20 September 2010

20/09/10


If men could only know each other, they would neither idolize nor hate.
-Elbert Hubbard

110 comments:

  1. "But the cupboard is bare!"

    -Old Mother Hubbard.

    "I am a space lizard! $500 please"

    -L Ron Hubbard : )

    ReplyDelete
  2. Plight of people on Libdem conference doorstep exposes true impact of Coalition's policies

    "It feels like a big black hole is about to open up, and as we all fall in they'll throw more and more mud on top of us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent piece Sheff, the sufering being caused is unacceptable, and yet they've barely started. All politicos should have to work in a project like that, or at a JCP for at least 2 weeks a year, or live on the dole for 2 weeks. Society would change pretty rapidly I reckon...

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's the fact that they've 'hardly started' and things are already so bad for so many that's really scary.

    Judging from the coverage of the conference so far, looks like the libdems are just going to roll over - no signs of any significant rebellion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One sniff of power Sheff and...

    Meanwhile...


    O'Donell latest you couldn't make this shit up! Or, is it all a construct and when she wins a congress seat she'll pull off the rubber mask to reveall a grinning John Stewart? "Fooled ya!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm...satanic altars, with blood too - that won't endear her to the xtian right. I'm looking forward to what Bill Maher pulls out of his hat...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quiet round here today - everybody working for a change? Glover's been in Cannock and deduces from that that we're all resigned to the cuts...

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Turm:

    I remember O'Donnell from the Maher show in the 90s -- in fact, when I heard that she was running for Senate, I had to look up to make sure that she was that Christine O'Donnell.

    I'm sure that Maher has a pretty good stock of her saying similarly stupid stuff. She used to regularly say things like that to try to give herself some "street cred", 'cos Maher always took the piss out of her for being so sheltered and naive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. She's 41 years old, never married. Are we really supposed to believe that she's a virgin who has never masturbated?

    ReplyDelete
  10. For those interested in the Mike Hancock letter to Nick Clegg, I will post it here in full, but expect it to need several parts.

    Also see here:

    http://www.mikehancock.co.uk/news/552/24/Clegg-should-end-dictatorship-over-the-party-by-20-Lib-Dem-ministers/


    and here:

    http://www.mikehancock.co.uk/uploads/PDFs/letter_to_nick_clegg.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Nick

    I am writing to you with two concerns.

    Firstly that we may be abandoning a key aspect of the Liberal Democrat policy in supporting thewelfare state. And secondly we are going beyond the coalition agreement without it being referred back to the democratic structures of the party. I am sure, you agree with me that we must not havedictatorship of the party by 20 Lib Dem ministers. I hope that you will use your leader’s speech tothe party conference to put to rest both these concerns.

    You say that the Liberal Democrats are not a party of the left. I have to say that these labels are notperhaps very relevant these days. However there is concern as to what your words are code for.What I hope we are is a modern liberal and social democratic party that particularly draws on the work of Beveridge and the welfare state.

    There is though concern from me and many in the party over your comments reported in the press will see the abandonment of traditional Beveridge Liberalism. Liberalism has been concerned withthe freedom of the individual. But modern Liberalism has recognised that means true freedom means freedom from poverty and ill health.

    I bring to you to attention your words to the 2008 Lib Dem party conference:

    “In Britain today, some people are still more free than others. Pensioners spending a whole winter inthe bedroom, because it's the only room they can afford to heat. That isn't freedom. Childrenshunted from one damp, temporary flat to another - sharing a bed with their parents because there's no space for a room of their own. That isn't freedom.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with you. But cutting someone’s housing benefit, forcing people into ghettos of sub-standardhousing or trimming pensioners’ winter fuel payments, as the coalition Government proposes to dodenies people freedom and reduces their social mobility.

    There is a widespread myth that it is easy to live on benefits. I don’t believe that it is. But if you think that it is then you, the Prime Minister and ministers should try it for a month. I am sure that you willremember the TV programmes that Matthew Parris, the former Conservative MP and now ajournalist and broadcaster has made about living on benefits. In ’84, he ran out of money, and in 2004, perhaps a bit wiser, his money “just about” stretched. Although he fully admits this wasn’t afull test on a number of points – he had for example the TV lights to keep him warm!

    I believe that the proposed cuts to housing benefit are spiteful, vindictive, increase poverty, reducefreedom and social mobility and pander to the worse aspects of Tories and the Tory Press.

    In your 2008 conference rally speech, you said a young 8 year-old girl in your constituency hadasked you what politicians actually do. You said: “I told her that the job of a politician is to give avoice to the voiceless. Maybe it sounded a bit sentimental for an 8 year old's taste. But even if it's cheesy, it's true.

    ”We must now give voice to those in poverty and on housing benefit. It is not freedom or socialmobility for a young children to come back to do their homework to a damp, depressing property andthat will what the cuts to housing benefit will mean for too many. And their voice is being drownedout by the Tory press.

    We agreed the coalition agreement as a democratic party through our agreed democratic structures. There is now concern in the party that the agreement goes beyond what was agreed.

    There is no mention of the VAT rise in the coalition agreement despite detailed proposals on other tax measures. Yet just a few weeks that was in the budget. As Prof Ron Glatter, Emeritus Professorof Education at the Open University has pointed out the Academies Bill was not in the coalitionagreement. Yet within days of the coalition agreement being signed, a very detailed Academies Billwas published and within weeks, rushed through Parliament.

    As you know I voted against the VAT rise and the Academies Bill - not out of disloyalty to you or theGovernment but out of loyalty to the Coalition Agreement and the party. There is a danger also thatthe agreement is becoming one of Orwellian newspeak when "helping" people into work becomes code for cutting benefits. I do not see cutting benefits as helping people - quite the reverse. Less money will make it more difficult for people to get work rather than less. Looking for work takes money - smart clothes, transport, stamps, paper, computers etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is a fundamental point here. If we do not stick to the coalition agreement and if we do notratify any major changes that are not in line with the Lib Dem manifesto through the triple lock agreement then we will never be able to sign an agreement in the future with any party. The partywill say that the parliamentary party didn't stick to the agreement why should we trust you now.

    I would be grateful if you could confirm in your speech on Monday that you will in the future bringany fundamental policy changes to the agreement without going through the triple lock democratic arrangements of the party. Or if that is not going to be the case that you will bring forward changes to the party constitution to change the triple lock. As I say that was not the case with the VAT riseand the Academies Bill. We are, I believe above all, a democratic party relying on the work andgoodwill (more than the other parties) of our volunteers, activists and councillors. This cannot be aparty of a dictatorship of 20 Lib Dem ministers.

    Let me also be clear where I am as regards Labour. If Dennis Skinner can remain a member ofLabour throughout the past twenty years of new Labour, I as a founding member of the SDP withover 25 years membership of the Lib Dems can certainly remain a member of the Lib Dems.

    We should remind people of the actions of new Labour and the Labour ministers who are now goingaround trying to be their leader did. In fact there is such amnesia amongst them that I fear they havemay have had a complete lobotomy! They supported things that you and I campaigned and votedagainst. Attacks on the poor through the abolition of the 10p tax rate. Attacks on students introducing tuition fees. Attacks on pensioners with the miserly 75p increase in the pension. Attacks on civil liberties with ID Cards and increasing the big brother state. The decimation of the local postoffice network. And just the down-right mean spirited with not allowing Ghurkhas to settle here. Andyou are rightly to be congratulated on the campaign that you ran on this.

    I know that I and my constituents will not forget these things. The coalition Government should notfall into the same trap - giving with one hand and taking away with other. The above inflationincrease in the state pension against the trimming of winter fuel payments. More money for schools through the pupil premium against scrapping Building Schools for the Future. A real terms increasefor the NHS (as supposed to Labour cuts) against yet another re-organisation.

    It probably remains one of your frustrations that leading the Lib Dems is a bit like herding cats!However it remains one of the strengths of this party that we can have a proper grown updiscussion. I remain amazed at some of things that my Labour MP friends voted for just because ithad Blair, Brown or Mandelson stamped on it. Indeed things that they are now professing that theywere against. It is difficult to find someone who was not a Tory Minister in the early '90s who saynow that they were not privately against the Poll Tax. Yet none were brave enough to stand upagainst Mrs Thatcher at the time.

    You have noted the importance of arguing through issues and that they are not rubberstamped.Speaking to the 2008 party conference, before obviously the General Election you said “ youshouldn't look for freedom of expression in parliament.” And “We know that every time there's a votein Parliament, it's not the argument that wins. It's the Government. Labour was elected with thesupport of 22% of Britain's voters. And in 11 years they have been defeated just three times.”

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is important that Lib Dem MPs weigh things carefully as you yourself have noted. I hope that willapply to Tory and Labour MPs as well.

    I am afraid I will continue to weigh things against my own conscience, do what I think is right for thecountry and my constituents, in line with Liberal Democrat principles and manifesto commitments and for the coalition agreement and the Government – in that order. I believe that this is the proper constitutional duty of an MP and I hope my fellow Lib Dems MPs and the hundreds of thousands ofLib Dem members and volunteers will do the same. And indeed MPs of other parties will do thesame. It may make it more difficult in the short term for Government ministers and partyfrontbenches and I apologise for that. But I believe as things like the Poll Tax show it is the bestthing for the country, the party and the Government.

    May I end by thanking and congratulating you on your work as Deputy Prime Minister for the countryand for the Liberal Democrats. The party through its "triple lock" democratic mechanism took thehistoric decision to enter Government for the first time in peacetime since the early part of the lastcentury. This must be a tribute to the hard work of everyone in the party - every leaflet deliverer,helper, activist, member of staff (paid or unpaid), MEP, MP, candidate and you as Party leader.

    But there remain two fundamental things, I hope that you will make clear. Firstly that we do not havethe dictatorship of twenty ministers on the party but we agree things beyond the coalition agreementas a democratic party. Secondly that we remain the party of Beveridge and of a decent welfarestate.

    I look forward to you making these things clear to the party in your speech. I wish you continuedgood luck in your hard work for the party and the country.

    Best wishes


    MIKE HANCOCK CBE MP

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanx AB, let us know if he gets a reply ; )

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yep, I like it ... could have wished for stronger wording but I suppose if he had, it would just have been rejected out of hand.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Afternoon cuddly fuckwits!

    Good letter, that, from Hancock.

    Haven't really looked at much on CiF yet, though, apart from Waddya and Charlie Brooker who made me laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  18. BeautifulBurnout

    You were bang out of order on WADDYA.I actually rarely engage with either Kiz/Bru and i,m certainly not latching on to past disagreements as you insinuated.

    Before the Mavis/Melissa episode i had nothing to do with that pair.It was only when i noticed them both constantly sniping at Mavis/Melissa and then giving Oscar winning performances as 'victims' when M+M retaliated that i began to be more aware of their double-standards.I also became more aware of the way they have used WADDYA to snipe at the UT in general so as i use both CIF and UT i exercised my right to say something.Also when browsing through the UT archives i became aware of the root causes of this feud and that Bru-backed up by Kiz- were guilty of behavior that is IMO unacceptable and which i feel they should apologize for.

    I find it incredibly rich that you have taken such a high handed attitude to this given the fact you yourself have admonished that pair on a number of occasions as others have here.Also despite your 'history' with Bitey you also have the option of ignoring him which you choose not to do.

    I'm not wasting anymore time with this but whatever i am i'm certainly not a hypocrite.And whilst i have my faults i generally don't get involved in mob attacks on people.I make my own mind up about stuff which is exactly what i did with Kiz and Bru.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sheff

    Agree with you on the new 'cuts section ' - I am however sounding an optimistic tone.

    I am hoping a clearer picture and a record of the demographics - these cuts will impact on more than the unemployed - will privide fuel for action.

    I may be wrong and over optimistic, I realise that .

    ReplyDelete
  20. Turminder

    Thanks for your kind words.You're absolutely right i shouldn't be wasting my time scrapping with people on waddya.It's just that i loath and detest double standards with a passion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lovely picture today, btw, Montana

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's just getting so bloody tedious, Paul. What's the point of it all?

    We all know the history. Why does it have to be dragged up day after day?

    ReplyDelete
  23. BeautifulBurnout

    So what you're actually saying is that the onus is on everyone else to ignore the provocation they face from Bru and Kiz and they can simply get away with it.If they were teenagers the onus would be on us adults to act with restraint but they're both middle aged women FFS so what gives them special rights?

    Let me give you an example.On the Claire Jones thread recently Kiz left a really nasty unprovoked response to my post which was eventually moderated.Yet according to Bru i have been guilty of targetting Kiz when all i've done is responded to her.And this morning Spike responded to a post Bru had left and Jessica told him-and not her- to pack it in.Yet both Kiz and Bru ignored that and both continued to make snipey posts.Yet when i posted Kiz with my ouzo comment she suddenly becomes the victim and Bru thinks she's being targetted.It may seem petty to you but why the fuck should those two bitches be allowed to hold court on waddya?.And why the fuck should the rest of us have to pussyfoot our way around them ?

    PS Bru called me a dog earlier so in response i later referred to her as a pooch.Childish maybe.But if i'd referred to her as a dog first i would have probably been moderated and all hell would have broken out.These double standards no matter how petty seem to cripple any chance of fair even-handed discussion/debate with Kiz and Bru and i can only specualte as to why Jessica,Bella and the mods continually turn a blind eye to them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well like my recent spat with PatterBroken BB, he left his rank bile sip of a comment about montana up for a couple of hours, hasn't appologised, yet many folk are happy to discuss Rachmaninoff with him like they are at a vicars tea party. This is what I meant when I requested atl about online etiquete, if someone, anyone, IRL said something so vile and unprovoked they would be shunned, yet no back down, not a hit of regret for comments that would get your legs broken in any pub in the land, a couple of days and it's, 'Oh, if you like the Rach 3 you may enjoy Gorecki.'

    ReplyDelete
  25. Leni - I admire your optimism and will let a little of it rub off on me. But can't say I'm waiting with bated breath. Still, perhaps I should keep my counsel until the Cutswatch thing takes off.

    Paul - tbh this endless sniping and constant harping on about this or that real or perceived slight does get a bit of a bore. There are more important things to talk about imo.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I know.

    But the only way to make it stop is to stop responding.

    Otherwise it is just a vicious spiral.

    I know I'm just a recalcitrant old hippy bird when it comes to confrontation - nothing shifts me from the view that rising above it has to be better than perpetuating the cycle. And I am the first to admit that I am probably a hypocrite when I say it, too, because there have been times when I have lost it completely and just stoked the flames of a row to prove I am "right".

    But at the end of the day, what good does it do? The person you are arguing with won't be shifted; you won't be shifted; and those on the sidelines either point and laugh or disappear because they are bored or disturbed by it. So it actually changes nothing, no matter how much we want it to.

    Whereas a concerted effort not to take the bait and just ignore personal slights eventually does result in people giving up doing it. It might take a while, but people soon throw in the towel when they are not getting the response they thought they would.

    Having said all that, I am in no position to dictate jack shit to anybody - each to their own. I just wanted to point out my take on it.

    And like all free advice, it is worth what you pay for it...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Leni

    They've vanished my comment on the cuts thread - presumably because I linked to that Matthew Norman Independent article. Which rather proves my point.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sheff

    Fair do's but as with BB i,ve seen you slapping Kiz/Bru down as well.Yeah on one level we should all ignore them.But the reality is that those two IMO are in effect censuring waddya and Jessica,Bella et al are letting them get away with it.

    You're absolutely right of course when you say there're far more important things to talk about.And generally i do.In fact if you care to check my account with CIF you'll see that most of the time i ignore Kiz and Bru. But when you're also using a forum which those two regulary use to either attack the UT or certain posters here or you personally you sometimes have to say something.Especially as the mods at CIF repeatedly say they want no feuds etc but consistantly allow Kiz and Bru to continue using WADDYA and other threads to snipe.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sheff

    Hey ho ! i am hoping if enough go below the line - from various sectors - we can force the issue. If they continue to delete relevant and critical comments the the fight is lost before it begins.

    I am waiting for those higher up the income chain to start to feel the pressure - they will then be forced to choose where they stand politically.

    ReplyDelete
  30. No one here - save a few like Leni or shaz or Charles or Alisdair or the Duke - can bellyache about online etiquette (not that they do). You certainly can't, turminder.

    I don't give a flying fuck about your opinion of me; but you could ponder why you think others might.

    And Gorecki is garbage, BTW. It's time you were weaned off Classic FM, I see.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gorecki is garbage,

    A very sweeping statement Peter. Possibly not your thing but Gorecki is wonderfully melancholic and contemplative imo. What about Arvo Part and John Taverner?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Straight back with a dig hence, Patter Broken. If you can't see what an arse your comments make you out to be, there really is no point, get back to your insider trading.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Generally don't like Taverner's music but like most people was moved by Song for Athene when i first heard it at Di's funeral all those years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Medical Justice have just published their children in immigration detention report.

    Summary here: State Sponsored Cruelty

    ReplyDelete
  36. @bb

    Ironically, it would be easier to ignore people here, where we know each other. But when you're accused of something outrageous on CiF, you're always thinking "What if people reading this who haven't read lots of my posts thinks it might be true?"

    That's why I tend to reply, which is probably not particularly productive, but what can you do?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Early on in my visit here I suggested to someone that they cool off a bit, and got very thoroughly sworn at . I haven't asked for apologies because that's old shit . I think it was the booze talking, and who knows what problems people have in their lives ?

    Turm -- if X was bloody rude to Y, who can be the same too, I don't give lessons in etiquette to either. People have to learn for themselves what is acceptable, and that isn't done in a few minutes .

    Sheff-- were you otherwise 'clean', if you know what I mean ? I don't have time otherwise would get it up meself. ALSO I can't post links properly at CiF , it ignores my final */a* and leaves a mess.

    Tractor time !

    ReplyDelete
  38. Spike

    What if people reading this who haven't read lots of my posts thinks it might be true

    If someone says something outrageously untrue then responding with a rebuttal is fair enough. But these endless sniping wars do get tedious. I also find not giving a shit helps.

    ReplyDelete
  39. were you otherwise 'clean'

    ...as a whistle, Frog. I don't think they liked the link to the Indy article.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sheff- guilty of attacking the Groan !

    Spike - some like Brookly make several snide attacks at same time, unproductive to reply to all ; one maybe , otherwise just let em flounder . Great investment of time on his side for no return .

    hehe ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. My bad...comment is there after all...although I don't know how i could have missed it. Do they take them down then put them back up sometimes? Weird. Or maybe I'm losing my marbles.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just to clarify - it is the constant sniping from both sides that I meant, not rebutting points.

    There is a difference between saying "that's not true because" and "that's not true you ugly fat cunt" as I am sure most will agree :o)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sheff

    I notice you didn't respond to my post but as with your response to Spike i think you're being a bit of a hypocrite.And you clearly don't know all the facts.Generally any contact i've had with either Kiz/Bru is in response to some pretty unpleasant stuff they've posted.Stuff i'm sure you wouldn't tolerate if you were on the receiving end.Yet even though you've chosen to slap them down yourself' even though you've never been targetted by them' you were quick to earlier dismiss it all as a bit of bore in response to me-and presumably others- taking them on.That strikes me as a bit of a double standard on your part.You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sheff: I only know Taverner's The Protecting Veil, which is stupendous. My only disc of Arvo Part's is by Tasmin Little and Richard Studt, which is exquisite.

    But for front rank 'contemporary' composers one must look to the US, and Piston and Clarke in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Where Have I been a hypocrite Paul? I haven't said I don't respond and I do take the piss sometimes, it's true.

    You have to admit you can be very chippy. Its almost as though you are in a constant state of readiness - expecting blows to fall on you at any moment.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Agree Piston has made some beautiful music. Don't know anything about Clarke. Point me at something.

    Found this Piston piece on utube Fantasy for English Horn, Harp & Strings Lovely.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sometimes it's extremely difficult - no, impossible - not to respond to the Muppet's latest inanity but I generally try not to on the basis that the charmless snob enjoys the attention.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sheff

    Paul - tbh this endless sniping and constant harping on about this or that real or perceived slight does get a bit of a bore. There are more important things to talk about imo.

    Not being chippy at all.Was merely responding to your above post.Came across as a bit high handed and hypocritical that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @thauma

    I'm with you there. I have noticed, though, that on three separate occasions recently Her Highness has, on different threads, tried to start a fight with her imaginary stalkers. It's awesomely irritating, but not worth giving her what she wants.

    As for the milk monitor, that's just yapping that barely seems to resolve into words.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @ PeterB.Any idea what this is/was all about?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Alisdair: "...for example, they may offer to buy a stock at a price much lower than the current quote, or to sell it at a much higher price."

    Given that the instructions (as outlined in the quote) make no common trading sense, the only explanation that seems to merit consideration is the one it resembles in normal trading: namely, an effort to drive a stock into 'auction' whereby deals in size (often much larger than the normal market size) may be transacted.

    Needless to say, the stock price that 'unwinds' the auction is usually very close to the prevailing valuations that preceded it.

    Best I can offer at this remove.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Peter

    Or perhaps these bots are a form of self generating kleptoparasite which feed off the work of others ?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Clarke, sheff.

    "Or perhaps these bots are a form of self generating kleptoparasite which feed off the work of others."

    Can't see how it might work, Leni.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Alisdair
    This link from your link explains more on HFT in general - -- research on the 1000 pt FlashCrash of 6 may.

    Tyler Durden today gives more weird info on the 'market' --

    "" ...Plantronics. Individual flash crashes have become such a daily occurrence that they are expected, in fact hoped for, if merely to confirm that nobody but a bunch of deranged robots is left trading stocks. While you won't hear about it on CNBC, as it may go just a little against the station's puff piece on how HFT is not, like, really all that bad, on Friday, just after 2 pm, the stock price of Plantronics (PLT) plunged from $31 to $24 in the span of milliseconds. And most amusingly, not a single circuit breaker was triggered in the plunge! ""


    Zerohedge site,halfway down page .

    System looks deranged to me !

    ReplyDelete
  55. Bugger . Said i was going to stop being involved in that stuff !

    ReplyDelete
  56. frog

    walk away from it - they are eating themselves.

    Go study meadow grasses and spiders instead.

    ReplyDelete
  57. just had speed read of waddya - quarrlesome lot.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Paul

    Ignore all advice above...keep responding as you see fit. They are a pair of fuckin idiots..who seem to have employed Martyn in Space as a sort of image consultant..which kinda says it all...like he has anything constructive to offer on the general topic of 'not making a tit of yourself online'..that's how fuckin desperate they are.

    That's why they don't come on here...I'm sure they'd tell you it's to do with the legendary 'months of abuse'..but frankly it's because they'd be ripped to pieces, ridiculed, humiliated and handed their arses on a plate.. again...that's why they stick to CIF where they're looked after and anyone who gets in a few decent slap-downs is soon shown the door..mind you..now they've got Martyn on their side, they might venture back..emboldened by his own 'success' in this neck of the woods.

    Seriously...they're a pair of useless no-marks and they need telling repeatedly..especially as they're afforded star status by the self-lovin idiots who run the place.

    For example..and I'm fuckin astounded that nobody has ripped her to pieces for it..

    Jessica Whatsherface..responding to this


    "Excellent idea Anax. In fact we should have an article arguing against cultural sensitivity of any sort, it's just cultural relativism by another name. The only question is who could write it...who hates relativism and thinks it's 'deluded'...hmmmm"

    she writes...in much the vein of the dear departed Seaton

    #.... Oh, just about 80% of right-wing posters on Cif could write that, I'm sure.

    Actually, strike 'right wing', too. 80% of Cif commenters could. But I would bet it would be a seriously bad and unconvincing piece of writing, which no doubt would have hints of racism thrown in. I'm willing to be persuaded though.#

    So an article attacking relativism is predestined to be "seriously bad and unconvincing" with racist undertones..the CIF editorial line in a nutshell...I'd actually like to see her write an article defending that statement and then a reply by Keenan Malik whose only other article on CIF (which was basically an attack on relativism and multiculturalism from the left; it received rave reviews...and has also written widely and convincingly on the topic...not just about the poverty of the relativist ethos but the damage it has done to the traditional universalist left

    ...together with the way it has promoted a load of overachieving, fundamentally useless middle-class nobodies into positions way above their natural station...especially in certain sectors of the media...wonder why he didn't get a second outing?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "just had speed read of waddya"

    Yeah, me too, to see if there was a fight worth getting popcorn in for. Alas, no entertainment. They really should erect a paywall just for that bit of CiF; not having an audience anymore would really piss off the egotists and make others turn to more useful activity (like watching paint dry).

    I can't believe I used to post there. I blame it on being new to chatrooms. :-)

    Anyhoo, just heard an amazing bit of blues harp on the radio. Can't find the song that was played, but it was by a French fella called Jean Jacques Milteau. You can hear the French influence in this tune, but I really thought he was a genuine delta blues man. Prejudiced me!

    ReplyDelete
  61. An olive branch from brussels?

    I would be glad if it stopped - just tell the women-hating mob and their bunch of Stepford Wives the same thing.

    I'm guessing that the women-haters must be all the men on here, and the Stepford Wives are all the women. You'd think that a woman in her fifties/sixties would have a bit more dignity, maturity and common sense than to constantly behave like a petulant adolescent on an international internet forum, wouldn't you? She really is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have no wish or intention to get involved in the relative merits of any ongoing virtual social contretemps and brouhaha, but would simply like to place these comments here for the sake of public record.

    The are from today's WADDYA.

    In order to remain neutral, I shall not even say who wrote them.

    Recently I've been busting a gut on the Roma threads, the rise of the far-right and racism in general. I know more about the Nazi occupation than almost anyone on CiF - yourself included.

    The above seemed to be directed at BeautifulBurnout.

    I have no problem at all when people come on here with their difficulties and other ways of living. In fact I've done quite a bit to promote the rights of people with mental health issues.

    I don't think anyone could find anything to argue with in either of these comments.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Indeed, anon ... if I say something patently stupid (not that that's ever happened, of course!) and get attacked for it, it's obviously my first line of defence to accuse my attackers of being misogynists or Stepford Wives....

    ReplyDelete
  64. Atomboy - my favourite in recent days was the 'proof' of Belgian residence by reason of an e-mail and newsletter sent to Kizbot.

    We need to completely rethink our judicial system on this basis, obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Is Stepford near Coventry then?

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Is Stepford near Coventry then?"

    It is now...I said so in an email to Kiz

    ReplyDelete
  67. thaum

    Atomboy - my favourite in recent days was the 'proof' of Belgian residence by reason of an e-mail and newsletter sent to Kizbot.

    You would think that would be proof enough for anyone, wouldn't you.

    Oddly enough, though, when I sent an email to Matt Seaton as Emperor of Pluto or Jupiter or whoever I was at the time, he said I was hiding behind a made-up name.

    As if!

    It said emperorofpluto@gmail.com

    Internationally recognised as proof of residency and status.

    Like, duh!

    ReplyDelete
  68. scrofulous - swellings of the lymph nodes of the neck, from scrofula (breeding sow): morally contaminated.

    Just thought I'd throw that into the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  69. BTW thaum, it is also legal proof of your hectic social whirl if you email someone you have never met with your calendar and some dates and times smudged with clumsy scrawl, like: "Diner @ teh Ambasodars redisenz tonite. Wot fun!"

    It'll stand up in court, no probz.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Oh shit

    What if kiz emails the judge with a diploma from the 'Athens School of Libel Type Stuff inc' saying that Bru's deffo got me bang to rights for bad-mouthing her...innit your Lordship?

    "Fuck me...it's foolproof...they're gonna do me up like a kipper Mr Reagan"

    ReplyDelete
  71. I liked that Clarke, Peter. She's new to me and will find out some more about he

    I know more about the Nazi occupation than almost anyone on CiF - yourself included.

    Who said that? It's quite a statement - not Bru surely?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Well, obviously, Atomboy.

    I don't like to boast but later on tonight I have an engagement with a young and handsome Italian prince. Unfortunately I had to decline similar romantic invitations with a German count and a mere English baronet. But they are avid young men, so no doubt they will be pursuing me with, er, avidity.

    This cannot but be true as I've not only posted it here but also e-mailed Kizbot with the information.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oh fuck it - I wasn't going to bite on Waddya - but some things just can't be helped.

    ReplyDelete
  74. thauma

    I'm genuinely gobsmacked. I wasn't aware she was an historian of the period. I guess thats part of her CV she has been modest about 'till now.

    I guess you just have to laugh when presented with with front like that.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Peter Guillam posted this earlier on "WADYA":

    PeterBracken

    I've not given up on BB, but that's only because I have the patience and redemptive powers of a saint. She just needs to knock, and the door will be opened.

    BB is actually one of the most consistently thoughtful and incisive posters on CiF, over a long period. Her capacity, in particular, to consistently offer rational, careful and courageous responses to the many racist extremists on immigration and asylum threads is remarkable. The idea that she should be in need of the redemptive powers of Peter Bracken, of all people - one of the silliest and, in any case, nastiest posters on CiF - is something that could only be suggested by, well, Peter Bracken.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Come on, Sheff, be fair. I understand she's spoken to at least two holocaust survivors, and who can compare that with years of intensive research into the thorny subject of Nazi occupation?

    ReplyDelete
  77. I know BB,Sheff and now Habib think it's all a load of old nonsense but IMO there's a serious issue with the Bru/Kiz situation .The Guardian is supposed to be a serious national newspaper FFS and without sounding paranoid i think those of us on the Left who are still BTL on CIF are gradually being demonised and marginalised. For unless i'm going totally bonkers nearly everytime i go on CIF Kiz and Bru are spreading their poison by stealth.And they're are now being aided by unthinking idiots like Martyn and Heverale who are increasingly doing their bidding for them.And it's not just on WADDYA it's on some of the other threads as well.

    FFS people on the UT don't operate as a pack,we don't spend lots of time slagging Kiz and Bru off and from what i can see most of us-including myself- actally ignore them most of the time.And yet they continue with their venom largely unchallenged and Jessica,Bella and the mods do nothing to stop them.

    Bru actually went for Jen,MillyMoll, Turminder and maybe others today for doing nothing more than questioning her.She's a vicious albeit stupid bitch and Kiz is just as bad and it's totally beyond my comprehension why those two almost always get away with it.

    I appreciate many people here think there are so many more important things to worry about.But in my way of thinking there are the fundamental issues of fairness,equality and freedom of speech to be considered here.And the bottom line is that at the moment the fact that Kiz and Bru repeatedly get away with using waddya to pursue their own vendettas is something i feel should be taken more seriously than it is.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Well I've had enough fun for today, hope your haal is changa Habib. L8rs mateys. P xx

    ReplyDelete
  79. Paul - it is difficult to fault what you say. But at the end of the day, responding to it just means it goes on and on and on.

    Chekov - I saw that from PeterG and really did blush. That was a very kind thing for him to say. Especially as I am not exactly what you might call an intellectual, certainly not of his calibre (or the calibre of most of the people on here, for that matter. I'm a bit of a lightweight really unless it's about da law.)

    ReplyDelete
  80. Chekhov/BB - it was a good comment.

    Enough cyber-warfare for me tonight; I am off to my pit. NN all!

    ReplyDelete
  81. NN Thaum - don't wear out that Prince of your will ya? :o)

    ReplyDelete
  82. Turminder, not really, buddy, but I hope yours is. (life goes on)

    Paul, you may be looking at two people who comment on Waddya and seeing them as important. They really aren't any more important than any others.

    What is important is that The Guardian has decided to ignore the left. So any suggestions made on Waddya about which subjects should be covered is pointless.

    When they commission an article, they use people who know next to nothing about the subject they've been given. No journalism involved, just opinion garnered from other people's opinions.

    Completely pointless.

    The comments BTL, however, are worthwhile, because just once in a while someone will speak more definitively and accuratley about an issue than any commissioned writer could.

    Waddya is pointless, other than as a refuge for people who like their words to be read by as many as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Evening everyone. Not commenting on Waddya, save to say that if one is fighting the corner of say, those with mental health problems or, say, the Roma, it does help to do so from a position of knowledge and insight. Such qualities would probably be evident in the calibre of those crusading posts.
    Or not.

    @ dave. Bots have been around for ages, but the networks of bots upon bots is now so intricate it's bordering being beyond human unravelling.The justification cited by some (apart from bots netting them money) is that they aid liquidity, but that's little consolation when they can potentially turn molehills into mountains.These ones are of a different order altogether though: it's conceivable they are deliberately disruptive and obfuscatory with only the originator/designer able to filter out the garbage trades quickly.Weird stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  84. weeell, I think she set a silly trap for Spike , and he took it seriously and replied seriously, till the END ...

    I'd have just replied cool and pointed her at the discussion on the thread which would have answered her questions .

    End of !

    I liked -- "" I know more about the Nazi occupation than almost anyone on CiF - yourself included """ because i didn't notice her in the very long and interesting discussion on the Occupation a while back.

    Not worth wasting ammo on !

    ReplyDelete
  85. frog

    Not worth wasting ammo on !

    My thoughts exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Alisdair -- that 1000 intraday move ain't been explained, ever ; move along there, nothing to see . Very dangerous stuff .

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Paul: I wouldn't get yourself in a snit about "WADYA" if I were you. It lost its way years ago when its moderation "policy" was exposed for the sham that it really was.
    As someone else pointed out to another blogger who wanted to get his pofile deleted, the best way of doing so was to post an honest opinion backed up with some irrefutable facts and a considered analysis based on some good old fashioned common sense.

    Either that or (if you can't be arsed to go to all that trouble)just call Matt Seaton a cunt!

    Having typed that last sentence,I feel strangely elated in the knowledge that it won't disappear into the ether overnight.

    BTW:anyone know when Bitterweed gets back with news of the "bunfight" in Northampton?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Deepwater Horizon is ALL over, what a relief !


    ""As shown by the following videos, BP and government representatives are still keeping scientists and reporters away from areas impacted by oil.
    WEAR ABC news documented yesterday that federal agents are preventing reporters from digging in the sand to look for oil:"" and confiscating insect samples from scientists .

    Georgewashington2

    ReplyDelete
  89. @monkeyfish

    Thanks for your support.

    @BB
    Paul - it is difficult to fault what you say. But at the end of the day, responding to it just means it goes on and on and on.

    With respect you're missing the point.Nothing is going on and on and on because most of the time people ignore Kiz and Bru and they generally get away with with their barbed provocative comments.What is more upsetting is when people like you choose to hunt with the horses and run with the hounds.For you publicly insinuated on waddya that i was latching on to someone elses quarrel.And you conveniently ignored the fact that you too have occasionally gone for Kiz and Bru yourself.In fact once quite recently if memory serves me correctly.Plus you have been an active participant in your ongoing spat with bitey.In fact i notice that you are still actively engaging with someone on cif who was recently 'outed' here as bitey.That's your choice but please don't preach to me either here or on cif about my very rare spats with Kiz and Bru because that is tantamount to you skating on very thin ice.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I always got the impression that Seaton had a thang for attractive 20-something female contributors. Basically CiF was his ticket to getting laid. But that can't be true, surely.

    Natalie seems simply a more hard-nosed type, methodically working her way along a career path. She'll keep all the identity politics articles because they generate comments and traffic. She'll expand the European section and get some enthusiastic puppies to translate for free. More traffic. No change on the modding, because there's no money in it and the mod monkeys are paid peanuts anyway.

    So it's as you were, the usual guff now with added Franglais. Triffic. Je can't wait, innit.

    ReplyDelete
  91. The Nazi occupation of where? There are a lot to choose from.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Everywhere ! freezing aubergines ere ....

    ReplyDelete
  93. "I've not given up on BB, but that's only because I have the patience and redemptive powers of a saint. She just needs to knock, and the door will be opened."(Peter Bracken)

    Bloody hell:so Peter sets himself up as the new Messiah. Is this the "second coming" the faithful were promised?

    Or is it just someone "blowing smoke up their arse"? (Got that off Gordon Ramsey. Don't know what it means tbh. Anyone know the origins of that phrase?)

    Anyway, I'm getting all excited to read the Gospel according to Saint Peter (Bracken).
    I had no idea redemption was so easily accessible.

    And just to think I might get to touch his Holy cloth in Northampton of all places.

    I could even get blessed with "Preposterous Hyperbole"

    This is too much. I'll have to take a powder and lie down in a dark room!

    ReplyDelete
  94. frog

    The Scientist

    By Linda Hooper-Bui

    Opinion: The oil’s stain on science
    An ecosystem biologist discusses how the effort to assess the oil spill’s damage is stifling independent research

    [Published 5th August 2010 01:59 PM GMT]

    Functioning as an independent researcher in and around the Gulf of Mexico these days is no simple task. I study insect and plant communities in near-shore habitats fringing the Gulf, and my work has gotten measurably harder in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. It’s not hazardous conditions associated with oil and dispersants that are hampering our scientific efforts. Rather, it’s the confidentiality agreements that come with signing up to work on large research projects shepherded by government entities and BP and the limited access to coastal areas if you’re not part of those projects that are stifling the public dissemination of data detailing the environmental impact of the catastrophe.

    Some Gulf scientists have already been snatched up by corporate consulting companies with offers of $250/hour. Others are badgered for their data by governmental agencies. Some of us desire to conduct our work without lawyers, government officials, or corporate officers peering over our shoulders. In the end, it may be the independent, non-biased researchers who can deliver credible scientific results that perform the crucial function of assessing the damage wrought by this disaster…if we survive professionally.

    Thanks to the National Science Foundation (NSF), some of us might. We don’t work for BP or the government’s National Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process, which is overseen by state, tribal and federal science agencies and is partially funded by BP. We are independent scientists who want to honestly and independently examine the effects of the oil spill.

    The ants, crickets, flies, bees, dragon flies, and spiders I study are important components of the coastal food web. They function as soil aerators, seed dispersers, pollinators, and food sources in complex ecosystems of the Gulf.

    Insects were not a primary concern when oil was gushing into the Gulf, but now they may be the best indicator of stressor effects on the coastal northern Gulf of Mexico. Those stressors include oil, dispersants, and cleanup activities. If insect populations survive, then frogs, fish, and birds will survive. If frogs, fish, and birds are there, the fishermen and the birdwatchers will be there. The Gulf’s coastal communities will survive. But if the bugs suffer, so too will the people of the Gulf Coast.

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

    whenever there is a major disaster scientists are often prevented from gathering info independantly. One major complaint is that after about 2 years grant support is withdrawn - leaving very few able to carry out long term research - limiting genuine info about damage and recovery of species.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Communist !

    Why should we be surprised ... Its a carve-up between BP and Gov.

    I wonder what the diff is between straight crude, and crude plus corexit -dispersed droplets and aerosols in the air ..

    Raeding aallotment blog ! while cooking and waiting for aubergines to cool !

    ReplyDelete
  96. Just plonking this for posterity in the knowledge that it won't get "modded" and my daughter might have a clue in her future about how propaganda isn't just used as a weapon in warfare!


    The private sector creates 2.7m jobs each year, on average. An extra 200k white collar workers into the mix from public sector redundancies could well be soaked up pretty quickly if growth is strongish.

    Do you honestly believe that all the waste and over spending in the public sector are 200k white collar workers ???

    Jesus, educate yourself man and stop allowing your TV and newspapers from brainwashing you. This editorial is a great example or complete tosh form the British media.

    The private sector creates 2.7m jobs each year on average quite a statement now back it up. How and where do you they do this. How fo the private sector create these jobs in a country that hardly produces anything anymore apart from the blue chips.

    ReplyDelete
  97. hands at inflated prices
    treams of free cash they wanted governments grants and government loans to be allowed to do so. CRAZY,UNBELIEVABLE,THEFT.

    How did they do this ?? By holding the country and governments to ransom by threats of moving away, paying off staff and by freezing wage increases.


    Yet, they are brainwashing the lower members of mensa in society to believe that this waste was caused by 200k white collar workers or by quangos or by benefit cheats.

    Benefit cheats for christ sake. What happens to any money goven to benefit cheats were does that money go. it goes straight back into the economy or private hands for god sake. They need to buy food, clothes and pay bills that's it that's where it goes apart from rent. That rent no matter how big or how small normally goes into the hands of private buy to let landlords. They didn't mind paying out £800 a month as rent cause that was going straight back into private hands.Another way of stealing from the public purse. Jesus some private landlords were incresing their rent and giving tenants money back in their own private deals.


    So here we are in a crash as their paradise didn't work. The American dream blueprint didn't work because of greed and the complete disregard of social responsability and accountability. All the while over the last 30 years they have been bleeding the profits created by the hard work of human beings and moving it into thier own pension plans and family planning.

    The biggest scandel of all is now that it hasn't worked we have to pay for it. We never got anything from it and yet now we have to pay for it. ARE WE ALL INSANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Recommend? (0)
    Report abuse
    | Link pottsy3
    21 September 2010 12:21AM

    So you want to know how the cuts are affecting us? Well I work in the private sector and my industry has been decimated by cuts for some years now, and without the generous redundancy packages and pensions enjoyed by the UK's saintly state-funded employees. Redundancy announcements, which used to occur every two or three years, are now an annual event where I work, yet I've never heard a peep from the Guardian. Never mind, our opinions don't count because everyone working for wealth-creating companies is an evil banker.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Oops, sorry everyone. I made a complete bollocks of trying to make the link so if it doesn't make sense it's all my fault. I'll have another go tomorrow!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Of course, I realize, that comparing lethal concentrations is not straightforward. The results differ by species and by time as well as by amount of poison, The EPA numbers for Corexit 9500 (the formula used most heavily by BP) show that at 2.62 ppm, the dispersant kills half the silver fish in 96 hours/ four days. At a slightly higher concentration - 3.4 ppm - the compound kills half the little shrimp in two days.

    As for crude oils, a very decent analysis by the American Petroleum Institute shows that all are toxic, but their effects vary with thickness and with the different chemistry seen in say, oil from the Gulf of Mexico and oil from Kuwait. The best estimate I've seen for South Louisiana Crude - after hours of exasperated research - comes from thesis work done at Louisiana State University several years ago. For instance, the study found that Louisiana crude had an LC50 of 4250 ppm for the warm-water loving killifish.

    This suggests that crude oil is less acutely poisonous than chemical dispersants. But here's the really interesting finding in that terrific little study. Adding a dispersant - specifically Corexit 9500 - made the oil more poisonous. A lot more poisonous.

    The "dispersed" oil had an LC50 of 317.7 ppm, making it more than 11 times more lethal in its effects. The study found a similar worsening for white shrimp, although not quite as dramatic. "Dispersed oils were more toxic than crude oils," noted the report.

    ---
    Frog Lc = lethal concentration. LC50 means will kill 50% of particular species population.

    ReplyDelete
  100. chekhov

    I hope all commenters will be brutally honest on the new cuts section. we need a clear picture of just what exactly they mean - how many people are losing jobs - in which areas and the overall effect on local as well as the national economy.

    we need a concurrent section on who is profiting - if there are new jobs where are they coming from and what wages are paid to workers against profits to employers.

    We need to track the distribution of wealth both geographically and demographically. trouble is we are as yet without an opposition with any reasonable alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Good luck with that Leni! I might have cocked up my link but the propaganda prevailing beyond wartime still stands! Not that you didn't know that anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Leni - straight crude you can sweep up, but dispersants dissolve/ hide it .

    First a nasty but simple prob, second an ongoing poisoning, carried on air too , far worse .

    See Dahr Jamail et al for effects on people onshore ...

    ReplyDelete
  103. 5deg outside, more wood in tomorrow !

    ReplyDelete