view >>>> of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote.
No I didn't.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants
should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't >>> happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that >>> sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear >>> to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point
So you at least got that one right
bb.
On 23/04/2026 10:31, Pancho wrote:
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes
as terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that.
Is Blumenthal really suggesting the judge can decide what charges are brought, or alter the charges? If so, that's clearly untrue.
On 2026-04-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 10:31, Pancho wrote:
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes as >>> terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that.
Is Blumenthal really suggesting the judge can decide what charges are
brought, or alter the charges? If so, that's clearly untrue.
It's not to do with the charges, it's to do with the sentencing.
So there's no reason the jury would be told, just as the jury would
generally not be told about any other aggravating or mitigating
factors relevant to sentencing but not to guilt (e.g. previous
convictions).
On 4/24/26 09:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-04-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/04/2026 10:31, Pancho wrote:
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes as >>>> terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that.
Is Blumenthal really suggesting the judge can decide what charges are
brought, or alter the charges? If so, that's clearly untrue.
It's not to do with the charges, it's to do with the sentencing.
So there's no reason the jury would be told, just as the jury would
generally not be told about any other aggravating or mitigating
factors relevant to sentencing but not to guilt (e.g. previous
convictions).
The point is not that the jury is "just not told", it is that the judge
is blocking the defence from informing the jury, of this point and other points of law.
On 4/23/26 20:18, GB wrote:
On 23/04/2026 10:31, Pancho wrote:
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimesIs Blumenthal really suggesting the judge can decide what charges are
as terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of that. >>
brought, or alter the charges? If so, that's clearly untrue.
Ah!, we have that word "clearly" again, used about things that are not clear. Repeat something enough times and it becomes the truth, eh?
I can't speak for Blumenthal, apart that from my limited knowledge of
him, he appears to present an interesting viewpoint. A viewpoint that in many ways seems to be more credible and self-consistent than the
viewpoints pushed by the MSM. I haven't read any of his books or such
like, so I don't know if he presents mad ideas that I haven't seen. I
get that he has as anti-Zionist bias. I understand that he make mistakes.
What I can say is that I have already presented as a potential
motivation for Blumenthal's story:
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020:
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
This would remove the automatic right to early release, which I think is
at 50%.
It appears the defendants have already been categorised as having a "terrorism connection".
I don't know if the defence team has been blocked from informing the--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
jury about this. I don't know if the judge is able to use this in
sentencing even if the jury have not been told about it.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vmjjxvj0eo> ><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmvxgkwg17o>
On 4/23/26 20:18, GB wrote:
On 23/04/2026 10:31, Pancho wrote:
Blumenthal's basic idea is that the judge would categorise the crimes
as terrorist and that the sentences would be more severe because of
that.
Is Blumenthal really suggesting the judge can decide what charges are
brought, or alter the charges? If so, that's clearly untrue.
Ah!, we have that word "clearly" again, used about things that are not clear. Repeat something enough times and it becomes the truth, eh?
I can't speak for Blumenthal, apart that from my limited knowledge of
him, he appears to present an interesting viewpoint. A viewpoint that in many ways seems to be more credible and self-consistent than the
viewpoints pushed by the MSM. I haven't read any of his books or such
like, so I don't know if he presents mad ideas that I haven't seen. I
get that he has as anti-Zionist bias. I understand that he make mistakes.
What I can say is that I have already presented as a potential
motivation for Blumenthal's story:
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020: <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/3>
This would remove the automatic right to early release, which I think is
at 50%.
It appears the defendants have already been categorised as having a "terrorism connection".
I don't know if the defence team has been
blocked from informing the jury about this. I don't know if the judge is able to use this in sentencing even if the jury have not been told about
it.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vmjjxvj0eo> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmvxgkwg17o>
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then >>>>>>>> allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that >>>>>>> took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have >>>>>>> realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and >>>>>>> politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the >>>>>>> Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient >>>>>>> to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push >>>>>>> the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified >>>>>>> that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When >>>>>>> the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be >>>>>>> found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and >>>>>> politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and >>>>> you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be >>>>>> getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be >>>>> "yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however
unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't >>>>> always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote.
No I didn't.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants
should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't >>>> happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that >>>> sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they >>>> should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear >>>> to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims,
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that rather than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
That is indeed "oddly", given the EU instutions are *defined by*
the national votes.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then >>>>>>>>> allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that >>>>>>>> took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have >>>>>>>> realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and >>>>>>>> politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the >>>>>>>> Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified >>>>>>>> that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When >>>>>>>> the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be >>>>>>>> found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and >>>>>>> politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be >>>>>>> getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be >>>>>> "yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however >>>>>> unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual >>>>>> decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't >>>>>> always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote.
No I didn't.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants >>>>> should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't >>>>> happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that >>>>> sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they >>>>> should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear >>>>> to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims,
(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable;
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that rather
than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; itrCOs a "rule".
And is how government works
On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:17:32 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
That is indeed "oddly", given the EU instutions are *defined by*
the national votes.
That is perhaps the case, although some people become a president of
some type without any apparent vote at all.
And finally there's the most prominent one, the President of the
European Comission, who is also elected by the individual national governments, but afterwards needs the approval of the Members of the
European Parliament.
On Sat, 25 Apr 2026 14:55:00 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
And finally there's the most prominent one, the President of the
European Comission, who is also elected by the individual national
governments, but afterwards needs the approval of the Members of the
European Parliament.
Was Ursula von der Leyen the spitzenkandidat? I believe not.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No I didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then >>>>>>>>>> allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that >>>>>>>>> took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have >>>>>>>>> realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and >>>>>>>>> politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is >>>>>>>>> the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the >>>>>>>>> Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified >>>>>>>>> that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When >>>>>>>>> the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be >>>>>>>>> found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and >>>>>>>> politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, >>>>>>> and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this
exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be >>>>>>> "yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however >>>>>>> unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual >>>>>>> decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't >>>>>>> always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different >>>>>>> view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote. >>>>
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants >>>>>> should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't >>>>>> happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that >>>>>> sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they >>>>>> should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims,
(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to
present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable;
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that rather >>> than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
Your record in this thread speaks for itself.
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least
of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who
saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered accordingly.
--
Spike
Was Ursula von der Leyen the spitzenkandidat? I believe not.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n542alFrb2cU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No I didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>>>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and then
allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries that
took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is >>>>>>>>>> the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the >>>>>>>>>> Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified >>>>>>>>>> that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. When
the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be >>>>>>>>>> found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English.
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, >>>>>>>> and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this >>>>>>>>> exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be >>>>>>>> "yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however >>>>>>>> unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual >>>>>>>> decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't >>>>>>>> always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different >>>>>>>> view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote. >>>>>
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants >>>>>>> should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply doesn't
happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, that
sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they >>>>>>> should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point >>>>>
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims,
(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>> present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable;
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that rather >>>> than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
Your record in this thread speaks for itself.
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one
significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least
of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who
saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered
accordingly.
History Quiz
Question 1
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always done their job ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Question 2
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always obeyed the rules ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Scoring
If you answered (a) to a question you score 1 point
If you answered (b) to a question you score 100 points
If you scored less than 3 points, then you probably voted for Brexit,
would vote for Donald Trump if you lived in the US; quite possibly you
have profound learning difficulties; and your name possibly has 5
letters beginning with an "S".
If you scored 200 points, then congratulations. You might not be a genius; but at least you're not quite as stupid as the idiots who only scored
2 points.
bb
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one
significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least
of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who
saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered
accordingly.
History Quiz
Question 1
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always done their job ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Question 2
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always obeyed the rules ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Scoring
If you answered (a) to a question you score 1 point
If you answered (b) to a question you score 100 points
If you scored less than 3 points, then you probably voted for Brexit,
would vote for Donald Trump if you lived in the US; quite possibly you
have profound learning difficulties; and your name possibly has 5
letters beginning with an "S".
If you scored 200 points, then congratulations. You might not be a genius; but at least you're not quite as stupid as the idiots who only scored
2 points.
Brian Morrison wrote:
Was Ursula von der Leyen the spitzenkandidat? I believe not.
WikiP believes she was (2nd time around)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzenkandidat#:~:text=Incumbent%20Ursula%20von%20der%20Leyen>
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n542alFrb2cU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No I didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>>>>>>>> present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and >>>>>>>>>>>> then
allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries >>>>>>>>>>> that
took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might >>>>>>>>>>> have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants >>>>>>>>>>> and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is
the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the >>>>>>>>>>> Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are >>>>>>>>>>> insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to >>>>>>>>>>> push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified
that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. >>>>>>>>>>> When
the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>>>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be >>>>>>>>>>> found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English. >>>>>>>>>
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants >>>>>>>>>> and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one, >>>>>>>>> and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this >>>>>>>>>> exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be
"yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however >>>>>>>>> unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual >>>>>>>>> decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't >>>>>>>>> always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different >>>>>>>>> view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote. >>>>>>
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants >>>>>>>> should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply >>>>>>>> doesn't
happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, >>>>>>>> that
sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they >>>>>>>> should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise >>>>>>>> appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point >>>>>>
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims,
(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>> present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable;
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that rather >>>>> than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
Your record in this thread speaks for itself.
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one
significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least >>> of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who >>> saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered
accordingly.
History Quiz
Question 1
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always done their job ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Question 2
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always obeyed the rules ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Scoring
If you answered (a) to a question you score 1 point
If you answered (b) to a question you score 100 points
If you scored less than 3 points, then you probably voted for Brexit,
would vote for Donald Trump if you lived in the US; quite possibly you
have profound learning difficulties; and your name possibly has 5
letters beginning with an "S".
If you scored 200 points, then congratulations. You might not be a genius; >> but at least you're not quite as stupid as the idiots who only scored
2 points.
bb
That's a very long-winded way of admitting that you have no relevant experience of the real-life interactions between political masters on the
one hand and those Civil Servants who bring them information that
contradicts the construction of their policies.
I can recommend a book that deals with a specific event that affected millions of people, which shows in part what happened to those particular
UK Civil Servants who dared to speak truth to power. It didn't end well for anyone involved. The geographical region that was affected is still in flames, metaphorically speaking.
Similar things happened to US officials who took the same view as their British cousins regarding the same event. In this case, it was made into a film, the DVD of which is still available at modest cost.
Read the one, view the other, or preferably do both, after which you should be better informed about the relationship between those with power and
those with an unpalatable view, that they felt was right to project.
If you're interested, I'll post the Amazon links. It should cost around a tenner in total for both, which is good value for a weekend's viewing and reading.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n56hb3F8m6kU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n542alFrb2cU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>> present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable;
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:No I didn't.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to
present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and >>>>>>>>>>>>> then
allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries >>>>>>>>>>>> that
took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might >>>>>>>>>>>> have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants >>>>>>>>>>>> and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This is
the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and the
Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are >>>>>>>>>>>> insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to >>>>>>>>>>>> push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly classified
that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. >>>>>>>>>>>> When
the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable - >>>>>>>>>>>> unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to be
found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English. >>>>>>>>>>
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants >>>>>>>>>>> and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal one,
and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they wouldn't
be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this >>>>>>>>>>> exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be
"yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however >>>>>>>>>> unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual >>>>>>>>>> decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a different
view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote. >>>>>>>
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants >>>>>>>>> should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply >>>>>>>>> doesn't
happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, >>>>>>>>> that
sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they >>>>>>>>> should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise >>>>>>>>> appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point >>>>>>>
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims, >>>>>
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that rather
than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
Your record in this thread speaks for itself.
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one >>>> significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least >>>> of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who >>>> saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered
accordingly.
History Quiz
Question 1
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always done their job ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Question 2
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always obeyed the rules ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Scoring
If you answered (a) to a question you score 1 point
If you answered (b) to a question you score 100 points
If you scored less than 3 points, then you probably voted for Brexit,
would vote for Donald Trump if you lived in the US; quite possibly you
have profound learning difficulties; and your name possibly has 5
letters beginning with an "S".
If you scored 200 points, then congratulations. You might not be a genius; >>> but at least you're not quite as stupid as the idiots who only scored
2 points.
bb
That's a very long-winded way of admitting that you have no relevant
experience of the real-life interactions between political masters on the
one hand and those Civil Servants who bring them information that
contradicts the construction of their policies.
I can recommend a book that deals with a specific event that affected
millions of people, which shows in part what happened to those particular
UK Civil Servants who dared to speak truth to power. It didn't end well for >> anyone involved. The geographical region that was affected is still in
flames, metaphorically speaking.
Similar things happened to US officials who took the same view as their
British cousins regarding the same event. In this case, it was made into a >> film, the DVD of which is still available at modest cost.
Read the one, view the other, or preferably do both, after which you should >> be better informed about the relationship between those with power and
those with an unpalatable view, that they felt was right to project.
If you're interested, I'll post the Amazon links. It should cost around a
tenner in total for both, which is good value for a weekend's viewing and
reading.
Sorry# I forgot question three
Question 3
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have politicians always told the truth ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Now as you've apparently read a book, and watched a film and DVD,
here's a great chance for you to pick up 100 bonus points.
bb
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n56hb3F8m6kU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n542alFrb2cU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to >>>>>> present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; >>>>>>
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might >>>>>>>>>>>>> have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This
is
the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are >>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to >>>>>>>>>>>>> push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly >>>>>>>>>>>>> classified
that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> When
the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be
found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English. >>>>>>>>>>>
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants >>>>>>>>>>>> and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal >>>>>>>>>>> one,
and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim.
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this >>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply
be
"yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however >>>>>>>>>>> unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual >>>>>>>>>>> decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a >>>>>>>>>>> different
view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote.
No I didn't.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants
should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply >>>>>>>>>> doesn't
happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, >>>>>>>>>> that
sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they
should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise >>>>>>>>>> appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point >>>>>>>>
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims, >>>>>>
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that >>>>>>> rather
than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
Your record in this thread speaks for itself.
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one >>>>> significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least >>>>> of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who >>>>> saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered >>>>> accordingly.
History Quiz
Question 1
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always done their job ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Question 2
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always obeyed the rules ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Scoring
If you answered (a) to a question you score 1 point
If you answered (b) to a question you score 100 points
If you scored less than 3 points, then you probably voted for Brexit,
would vote for Donald Trump if you lived in the US; quite possibly you >>>> have profound learning difficulties; and your name possibly has 5
letters beginning with an "S".
If you scored 200 points, then congratulations. You might not be a genius; >>>> but at least you're not quite as stupid as the idiots who only scored
2 points.
bb
That's a very long-winded way of admitting that you have no relevant
experience of the real-life interactions between political masters on the >>> one hand and those Civil Servants who bring them information that
contradicts the construction of their policies.
I can recommend a book that deals with a specific event that affected
millions of people, which shows in part what happened to those particular >>> UK Civil Servants who dared to speak truth to power. It didn't end well for >>> anyone involved. The geographical region that was affected is still in
flames, metaphorically speaking.
Similar things happened to US officials who took the same view as their
British cousins regarding the same event. In this case, it was made into a >>> film, the DVD of which is still available at modest cost.
Read the one, view the other, or preferably do both, after which you should >>> be better informed about the relationship between those with power and
those with an unpalatable view, that they felt was right to project.
If you're interested, I'll post the Amazon links. It should cost around a >>> tenner in total for both, which is good value for a weekend's viewing and >>> reading.
Sorry# I forgot question three
Question 3
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
politicians always told the truth ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Now as you've apparently read a book, and watched a film and DVD,
here's a great chance for you to pick up 100 bonus points.
bb
That's an obtuse way of saying that when it comes to the working
relationship between the government and its officials, you haven't a clue.
I can only lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:n58oj3FjderU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n56hb3F8m6kU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n542alFrb2cU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n50nkpFbb0rU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:(a) " It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but to
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4uep2Fdb0U1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4u3i4Ft74dU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:n4stn2Fnk7vU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply be "yes men"; but
to
present
their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
allow
or
force
the latter to make the actual decisions.
I take it you didn't show much interest in the various Inquiries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
took
place after the disastrous Iraq war of 2003, otherwise you might >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
realised that your view of the interaction between Civil Servants
and
politicians does not always hold.
At that time, the issue was that politicians were demanding "This
is
the
answer we want, now go and find the facts that support it", and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
Civil
Servants were saying "But such facts as are available are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficient
to
support a view either way".
Finally, a single piece of information appeared that purported to
push
the
view demanded by the politicians, but which was so highly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> classified
that
those who processed such information were not allowed to see it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When
the
war was over, that information was withdrawn as being unreliable -
unsurprising as the objects to which it referred were nowhere to
be
found.
But it had done its job.
You appear to be confused
If that is the case, you need to improve your use of English. >>>>>>>>>>>>
a) It's not "my view" of the relationship between Civil Servants
and
politicians; but one that is generally held.
Nowhere did you state this was a general view and not a personal >>>>>>>>>>>> one,
and
you did not offer any findings to support such a claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>
b) Quite obviously it doesn't always "hold"; otherwise they >>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
be
getting into all these scrapes and we wouldn't be having this >>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange
But you said, <quote> It's not the job of Civil, Servants to simply
be
"yes
men"; but to present their political masters with the facts however
unpalatable; and then allow or force the latter to make the actual
decisions <unquote>, and then said <quote> Quite obviously it >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
always "hold" <unquote>.
c) Given which, what exactly is your point ?
The one where you say something then not much later state a >>>>>>>>>>>> different
view
of the same topic?
No I didn't.
Yes you did. There was no qualifier such as 'could' in what you wrote.
No I didn't.
I stated, quite correctly, what "should" happen. That Civil Servants
should present politicians with the facts.
No. That's what you're saying *now*.
It's what I said then, as well.
And I stated, again quite correctly, that sometimes that simply >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
happen.
That's not the point.
Yes it is.
If you are seemingly incapable of reconciling yourself to the fact, >>>>>>>>>>> that
sometimes things that "should" happen, "don't" in fact happen as they
should,
then you appear to have even bigger problems, than might otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> appear
to be the case.
But that's not what you originally said.
No indeed.
I'd never mentioned you or your problems at all, up until that point >>>>>>>>>
So you at least got that one right
bb.
There is so much goal-post-shifting going on regarding your claims, >>>>>>>
present their political masters with the facts however unpalatable; >>>>>>>
Where have I ever claimed otherwise ?
In this post or anywhere else ?
I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.
See (a) above
I do suggest that next time you
want to make a sweeping generalisation, put any qualifiers in that >>>>>>>> rather
than belatedly introducing them when challenged.
It's not a "generaliation"; it's a "rule".
Your record in this thread speaks for itself.
And is how government works
LOL. You either don't read much or you've forgotten about at least one >>>>>> significant past event and what subsequently came to light, not the least
of which was the interchange between the political masters and those who >>>>>> saw it as their duty to speak unwelcome truth to power, and suffered >>>>>> accordingly.
History Quiz
Question 1
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always done their job ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Question 2
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
people always obeyed the rules ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Scoring
If you answered (a) to a question you score 1 point
If you answered (b) to a question you score 100 points
If you scored less than 3 points, then you probably voted for Brexit, >>>>> would vote for Donald Trump if you lived in the US; quite possibly you >>>>> have profound learning difficulties; and your name possibly has 5
letters beginning with an "S".
If you scored 200 points, then congratulations. You might not be a genius;
but at least you're not quite as stupid as the idiots who only scored >>>>> 2 points.
bb
That's a very long-winded way of admitting that you have no relevant
experience of the real-life interactions between political masters on the >>>> one hand and those Civil Servants who bring them information that
contradicts the construction of their policies.
I can recommend a book that deals with a specific event that affected
millions of people, which shows in part what happened to those particular >>>> UK Civil Servants who dared to speak truth to power. It didn't end well for
anyone involved. The geographical region that was affected is still in >>>> flames, metaphorically speaking.
Similar things happened to US officials who took the same view as their >>>> British cousins regarding the same event. In this case, it was made into a >>>> film, the DVD of which is still available at modest cost.
Read the one, view the other, or preferably do both, after which you should
be better informed about the relationship between those with power and >>>> those with an unpalatable view, that they felt was right to project.
If you're interested, I'll post the Amazon links. It should cost around a >>>> tenner in total for both, which is good value for a weekend's viewing and >>>> reading.
Sorry# I forgot question three
Question 3
Throughout the course of history, and even up until last week, have
politicians always told the truth ?
(a) Yes
(b) No
Now as you've apparently read a book, and watched a film and DVD,
here's a great chance for you to pick up 100 bonus points.
bb
That's an obtuse way of saying that when it comes to the working
relationship between the government and its officials, you haven't a clue. >>
I can only lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.
Speaking of water.
Jjust as there are floating voters so also there are floating posters..
As no matter how many times you flush, they simply pop up again.
bb
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:15:18 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (11,196K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,448 |