I had to laugh at the outrageously easy ride that Alistair Darling was afforded by Sarah Montague on the BBC this morning. Did you catch the “interview”? Here it is if you dare to listen. In essence, Darling was allowed to repeat the narrative that Labour is “re-building the banking sector” (That it helped destroy) and that he and Prudence are now preparing for “the recovery phase.” Now Darling is atrocious at the best of times but in all fairness he managed to get through this “interview” without even the vaguest hint that Labour has been up to its’ scrawny neck in creating the mess in which our financial system finds itself. I also noted that Montague suggests that banks are “too big to fail”. Who says so? Perhaps they are too big to subsidise? It strikes me that that the BBC sees this entire financial crisis as an opportunity to extend the reach of The State and this colours interviews such as this.
THE GREEN SHOOTS OF RECOVERY SPOTTED ON THE BBC!
Bookmark the permalink.
Banks too big to fail? Hmm. Northern Cock, Bradford and Bingley, HBOS?
The UK is too big to fail. But it will.
The losses these banks have will sink the country. But in Brown’s fantasy land, we’ll continue to borrow and borrow and borrow.
No cut backs in public spending. No, indeed, this wonderful government will continue to ioncrease spending as unemploymnet costs rapidly increase and the tax base disintegrates. And those bank losses continue to escalate.
A few more months of this government (and this BBC) and the bailiffs will be knocking. And it ain’t pretty – see Iceland x 20.
I didn’t hear the interview with Alistair Darling, so can’t comment on it.
I did however hear the interview with George Osborne on Today around 8:10 and was surprised at the unusually easy ride he got. He was barely interrupted and was almost allowed to sound as if he knew what he was talking about.
I’ve almost given up listening to “Today” after 0630, and that just to get the “flavour” of the day.
Even the business news at 0615 (which often has items 2 or 3 days behind newspaper articles) can be biased with some regular visitors trotting out “global downturn” on cue.
There was even one recently “recommending” printing money as a “solution” to the current problems (now becoming known by the euphimism QE) and refuted that that had failed in the 1930s, and on the basis that we just hadn’t printed enough of it.
“Today” is often referred to as the “flagship” current affairs programme (at least on radio) but does anyone know – beyond the BBC’s own rose-tinted glasses – how seriously it is really taken?
printing money really helped save Germany in the 20s and 30s and Zimbabwe in the 90’s –God help our stupid polital masters
Darling and Brown may be “preparing for the recovery stage” but the police are preparing for a “Summer of Rage” with mass protests on the streets.
Nice to know the Civil Contingencies Act,the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Acts weren’t for nothing.
This might just save Comrade Brown,Prime Minister for Life.
Garden trash.
Correct. it is almost as if the police and their masters in government want a confrontation.
Even money there will be no election in 2010 or any time soon after.
And whys that Dave? Tell me why there won’t be an election anytime soon? Another conspiracy theory?
Anyone want to share any others? There must be someone here who knows all about Area 51.
Gussy,
The Civil Contingencies Act allows the goverment to institute martial law.Read the comment by Dr North regarding the BSE debacle.(Comments).Read also the Irish government proposing a Government of National Unity,also mention in Britain.Yo know what that means do you not? No probably not.
and you seriously think this is about to happen do you? emergency laws, martial law? this isn’t hollywood, its reality. Gordon Brown is many things, he’s not Mugabe.
Gussy,
Naughty boy,you didn’t read Dr Norths comment.We ha de facto martial law during the BSE “crisis” in some areas.Then it was illegal,now, after the passing of the Civil Contingencies Act it is legal.
You really are an ignoramous,the government has the power to do what it will.Ask yourself why.
Gus: I see what you mean, if you look at their respective records, there is absolutely no similarity…
Mugabe screwed up his countries economy • global economic downturn, started in America, do nothing Tories….
Mugabe buggered the national currency by turning on the printing presses • Quantitative easing isn’t about printing money, circa BBC.
Mugabe arbitrarily arranges for the arrest of opposition politicians who are trying to do their job • Damien Green had it coming!
Mugabe used his Armed Forces as mercenaries in foreign wars, both to bolster his own international prestige and for his own personal benefit • I see Brown will be the first European leader to meet with the messiah. On a totally separate note, I see the foreign office will be announcing an increase in British forces in Afghanistan.
Under Mugabe corruption is rife amongst the ruling elite • cash for legislation, cash for peerages, £14 million loaned to Labour but Gordon the campaign manager didn’t know (honest!), Jacqui Smith, Peter Mandelson’s home loans, John Lewis list, F1 and £1 Million donation to Labour, Peter Hain, Geoffrey Robinson and many, many more…
The state run media is a mouth pierce from Mugabe • BBC.
Under Mugabe, the civil liberties of ordinary Zimbabweans have been curtailed • Oh! Err • Done that! Got the T-shirt.
Seriously though Gus • I accept there are major differences between the two men. Mugabe won (a fair) election • once!
No seriously – you can’t compare Brown to a murderous, despotic thug. That is going too far…. 🙂 Mugabe’s not that bad!
Gus Haynes: You really are a twat. The fat one eyed jock who never takes a shower isn’t as bad as Mugabe. YET. Give the shit a bit more time.
Brown and Liebour are trashed our economy, destroyed our freedoms whislt protecting those of the bearded scum that want to kill us.
Gus
I said an even money bet. Not a certainty.
Shall we just wait and see?
I regard conspiracy theories as just that -theories.
But with the economic situation getting out of control it would be a foolish man who would rule anything out.
Once fear and anger take root in a people governments have always responded in the same way. The use of force. Nothing Hollywood about that just check your history books.
“The fat one eyed jock who never takes a shower isn’t as bad as Mugabe. YET. Give the shit a bit more time.”
The psychological profile is right.The dictatorial way Brown signed away this country to the EU.His enormous sense of entitlement.His cowardice,McCavity is never there in a crisis.His duplicitousness,robbing the pension funds.His complete dishonesty,creating the financial climate for disaster and blaming others.His corruption,protecting Jacqui Smith.
Lastly his meglomaniac desire for power outside the electoral process.
I’d say he’s got it in spades.
Oh yes.and the creation of the cradle to the grave surveillance state.
Martin,
as on the other topic, your arguments really are persuasive. Responding to my point with ‘you are a twat’ just shows how much you really know, and just how skilled a debater you really are.
Gus:
Personal insults are never nice – but you are a twat if you believe that Binyam Mohamed is a throughly decent bloke who deserves to live in the UK.
The only reason why Mr. M has been able to return – is that the BBC aong with their leftist media friends have kicked up a firestorm. Yet, still most British people couldn’t give a damn about Mr M or his Islamist militant friends and their human rights. To most right-minded people, Mr M forfeited the right to British help and succour the moment he began abusing our hospitality the last time he was here.
I wonder how he financied his drug habit and his trips to Pakistan and Afganistan on a cleaner’s wage and a student grant?
If you are a guest in this country, you should behave as a guest and respect our laws and traditions. He didn’t when he was here and he didn’t when he left i.e. illegally sub-letting his social housing flat and trying to use a forged UK passport.
So even without the terrorist allegations – this guy should never have been allowed back. Period! But we have the BBC and the likes of you to thank for his presence and the bill. Just a shame we can’t send it to you.
and jonathon, where exactly did I say that this binyan fellow is a decent bloke who deserves to live here? show me where I said or suggested anything like that.
what i object to is the pre-emptive suggestion that this guy is going to bleed the state dry. no paper/tv channel have made a mention of him claiming benefits or claiming a house, yet everyone here treats it as a fact. that could be called guessing, but its basically just paranoia with a whole load of britain-bashing thrown in.
Gus Haynes | 23.02.09 – 7:04 pm |
So are you going to give him a job – just don’t expect any references.
“what i object to is the pre-emptive suggestion that this guy is going to bleed the state dry. no paper/tv channel have made a mention of him claiming benefits or claiming a house,”
He did before and he let his social housing out to someone else.
What is he going to do,before he scores compensation? Work for the BBC,he can’t go begging on the Tube can he,because of security implications.Obviously he will be the favourite of the media,pulling in appearance fees,but essentially he has got to eat.
Gus Haynes: What is the point with debating with an arsehole like you? I wouldn’t piss on you in the street if you were on fire.
“I wouldn’t piss on you in the street if you were on fire.”
I would,if he were not on fire.
thanks martin, i’ll remember that. tell me, martin, you strike me as the sort of person who loves to complain. who loves to point out what is wrong. but what are you doing to improve things? what do you contribute to society? do you try to help your local community in any way? are you politically active (whingeing here doesnt count)?
cos it seems to me that complaining, and insulting, is easy. very easy. doing something positive is much harder. and i’d be interested to know if you do contribute in any way.
“doing something positive is much harder. and i’d be interested to know if you do contribute in any way.
Gus Haynes | 23.02.09 – 7:28 pm | #
You first Gussy,what do you do,except get on peoples tits?
He contributes massively by reminding us that the English electorate are not craven, smug, public teat-nurtured, terrorist-loving filth.
Under the BBC’s euphemistic title:
“Differing views of Labour’s future?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7906177.stm
-Note the question-mark above, -to lessen even more the notion that the Labour Cabinent is fundamentally split in terms of policy and the Labour Party leadership power struggle.
‘Mail’:
“Hazel squares up to Harriet in the battle to follow Brown”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1151875/Hazel-squares-Harriet-battle-follow-Brown.html
Gus Haynes: “where exactly did I say that this binyan fellow is a decent bloke who deserves to live here? show me where I said or suggested anything like that.”
Well gosh. I suppose I got that impression because…
a. You are the only person I’ve conversed with who doesn’t thing that Mr. M will sponge off the taxpayer
b. You took the time to log-onto this website and criticize those who posted against Mr. M’s return.
So from the above I sort of deduced that you were in favour of his return; presumably because you think he might be innocent. After all, if on balance you think he is probably guilty, then I‘d assume that even a liberal like you Gus, might be slightly concerned about letting a man who planned to set off a dirt bomb loose around London. Especially when the UK had no legal obligation in International law to accept this man back!
jonathon jonathon oh dear, jumping to conclusions like that will lead you nowhere good my son. you need to think ,and analyse, not assume.
no I am not in favour of his return, and no one (bar yourself) would assume I was based on my comments. also, you misunderstand the way that ‘the left’ feel about this story. they are not pleased he is here, they just see it as mildly better alternative to languishing in America’s own private prison where people can be locked up for 7 years without being convicted of anything. if hes guilty, convict him ,and put him away for life, thats what i say. but you dont know hes guilty, i dont know hes guilty. a bloody judge and jury need to decide that, after a trial. the authorities wouldnt have arrested him without evidence would they? so why not use it and convict him? thats what angers the left.
“no I am not in favour of his return, and no one (bar yourself) would assume I was based on my comments. also, you misunderstand the way that ‘the left’ feel about this story. they are not pleased he is here, they just see it as mildly better alternative to languishing in America’s own private prison where people can be locked up for 7 years without being convicted of anything.”
I got the impression you wanted to sleep with him,certainly the over the top BBC coverage awarded the smack head star treatment.
Actually,there is no need to charge Binyam Mohamed with anything,it is war and he was designated an enemy combatant and can be interned for the duration.
This is not a law and order issue.
Gus
If one regards this country as in grave peril, governed by lunatics and under assault from the forces of malevolent unreason typified by the liberal left world view then each and every voice raised against them is a constructive act.
Writing on blogs like this and there are many of them, here in Europe and the US.Talking to as many people as one can. This is the only way I know to spread ideas.
The state and it’s propaganda organs like the BBC have all the resources and power.
It was Saint- Exupery who wrote in “Flight to Arras”- a book everyone should read-
“The defeated have no right to speak. No more right to speak than the seed.”
We in our land are not yet defeated but are gradually denied the right to speak. All we can do is become the seed.
The man was an enemy combatant.
Enemy combatants are not usually sent to courts. They are locked up for the duration. Period.
JohnA: Actually they usually get shot.
Gus Haynes: You lambaste me for making false assumptions • I need to ‘analyse not assume’. Well let’s have a look at your own analysis.
You claim: “You misunderstand the way that ‘the left’ feel about this story. They are not pleased he is here, they just see it as mildly better alternative to languishing in America’s own private prison where people can be locked up for 7 years without being convicted of anything”.
So the left are not pleased about Mr Mohamed’s return • then why did David Miliband say this yesterday – “I’m pleased that Binyam Mohamed is coming back to the United Kingdom.”
You also claim that the Left has decided to tolerate Mr. Mohamed’s return because “…it as mildly better alternative to languishing in America’s own private prison”. Well, it’s certainly better for Mr. Mohamed, but there is a debate to be had about which arrangement is better for the UK. Personally, I’d have let him rot in Guantanamo Bay. But this is an academic issue, because your whole observation is built on a false premise i.e. only two alternatives existed for Mr. Mohamed • Guantanamo or the UK. Forgive my ignorance but Mr. Mohamed is an Ethiopian citizen is he not • could the United States have not deported him to his homeland? Or failing that, the country where they picked him up i.e. Pakistan. Of course, security considerations may have precluded Washington from wishing his return to either of these countries • but whose problem is that? Answer: The United States of America. It is the USA who have jailed him for 7 years; it is their President who has rashly pledged to close Guantanamo Bay without giving due consideration as to how and where its inmates are to be housed. So why is this a British problem?
After all – we are under no legal obligation in international law to accept Mr. Mohamed – he is an ex-resident, who voluntarily terminated his right to stay in 2001 by boarding a plane to Pakistan. Since President Obama has promised to close the Guantanamo facility let him decide whether to try him or release him • and if the latter • where to send him. At the end of the day, if no suitable donor country could be found • America would have been forced to house him. His sister is after all, an American citizen.
Oh! And as for this statement: “No I am not in favour of his return, and no one (bar yourself) would assume I was based on my comments”. Clearly Gus, you underestimate the power of your own advocacy • because I assure you • nearly everyone-else on this board thought you were in favour of his return. As Garden Trash has observed: I “got the impression you wanted to sleep with him”
jonathan:
Clearly Gus, you underestimate the power of your own advocacy •
——————————-
Hehe… that’s a good one!
jonathan | 24.02.09 – 10:52 am |
President Obamessiah has been making noise about closing Guantanamo, but he was very clear that the only way he would do it is if other countries took in the inmates. It’s a total sucker’s bet, and everyone fell for it.
Many different government officials in Europe and the UK earned brownie points for years by fretting about ‘”human rights” and whatnot, speaking about Gitmo the way people do about Japanese WWII prison camps. When it comes time to play the game, all The Obamessiah had to do was say, “I’m the hero who will free these wrongly imprisoned people. Who among you will be heroes with me?” Gordon Brown stepped forward with hand raised, with the BBC reassuring him every step of the way.
So much noise was made over the years about rendition, allegations of torture, nasty CIA activities, and secret prisons, that the reality of why these individuals were imprisoned is not just overlooked, but actually – according the the Beeboid I saw on the news last night – trumped by the noise about what may or may not have happened on the way.
Gordon Brown is a sucker, and fell for it. Now you have somebody with no legal connection to the UK (one who deliberately severed his legal ties, in fact), being treated in the press and by members of government as if he is something else entirely. The BBC is full of suckers, all of whom willingly buy into the emotional trip of supporting somebody who was possibly mistreated by Pakistanis while either UK or US spooks looked the other way. In their minds, they’re not supporting a Muslim or a terrorist, but a victim. This emotion supersedes all common sense, as well as awareness of the ramifications of what they’re doing. But we’ve all heard that before, haven’t we?
The funny thing is, The Obamessiah comes out smelling like a rose, while the stink rises in Britain. I’d ask why the BBC is playing along with this and not questioning the legal concepts, but I already know why.
David Preiser (USA): Glad to see you didn’t see my post as anti-American, just anti-Obama. As for Guantanamo • while bleeding heart liberals in the media, were screaming about human rights etc…. the average Brit couldn’t give two figs about the inmates. Unfortunately, our politicians (of all shades) listen to those who shout the loudest and so yes, guilty as charged • my GVN has been making easy political capital out of the alleged abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Even so • as you say • I still think we were suckers to accept Mr. Mohamed. Still it’s amazing what British politicians will do to get a pat on the head from an American President. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of a close alliance • given a choice I’d far rather Britain became the fifty-first state in the union, than just another outpost in the EU Empire • but while we remain an independent nation, we should look out for British interests first and foremost, just as America (quite correctly) puts her national interests first. In this case we should have said thanks but no thanks; unless the U.S was prepared to offer us some quid pro quo.
As for the war on terror in general • I still believe that one of our greatest mistakes, was setting up Guantanamo Bay in the first place. All Al Qaeda suspects should be detained and interrogated in the country where they were picked up. Ordinarily this would be Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somali (for the latter • perhaps suspects could be transferred to Ethiopia for safe keeping) • thus well away from prying eyes and the western media. Inmates should only be released once they are deemed to be no longer a threat; and as for the hard core Islamists who cannot be swayed from the path of violence • well let’s just say that they should be neutralised once keeping them alive serves no useful purpose. Some would say that these views make me a monster; fair comment, but personally I’d say that I was a realist. We are at war with an enemy who will not play by the Marques of Queensbury rules, so nor should we.
Jonathan 5:07
Hear ! Hear !