Whilst out walking my dog in the rain, I've been listening to George Galloway on the wireless. Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with nearly everything he had to say. What a strange day it is.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
You are an extremely patient man OG but you are wasting your breath - this creature is not about logic; not open to persuasion and without any capacity to learn, even when it is obvious to everyone else that all the myths he has been gulled by have been exploded. His sole motive is to be a nuisance. He is the classic internet troll.
Tom
OG and Tom
The mere fact you two have so much support for JC lends credence to any comments about loony left, only reinforced with your references to right wing conspiracy media plots and fascist control of our government.
The mere fact you two have so much support for JC lends credence to any comments about loony left, only reinforced with your references to right wing conspiracy media plots and fascist control of our government.
You are so right, and a portion of it can be heard here
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway?lang=en-gb
I'm afraid you simply are incorrigible, no facts, logic rational argument will damage your pet fetishes, will it?
You hate many things, principally
- The EU
- Herr Juncker
- The Notion that anyone has the right to disagree with the Brexit Vote
- Real Socialism
So Murdoch and others don't pull the strings?
Do you actually hold to the notion that they will govern to benefit you?
That is laughable.
And Frankly your holier than thou attitude claiming other people insult you seems to provide a ready excuse for you to the the same thing, without seeing any irony at all is making you look a fool.
So we can't even sell them?
And did we really offer to sell off our allegedly most powerful seagoing weapon of war to a potential enemy?
Which Traitor did that?
Better to sink them ourselves than flog them to an enemy to use against us.
When it was announced around a couple of years ago that only one would actually be commissioned with the Royal Navy the government said they were seeking a buyer for the other one. There is no intention that we will ever use it.
Cancellation was out of the question for the same reasons as the USA's F35 couldn't be cancelled. The program and construction was too far advanced and too much had already been spent for it to be completely wasted.
.
I'm at a loss to see how we have avoided that, my suggestion is if it was merely intended as a Folly to keep the shipyards working, then logic suggests more employment in scrapping them would work out cheaper than either mothballing one of them and running the other and facing a huge bill for enough additional surface craft to protect it at sea.
What a nation! correct me if I have got this wrong
We now find ourselves involved in a Naval Arms race that we cannot afford, (with nobody but ourselves) in order to build a fleet of smaller warships armed with anti missiles systems to protect a gigantic white elephant of a carrier that will actually be nothing more than a "car park" for the US Navy to fly off their dodgy aircraft and impose their policy abroad at our expense.
Brittania Rules the waves (on behalf and under the control and direction of the USA)
Oddly, I'm not overwhelmed with enthusiasm for this idea.
Interesting that May has blamed the Blair Government for
“In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order which changed the requirement to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority – which was usually the fire brigade – to a responsible person.
I have followed this up and the regualtion is clearly designed and aimed at places of work, and makes no references at all to residential housing.
Here is a link
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/estates/maintenance/fire/documents/UCLFire_TN_076.pdf
Have I misread this somehow?
She also confirmed what the Chancellor had said.
"Mrs May replied: “The situation is, in relation to the cladding, that the building regulations identify the cladding which is compatible with the building regulations and that which is non-compliant with those building regulations.
“My understanding is that this particular cladding was not compliant with the building regulations."
I did manage to find what appears to be the relevant regulations for housing here
The building Regulations 2010 Fire safety paint a very different picture
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485420/BR_PDF_AD_B1_2013.pdf
To whit on page 40
"
39
Approved Document B (Fire safety)
Volume 1 – Dwellinghouses
This Approved Document deals with the
following Requirement from Part B of Schedule 1
to the Building Regulations 2010.
Requirement
Limits on application
External fire spread
B4.
(1)
The external walls of the building shall adequately
resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building
to another, having regard to the height, use and position of
the building.
(2)
The roof of the building shall adequately resist the
spread of fire over the roof and from one building to another,
having regard to the use and position of the building.
“In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order which changed the requirement to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority – which was usually the fire brigade – to a responsible person.
I have followed this up and the regualtion is clearly designed and aimed at places of work, and makes no references at all to residential housing.
Here is a link
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/estates/maintenance/fire/documents/UCLFire_TN_076.pdf
Have I misread this somehow?
She also confirmed what the Chancellor had said.
"Mrs May replied: “The situation is, in relation to the cladding, that the building regulations identify the cladding which is compatible with the building regulations and that which is non-compliant with those building regulations.
“My understanding is that this particular cladding was not compliant with the building regulations."
I did manage to find what appears to be the relevant regulations for housing here
The building Regulations 2010 Fire safety paint a very different picture
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485420/BR_PDF_AD_B1_2013.pdf
To whit on page 40
"
39
Approved Document B (Fire safety)
Volume 1 – Dwellinghouses
This Approved Document deals with the
following Requirement from Part B of Schedule 1
to the Building Regulations 2010.
Requirement
Limits on application
External fire spread
B4.
(1)
The external walls of the building shall adequately
resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building
to another, having regard to the height, use and position of
the building.
(2)
The roof of the building shall adequately resist the
spread of fire over the roof and from one building to another,
having regard to the use and position of the building.
Last edited:
There was no question of scrapping both, defence policy is that we have an aircraft carrier, so HMS Queen Elizabeth was always going to be completed and commissioned.
And as I posted, construction on the second was so advanced that completion so that it could be sold could be a more sensible option than scrapping. It was also said that the employment it provided for several more years had value. We don't do ship breaking anyway, that's almost entirely done in the third world and we'd have to pay for that service.
The real mistake was that the government that ordered two originally had ambitions above our status. Our other self-inflicted problem is that we regard the Royal Navy as the senior service and accord far too much influence to the Admiralty. That tail regularly wags the dog.
.
Last edited:
I'm not Teresa may was, have a word with her, and do actually read the full post
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Now that you have a keel you could keelhaul the committee that designed a state of the art warship in 2004 tying it to a 2004 operating system. How big was the envelope that MS slipped to them to make them do such a stupid thing? Of course back then they were still crowing the "death of UNIX" which also happens to be a real mans operating system for war ship systems.
So on board there will be "a team of cyber experts protecting the systems from attack". Good luck with that! And "a major computer refit within the decade". How many hundreds of millions for that? Moving to another version of Windows then? Which within the design period will be out of date...
These are they same people who are designing a modern post brexit UK I presume?
So on board there will be "a team of cyber experts protecting the systems from attack". Good luck with that! And "a major computer refit within the decade". How many hundreds of millions for that? Moving to another version of Windows then? Which within the design period will be out of date...
These are they same people who are designing a modern post brexit UK I presume?
These 2010 regulations followed a serious fire in a large terraced building where the fire spread laterally through the roof/attic spaces. This section was specifically intended for that sort of building to ensure there would be full lateral fire resistance in future, not just that between the living zones. Naturally that included external as well as roof space spread, but wasn't aimed at tower blocks though clearly it could also apply to them.
My flats building would enable lateral spread though the roof spaces since the separating walls between lofts do not seal to the roof tiling. Fortunately that only applies to the top floor pairs which are separated by the width of the communal hallway and staircase, so no direct flat to flat transfer. Also no downward spread possible since the storeys are separated by reinforced concrete floors..
.
Long article but suggest Tom and OG both read it.
One of the things that always makes me furious is the knee-jerk stupidity of saying that the Daily Mail used to support fascism, thereby implying that it is somehow tainted goods in its modern form.
I certainly have my differences with the politics of the modern Mail, but it is blind prejudice to link what it published, for a brief period, in the 1930s to what it does today.
So I was delighted to see on Anna Raccoon's blog last week a piece by Matt Wardman in which he presented a media history lesson.
He omitted a crucial fact and I'll come to that in a moment. But he made two very important points - firstly, the Mail was not the only paper to carry articles supporting Oswald Mosley's blackshirts. The Daily Mirror did too.
Secondly, trying to criticise the 2011 Mail by pointing to an 80-year-old aberration lacks any value whatsoever. It not only had no lasting effect on the Mail. It had almost no effect even at the time.
What Wardman did not do, however, was make the ownership nexus between the Mail and Mirror of the 1930s clear enough. That isn't so surprising because it was anything but clear and remains a matter of dispute.
Let's get the undisputed facts out of the way first. At the beginning of the 1930s, the then Viscount Rothermere (Harold Harmsworth) owned the Mail and the Mirror.
In January 1934, he wrote - under his own byline - articles that appeared in both the Mail and the Mirror. The former was headlined "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". The latter was headlined "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand."
Within a year, he had removed his support for Mosley's party, though he remained an admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini. Indeed, he met and corresponded with Hitler, even congratulating him on his annexation of Czechoslovakia.
rothit
Rothermere I (Harold Harmsworth) with Hitler
So we can be under no illusion that Rothermere the First was a supporter of the Nazis. And he had the power to say so through his Mail ownership - at least until the declaration of war. I'll pick that up in a moment also.
What then of the Mirror? It is generally thought that Harold secretly sold off his interests in the Mirror in the early 1930s. However, the paper's ownership following his supposed sale remained uncertain in 1934.
It is therefore likely that the Mirror's then editor, Harry Guy Bartholomew, felt himself obliged to publish an article by a man he considered to be, if not the proprietor, then almost certainly still its largest shareholder.
That said, it would appear that Bart was none too troubled by Rothermere's sentiments. Wardman points to Chris Horrie's Tabloid nation: From the birth of the Mirror to the death of the tabloid newspaper, in which he reveals that Mirror readers were urged to join Mosley's party.
The Mirror's sister paper, then known as the Sunday Pictorial, even ran pictures of uniformed blackshirts playing table tennis and enjoying a sing-song around a piano. Both titles also planned a beauty contest aimed at finding Britain's prettiest woman fascist.
Not many people know that. Certainly, nothing like as many as know that the Mail ran Rothermere's "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" (which is Wardman's point).
He isn't doing down the Mirror. He is merely saying that it is unfair that one title should suffer from the association with fascism while the other doesn't.
But there is more context that is important. Harold's son, Esmond (Rothermere the Second) assumed control of the Mail before Harold died in 1940. Its coverage from the outbreak of war the year before reveals not a scintilla of support for Hitler.
It is also important to view Harold's misguided views through the prism of widespread support for appeasement, not least from The Times under the editorship of Geoffrey Dawson and, of course, many leading politicians.
Lastly, it is also the case that the Mail of the 1930s was not nearly as influential as the Daily Express and its owner, Lord Beaverbrook.
And it was the Express, in March 1933, that ran a splash headlined "Judea declares war on Germany: Jews of all the world unite in action".
It was an overblown report about an (alleged) boycott against German goods that was declared in response to anti-Semitic activities by the Nazis. The "boycott" was quickly repudiated by the Jewish board of deputies in Britain.
Beaverbrook, who is generally regarded as not having been anti-Semitic and was a close friend of Churchill, is also remembered for his famous prediction: "There will be no war in Europe." His Express splashed that on 1 September 1939, the day Hitler invaded Poland, and the war began.
The point is: damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now. But Rothermere the Second, Rothermere the Third (Vere) and now Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line.
Roy Greenslade. The Guardian.
One of the things that always makes me furious is the knee-jerk stupidity of saying that the Daily Mail used to support fascism, thereby implying that it is somehow tainted goods in its modern form.
I certainly have my differences with the politics of the modern Mail, but it is blind prejudice to link what it published, for a brief period, in the 1930s to what it does today.
So I was delighted to see on Anna Raccoon's blog last week a piece by Matt Wardman in which he presented a media history lesson.
He omitted a crucial fact and I'll come to that in a moment. But he made two very important points - firstly, the Mail was not the only paper to carry articles supporting Oswald Mosley's blackshirts. The Daily Mirror did too.
Secondly, trying to criticise the 2011 Mail by pointing to an 80-year-old aberration lacks any value whatsoever. It not only had no lasting effect on the Mail. It had almost no effect even at the time.
What Wardman did not do, however, was make the ownership nexus between the Mail and Mirror of the 1930s clear enough. That isn't so surprising because it was anything but clear and remains a matter of dispute.
Let's get the undisputed facts out of the way first. At the beginning of the 1930s, the then Viscount Rothermere (Harold Harmsworth) owned the Mail and the Mirror.
In January 1934, he wrote - under his own byline - articles that appeared in both the Mail and the Mirror. The former was headlined "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". The latter was headlined "Give the Blackshirts a helping hand."
Within a year, he had removed his support for Mosley's party, though he remained an admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini. Indeed, he met and corresponded with Hitler, even congratulating him on his annexation of Czechoslovakia.
rothit
Rothermere I (Harold Harmsworth) with Hitler
So we can be under no illusion that Rothermere the First was a supporter of the Nazis. And he had the power to say so through his Mail ownership - at least until the declaration of war. I'll pick that up in a moment also.
What then of the Mirror? It is generally thought that Harold secretly sold off his interests in the Mirror in the early 1930s. However, the paper's ownership following his supposed sale remained uncertain in 1934.
It is therefore likely that the Mirror's then editor, Harry Guy Bartholomew, felt himself obliged to publish an article by a man he considered to be, if not the proprietor, then almost certainly still its largest shareholder.
That said, it would appear that Bart was none too troubled by Rothermere's sentiments. Wardman points to Chris Horrie's Tabloid nation: From the birth of the Mirror to the death of the tabloid newspaper, in which he reveals that Mirror readers were urged to join Mosley's party.
The Mirror's sister paper, then known as the Sunday Pictorial, even ran pictures of uniformed blackshirts playing table tennis and enjoying a sing-song around a piano. Both titles also planned a beauty contest aimed at finding Britain's prettiest woman fascist.
Not many people know that. Certainly, nothing like as many as know that the Mail ran Rothermere's "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" (which is Wardman's point).
He isn't doing down the Mirror. He is merely saying that it is unfair that one title should suffer from the association with fascism while the other doesn't.
But there is more context that is important. Harold's son, Esmond (Rothermere the Second) assumed control of the Mail before Harold died in 1940. Its coverage from the outbreak of war the year before reveals not a scintilla of support for Hitler.
It is also important to view Harold's misguided views through the prism of widespread support for appeasement, not least from The Times under the editorship of Geoffrey Dawson and, of course, many leading politicians.
Lastly, it is also the case that the Mail of the 1930s was not nearly as influential as the Daily Express and its owner, Lord Beaverbrook.
And it was the Express, in March 1933, that ran a splash headlined "Judea declares war on Germany: Jews of all the world unite in action".
It was an overblown report about an (alleged) boycott against German goods that was declared in response to anti-Semitic activities by the Nazis. The "boycott" was quickly repudiated by the Jewish board of deputies in Britain.
Beaverbrook, who is generally regarded as not having been anti-Semitic and was a close friend of Churchill, is also remembered for his famous prediction: "There will be no war in Europe." His Express splashed that on 1 September 1939, the day Hitler invaded Poland, and the war began.
The point is: damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now. But Rothermere the Second, Rothermere the Third (Vere) and now Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line.
Roy Greenslade. The Guardian.
The salient part
The point is: damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now. But Rothermere the Second, Rothermere the Third (Vere) and now Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line.
Roy Greenslade. The Guardian.
Its like saying we don't trust Germans because of role they played in the 1930's.
The point is: damn the Mail if you will for what it publishes now. But Rothermere the Second, Rothermere the Third (Vere) and now Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line.
Roy Greenslade. The Guardian.
Its like saying we don't trust Germans because of role they played in the 1930's.
Ok, so what is your point? are you trying to maintain that there has been a change and that the same far right objectives and attitudes don't shine forth from these newspapers even today?
They are still and always will be what they have been all along
Rothermere the Fourth (Jonathan) cannot be held responsible for the views of the first of their line, but they can be held responsible for theirs, and surprise surprise they haven't changed except in so far as to support groups like the rebranded BNP in the guise of UKIP.
Leopards don't change their spots.
As to this
"
One of the things that always makes me furious is the knee-jerk stupidity of saying that the Daily Mail used to support fascism, thereby implying that it is somehow tainted goods in its modern form."
It was and still does, do you have a problem with that? have you never bothered to read it then?
Yes, you obviously have not, or simply refuse to accept the point.
Posting and commenting on Mail,s behaviour 80 years ago( which both yourself and Tom have done) merely indicates your level of extremism.
But like I,ve said before its a waste of time making any points to you..
Neither of you will ever accept it but your standpoint is exactly why labour is in such a mess. The vast majority of voters are simply not that radical. You rant on and on about Tories,May, The Mail but actually offer nothing , it typifies why voters stick with Tories.
You only see your own blinkered view, from your own stand point with not a jot of care for others, you frighten moderate labour away. Had a moderate been in charge of Labour Tory rule would already be a thing of past. People don't want to hear about Marxism, fascists, connections with IRA etc etc..
They just want to know what labour could do and who would do it.
They don't want to be seen as radical or any such thing. That's where labour and such as you and Tom have gone wrong. Labour need a leader to appeal to middle England...not to folk like Tom and Diane Abbot.
Rightly or wrongly the politic just appears to extreme, too radical with too much emphasis on righting perceived wrongs rather than real progress. Tom,s ramblings remind me of Scargill's in 80's..much as I might agree with some of it, look where it got Arthur..nowhere fast. Labour just never learns.
Posting and commenting on Mail,s behaviour 80 years ago( which both yourself and Tom have done) merely indicates your level of extremism.
But like I,ve said before its a waste of time making any points to you..
Neither of you will ever accept it but your standpoint is exactly why labour is in such a mess. The vast majority of voters are simply not that radical. You rant on and on about Tories,May, The Mail but actually offer nothing , it typifies why voters stick with Tories.
You only see your own blinkered view, from your own stand point with not a jot of care for others, you frighten moderate labour away. Had a moderate been in charge of Labour Tory rule would already be a thing of past. People don't want to hear about Marxism, fascists, connections with IRA etc etc..
They just want to know what labour could do and who would do it.
They don't want to be seen as radical or any such thing. That's where labour and such as you and Tom have gone wrong. Labour need a leader to appeal to middle England...not to folk like Tom and Diane Abbot.
Rightly or wrongly the politic just appears to extreme, too radical with too much emphasis on righting perceived wrongs rather than real progress. Tom,s ramblings remind me of Scargill's in 80's..much as I might agree with some of it, look where it got Arthur..nowhere fast. Labour just never learns.
Last edited:
Sorry but these papers have been one thing thoughout and that is consistent, their Far right agenda hasn't changed thoughout the intervening years, they are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the ruling elite.
If you can't see that you have a real problem.