I'm a JC supporter as well. Tom and me disagree over the Skripal poisoning and I seriously doubt he is a fan of putin either.

About those BS polls...

Labour to sweep London in local elections with best result for any party since 1968, new poll suggests
Survey indicates just 28 per cent of Londoners plan to vote Tory

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mpression=true

Yes. I know. Which makes you a red fascist and a supporter of anti-Semitism. And, as we've already established, you agree with the Momentum view that 'Blairite scum must be exterminated.' And don't claim you were 'just joking,' because we know that's what fascists always claim. It's literally in the playbook.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...b0ce3b344492f2


You're probably onside with the Corbynite anti-Semites who've been flaming Robert Peston. (Because he's Jewish.)



Don't be daft, of course he's a fan of Putin, because his Dear Leader and Teacher and Supreme Leader is, and therefore that must be right. He's trying to claim that Russia is just as likely not to responsible for the Skripal poisoning as it is likely to be responsible, when that doesn't stand up at all. Russia is likely to be responsible.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...ussia-stack-up

Errr - this is 100% because of brexit.

who cares, boot em out

more like 50% Brexit, 50% Grenfell. Labour could have absolutely hammered the tories if they'd taken a strong anti-Brexit position, hell they're benefiting from anti-Brexit sentiment anyway despite not even opposing it.

I must say Corbyn is a difficult chap to support. I love the basis of his social & economic policies and I'm mostly impressed with his ideological consistency. But with that comes a stubborn refusal to convert easy political open goals, and he also seems to be a magnet for smear campaigns that he generally handles poorly. As others have pointed out, he's been ludicrously accused of being both a Russian spy and an anti semite this month and failed hard at swatting away either of them.

One of your more desperate efforts 57. Slander everywhere, you should be more careful.

the C4 piece backs up what I have been saying. Taking aside the guess work, the meat of it is this:

At the moment, we simply do not know the extent or strength of the evidence.

And as they remind us

In the ‘80s, for instance, President Reagan’s administration repeatedly accused the Soviet Union of supplying Vietnam with a biological weapon called Yellow Rain. But the scientific analysis proved to be staggeringly wrong: the mysterious substance was, in fact, just bee excrement.

And, of course, the intelligence about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction in 2003 also turned out to be wrong.

I never heard of Reagan's bee excrement tbh, how about May's horse****?

Also Czech spy and IRA terrorist. If anything has given away far too much ground on these issues but w/e that's just politics.

I'm telling you that without Corbyn (or similar leftwinger) who only got in by a last minute fluke btw, Labour would be facing annihilation right now. As it stands Corbyn is likely to be the next PM which was unthinkable.

Thing with the anti-semitism lark, this is extremely difficult to swat because of the strength and ferocity, and willingness to lie, of the Israeli lobby in and around the Labour Party.

Fair bit of cherrypicking going on there, you seem to have missed out other parts that don't suit you:

Chemical analysis can reveal not only what the nerve agent is, but also the particular process used to make it. So, if the UK believes that Russia produces Novichok in a unique way, that may prove to be vital evidence.

“If you’ve got an environmental sample, you would have your nerve agent there, but you would also have some probably unreacted precursor chemicals,” explains Professor Hay. “You would probably have traces of solvent that were used…”

“These can all help to give you a clue as to how something was made. You may also have – within your intelligence information – details of how particular places make these things. So that’s the sort of comparison you’re then in a position to make.”

Hay adds: “On occasions when I’ve been privy to some intelligence stuff, it’s just amazing how much more there is than is in the public domain.”

If I can just quote myself in response

Taking aside the guess work, the meat of it is this:

At the moment, we simply do not know the extent or strength of the evidence.


Just saw the former ambassador to NATO on daily politics (after telling fibs about the 'first use of nerve agent since WW2', the British govt tested chemical weapons on soldiers and civilians as exposed by the indy, guardian et al) outlined quite a frightening scenario: if they are serious about taking this forward this cant stop here, the UK will have to convince the OPCW of their case, there will have to be demands for inspections of Russian sites etc.. potentially an incredibly dangerous situation.

oh and Duncan Smith asked May if she has raised with the Germans cancelling their gas pipeline contract with Russia. Lol.

Blimey I have been busy ...

But no, none of that. I would like to see blair on trial for war crimes (or something of that ilk) but I don't want to see him exterminated, let alone the blairites.

All political movements have a small fringe that behave in an unacceptable manner. I'll always oppose them, as much, if not more, than I oppose the political opposition.

And the point is, just because you don't doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. He's pointing out that the intelligence usually goes way beyond what's made public, unsurprisingly, but it's clearly been enough for all those other countries involved given what has been a pretty major response.

Usually, probably, maybe, sort of, aren't the words I would hope to see when taking actions which raise tensions with the 2nd biggest nuclear power.

But look, maybe the story checks out and this is a proportionate response - but tell me is it worth it anyway, this guy was a spy not a civilian. But I'm not prepared, on the 15th anniversary of Iraq which killed over 1 million people on a pack of lies, to blindly accept anything coming from govt or intelligence when there are a ton of inconsistencies in the case.

And right now they are running the Labour party.

Where the **** do these people come from and why do they pop up everywhere and their opinion is taken as face value?

It was ****ing Russia. There's a chance that the sun has gone out. I mean we're getting the light on 8 min delay. Yet if I go acting like "we might not know if there sun is still shining" it's not convincing anyone.

What I'm saying that denying that it wasn't Russia behind the nerve toxin attack is insane. If looking into things like motivation, capability, past actions isn't enough, seek mental help.

BUT WHATABOUT IRAQ AND AMERICA?

mostly from leeds

When you've stopped foaming at the mouth perhaps think a little more about this.
Perhaps 'these people' are ordinary people who are here there and everywhere. We just don't accept at 'face value' what the known liar boris Johnson, who took £160 000 from the wife of Putin's mate to play tennis with him, is saying.
Motivation, capability and past actions could be applied to many different scenarios. That's why it's important to examine actual evidence, which had been implied but not demonstrated. Several states declined to take action, or in the case of the Czechs took action while asking for evidence to be presented in the near future which would imply there is nothing further in secret than is public knowledge. An assumption yes, but no less credible than the assumptions you are making.

UK intelligence were involved in preparing Blair's dodgy dossier, the 45 minutes claim, sadaam wmd. If you don't think this is relevant then all I can say is

I don't believe people who want to exterminate blairites are running anything. Certainly not the labour party.

There has been a reverse takeover by the lunatic fringe on the far left. They seem rather keen on mandatory reselection.

I don't think that selecting representatives is what 57onred meant by 'exterminating blairites'. In any case I'm against candidates being imposed by the leaders and I'm not at all against selecting our representatives.

re 'lunatic fringe'. I'd disagree with that but I think you're now talking about policies rather than how they behave.

Mandatory reselection would bring MP nominations up to date with the way that MPs themselves have to be elected ie. A general election is by definition mandatory reselection. Similarly trade union reps and officers etc have to be reelected every year/agreed time frame. But somehow internal selection procedures in the Labour Party have to remain secretive and the members can't have a say in this. The onus is on you to justify continuing this sham democracy.

And btw the far left has very little influence on the Labour Party.

its a toughie. mandatory reselection does seem more democratic on the face of it, but otoh turnout for such things is generally abysmal. tends to be the fringe lunatics that get most involved, which can lead to over-representation of fringe lunatic candidates. see america where bonkers people keep winning primaries

a typical example from last week

In the US bonkers people win presidential elections as well as primaries. Also i'd hazard a guess that there are more than a few people on the verge of bonkers in congress.

yes well the game show host in-chief is another consequence of the primary system, same for noted pedo roy moore almost going to the senate

mr & mrs smith generally do not have the time or inclination to vote in primaries, but doomsday prepper Bob Carnagebrain the Third and his mates all turn up to vote for the nuttiest weirdo. its problem