Posts by casablanca

    Ok, so he sha99ed a tart (Virginia Roberts Guiffre) who looked old enough. Big f-ing deal! In fact she was at the time age 17. And who gives a flying f-ck whether that is below the legal limit in one US state vs another? Virginia (talk about a misleading first name!) was in attendance voluntarily, for the fun and the money - don't forget the money - and at that stage Epstein was just a typical semi-depraved over-sexed hedonist with a $h1tload of money to help cultivate people in high places. A modern version of Hugh Heffner without the dressing gown. And Andrew was just another royal who had neither sufficient money or status to strike out on his own - and probably no great motivation. Having risked his neck in the Falklands, had his first love relationship with Koo Stark (truly a class act) mauled by the tabloid press and his runner up choice (Fergy) to high spirited and self-indulgent to make the tabloid press grade until it was too late, what was left for Andrew except the soft option of monetizing his semi-royal identity as a social and commercial influence?

    Against this background, what in this thread is the great contribution from Forum Box? That there is "no smoke without fire"? What a pathetic cliched moronic notion. It gets difficult to stand up straight if you keep stooping this low*.


    * Guy walks along with one foot on the pavement and the other in the gutter. Someone says "why are you walking like that? He says: "I thought I was crippled"

    Hong Kong was always only a rented place and when that lease ran out I knew this problem would turn up. It will work itself out but there seems to be a rather nasty element among the protesters. Not sure who or what is motivating that.

    You're right, Hong Kong's long lease came to end and the landlord/freeholder (mainland China) decided to change the relationship to a landlord-tenant agreement of good intent, written by politicians and PR execs rather than lawyers. You could see on Takeover Day One, in the displayed attitude of mainland China, that the spirit of Hong Kong entrepreneurship and capitalism was not going to stand in the way of Mainland China's global progress based on a totalitarian government policy. (If and when North Korea finally accomplishes the art of two-faced diplomacy we will have a 2-headed East Asian monster, leaving the rest of the world (except maybe Russia) on Defcom 2

    Protests have become so commonplace that they can only get what they want is by gaining a bigger share of voice, so that a government or large corporation is rattled (I suppose this is why totalitarianism is such an iron glove). Protesting is best staged close to an election (or annual shareholder meeting). The problem is that the actual number protesting is finite, so the protesters have to be more prominent in behaviour, which usually starts with attention-seeking, then being a nuisance, then obnoxious and then violent, which is hardly a way of encouraging once-sympathetic spectators to join the fray.

    In the early stage of Hong Kong protests, mainland China's police tried to act with restraint but as the protesters became more demanding and excitable, with an ever increasing list of demands that belong with an unfettered Western-style democracy, negotiation in search of a face-saving midpoint became futile.

    Young Chinese people look so adorably cute, especially the ones in Hong Kong. Much of the world was on their side. Today I'm so sure.

    I still think we'd better drop it?

    You're probably right. I'm on your side with dealing toughly, uncaringly and cheaply with drunks who are a blot on civilised society, where if they die, well that's the way the cookies crumble. But you won't win the argument with Horizon who is, or pretends to be, the consumate nitpicking civil servant (scheduled to be reincarnated as a local planning planning officer). I think he plays that role believing it makes the thread more interesting. ZZZZZZ

    1 No. Because it is these "little" issues that matter.

    2 I'm clear cut on this. No foreign ways in our country. Period.

    1 Big issues matter more

    2 Hitler, Eichman, Mengele, Mosley and the Labour Party would be proud of you. Jewish British citizens born in this country less so and, with more like you, may decide to emigrate to Israel. (My view is is that some "foreign ways" are weirder, more disconcerting or offending than others, eg killing a goat on in the middle of a busy shopping high street, as traditional way of Muslims breaking a fast. Do you feel we need a hard Brexit from this whole planet?

    I'm not suggesting drunks who turn up at A&E (or are swept off the pavement into an ambulance and delivered to an A&E ) should be left to die in the reception hall. But I'm all in favour of them experiencing, for at least 12 or 24 hours, a high degree of uncomfortable neglect in a locked room, amidst their own vomit, with fellow drunks (of one or other or both sexes), if necessary, cuffed or straitjacketed if there signs of violent intent. A row of toilet bowls, sinks, paper towels, sick bags and bread and water dispensers would complete the luxurious experience.

    If it is part of a religious observance (eg young male Jewish children) I think it should be banned if conducted in the back of a car with poor suspension and a road with lots of potholes

    Other than that, I think we should all mind our goddamn business and concentrate on issues that really matter

    As long as there are nutters in the world prepared to die for their "cause" we will be at risk

    I think the real nutters are those in a sovereign nation who, in the name of diversity, liberalism and the rest of that politically correct crap, are prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that nutters from nutter lands are welcome, even those whose last utterance is that "God is Great", who view Westerners as infidels and look forward to engaging with 72 virgins who await those whose favourite form of dress when shopping or concert-going is a suicide vest.

    I love the way these jumped up nobodies who present TV think they have a divine right to "interview" politicians especially and just shout at and over them with their own opinions

    Piers Morgan, please note

    I blame the politicians. The responses I am dying to hear from a politician interviewed by the likes of Matis, Neal, Marr, Morgan, Ridge, Preston could and should include:

    Is there any chance my answer can be longer than your question?

    You seem to have not only the question but also the answer. Do I need to be here

    How many seconds will you allow me to answer your question before you talk over me

    You want me to apologise? There's an original suggestion! Why don't I just apologise for being alive and for anything and everything I have ever done or said which you or at least one member of the public decrees is wrong. And then we can move on

    Is there any chance that this interview could develop in a way where I say something and you follow it up rather than just read out another question from your list. That way I'll know you are real rather than an early model of Artificial Intelligence?

    I'm terribly bored with your questions which are all about image, attitude and whether we can win and what we think the voter thinks and how we feel about that. Is there any chance of being asked questions about what we have announced we are going to do?

    You want me to guarantee that? What do you think I am, a car salesman? Can you guarantee that your questions will become less banal or naive?

    It would help if you could try and understand a bit more about what we're talking about. You're gaining speed but you're losing altitude

    Why do you want to quarrel with me? Do you need to be so hostile? Do you personally see me as the enemy? Apart from anything else, it's rude.

    No, I wouldn't most of the media as being on the hard left like Corbyn, they're the Blairite elites who know better than all of us, or so they believe.

    Agreed, not on the HARD left, but still left of centre, as suits a well-salaried virtue-signalling, crowd-feeder-manipulator-propagandist

    It has long been true that information was power. We sort of overlooked that this includes fake information, which is seldom exposed as such and only challenged if disliked or disagree with.

    I suppose this means that is doesn't much matter whether the media is left- or right of centre; the nub of the problem is that the information peddled or negligently dispensed by the media is, at best, vacuous or meaningless, at worst, misleading or deliberately false.

    1 When did we ever have such a parliament as you dream of?

    2 And considering we have generally managed over the years I don't think the present system is so bad

    1 A decade or two ago. Was that before you were born or before you entered a second childhood?!

    2 The present parliamentary system system is okay provided it doesn't need to vote on anything important that could significantly affect our lives. For example, we have, as you rightly put it, "managed over the years". But this is in spite of rather than because of our Parliamentary system. If you genuinely think that (a) "we Parliament has helped us to have "generally managed over the years" and (b) you "don't think the present system is so bad", then you are either ........

    ..... A civil servant

    ..... A Muslim looking forward to a new life in Paradise with 72 virgins

    ..... Demented

    ..... Wealthy or comfortably off

    ..... Easily pleased or complacent or resigned to a second- rate existence

    ..... Lucky enough not to have personally experienced Brexit-related hardships caused by Parliament's incompetence or flawed democracy

    ..... Ignorant or indifferent to these Brexit-related hardships experienced by a great many people

    ..... With a former experience of bedlam, strife, poverty, corruption, violence or crime, where anything would be an improvement

    (Multi-answers allowed)

    "Prince Andrew arrives in Bangkok to help young entrepreneurs as he battles continuing storm over his links with billionaire paedophile Jeffery Epstein"…effery-Epstein-storm.html

    I wonder how young the "young entrepreneurs" have to be?

    Curious place to go, that's for sure considering the ongoing Epstein scandal. Bangkok is probably the world's capital for child sex, not that I'm suggesting that's what Andrew is there for, but curious none the less...

    A great future awaits you both in tabloid journalism!

    We don't live in your "utopia", you forget to allow for human nature

    So you think a Parliament that can behave with just a modicum of integrity and sanity is Utopia. Wow! I give up. If your view is that of the majority of British citizens, then this country really is f-cked.

    As for my forgetting about nature, is that some sort of joke. Don't you get it yet. These days human nature is the problem, not the solution.

    Either you're being incredibly subtle, scaling intellectual heights of which I can only dream .......or ........ the other thing

    It is only "broke" in that we have a hung Parliament

    Don't despair, it is all about to change

    1 It is only "broke" in that we have a hung Parliament

    Do you ever watch or listen to it? I'm not referring to the numbers. I'm referring to the scheming, the dishonesty, the partisanship and the utter claptrap of the creeps and mediocrities who infest parliament. You really are okay about that? Or doesn't it even register with you?

    2 Don't despair, it is all about to change

    Since your definition of "it" is not what I'm talking about, your benign assurance means nothing. But, hey, thanks for patting me on the head!

    Equal voting power between 650 may have it's faults but it's the best system we have

    Similarly our jury system relies on 12 varied people having the power to decide guilt or innocence

    The alternative is something akin to the Russian model where one can vote but only for the already chosen one

    How can anything ever be improved if people say "it may have it's faults but it's the best system we have?"

    A large corporation will have a board of 10-30 directors. Why does UK PLC need a boardroom of 650 decision-makers? How can any large enterprise - political or commercial - make decisions with a boardroom of 650? Instead, why not let those who want to go into politics advance up a pyramid on merit from local to small town to large town/conurbation to county or region to central (Westminster), along the way picking up exceptional people who are already high up on their particular pyramid in business, professions or academia, who would cross over horizontally onto the political / government pyramid. The electorate can vote at these different levels just as they do already (for example, there are general elections, by-elections, local government elections and mayoral elections, so my proposal is not riding roughshod over people's right to vote). My proposed pyramid would encourage those of merit to rise to the top , so that its peak level becomes the boardroom in Westminster, comprising 20 or so high quality people to run UK PLC (just like the present government cabinet, which is 22 members), each heading up various ministries. Perhaps the most important feature of this proposal is that people of merit might be more inclined to go into politics which, at present. is down there with estate agents and commission-driven pension advisers.

    Another thing: why do we need political parties? It artificially encourages differences of opinion on how society should develop, just for the sake of giving each political party a "brand identity" or "reason for being", which straitjackets independent viewpoints, where these viewpoint segments become degraded into opposing factions, otherwise known as partisanship, where serving the party becomes more important than serving the country. Partisanship is a serious burden on democracy. I mean for chrissakes, is this sad confused chip-on-shoulder country still undecided between Capitalism versus Marxism? Does this country really need a political party taking up nearly half of parliament that believes that getting rich should be penalised by government and that inequality is a bad thing?


    What is the point you're making about our jury system relying on 12 varied people having the power to decide guilt or innocence? Do you feel that this too cannot be improved? At least deliberations by 12 jurors is less chaotic than would be the case with a jury of 650! But have you seen the calibre of some of the juror members? The whole idea of the jury system is to be tried by one's peers, by the society within which you live. Yet the jury is selected without any attempt to get a cross-section by sex, age, neighborhood, socio-economic- grade (mainly determined by type of occupation). Instead, it is just a random selection of every nth person from the electoral register. Random sampling without stratification is not just amateurish but downright primitive and that is no way to arrange justice in the 21st century.

    Like the democratic process is alive and well, and sitting comfortably on the green benches of the HoC, when those very elected representatives are hell-bent on overturning the wishes of those who voted for them? It isn't called 'democracy' mate, it's called oligarchy.



    1. a small group of people having control of a country…&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    I don't think there isn't much difference between an oligarchy and a meritocracy. Both assume a small group who control the process of government.

    Both those definitions of being governed by a small select group - whether based on wealth, intelligence or influence - have pros & cons.

    I don't think having a small group who seek to sabotage government can possibly be described as either a meritocracy or oligarchy.

    I don't think democracy is the gold standard of fair and effective government when it is based on giving equal voting power to 650 elected representatives of alarmingly varied intelligence who are in a state of conflict between their personal interests, their political party's interests and the interests of those poor bastards in the constituency that voted them into parliament as their representative.

    One of the great things about forums is being able to debate issues and exchange opinions. One of the not-so-great things about forums is when a member fancies themselves as educating other forum members. Any chump can google stuff.


    You obviously know nothing about Greek legend, because Hades' 3-headed dog wasn't mad. No need to thank me for that enlightenment. 8)

    When you feel you're getting closer to your aspiration to be seen as an intellectual, better still, to actually be one, perhaps then you can respond to the main point of my previous post.

    You have to remember that the gallop to escape from the evil clutches of the EU started with a basic anti German belief which tied in with a vague view of "johnny foreigner" then begat with UKIP's anti immigration (especially non whites) stand produced your typical Brexit warrior

    I realise that the main preference for Brexit is that it removes or lessens a feeling of xenophobia or racism. The tortuous ways white British citizens camouflage this are sadly or pathetically hilarious. And of course it is off the agenda in media except by using coded language like "border control", "the Australian points system" and "sovereignty". We have Angela Merkel to thank for making this xenophobia or racism more problematical than it was previously. We have Douglas Murray's book The Strange Death of Europe for saying it the way it is, exposing the true seriousness of the problem and revealing the hypocrisy and political correctness that continues to suppress it.

    This is why Nigel Farage would never be able to explain in a TV election debate the true and only reason why he thinks Boris Johnson's Brexit deal isn't a proper Brexit. And even then he would be wrong, for the reasons I give below

    Xenophobia or racism never needed to be a justification for Brexit. For a long time Britain has had the option to control its borders more effectively and cite homeland security as the reason for strict for immigration control (ie selectiveness), as well as the right to create fair rules of eligibility to prevent immigrant freeloading of Britain's generous lengthy menu of social services. EU rules & regulations on this matter could, in theory, rap Britain's knuckles. However, in practice, it would have been easy for Britain to flout or challenge such rules. The problem is that Britain has always been disturbingly Germanic when it comes to obeying rules & regulations and it has also been convenient for Britain's government to blame EU rules for its own incompetence, or lack of resources, or retain the voter franchise of bleeding heart liberals.

    For those reasons I stand by my earlier posting #773

    And we're worried about the Americans taking over the NHS!!!

    If it isn't a no deal exit, it isn't Brexit.

    How do you arrive at that conclusion?

    People's obsession with simple labels leads to simplistic definitions which leads to crude dichotomies rather than nuance.

    Just because I want to end a relationship or partnership with a person or club or employer does not mean that I want my decision replaced with non-cooperation or animosity. Not every parting of the way has to entail burning one's bridges.

    The concept of detente cordiale has a role to play in a civilised world - but I concede that it probably doesn't among those who identify with the avatar of a three-headed mad dog.

    That, he most definitely is not.

    As for Trump, senile or not, everyone, including the media, have just become accustomed to his outbursts. Not so long ago this would've been seen as major interference in our internal affairs, now it's just run of the mill. I think Trump wants Farage in government, that's why he phoned up LBC.

    And of course the media is delighted to screw Johnson. When that mission is accomplished and Corbyn is employed as PM, and voters are unemployed and sleeping and begging in the street, you can sure the media will be there, on salary and expenses, photographing and quizzing them. That's why the media are called Champagne Socialists

    " with the punchline question as to how a government can afford social benefits when there are no companies or individuals left to be taxed."

    Dennis Healey made a similar promise in the late 70s to "tax the rich until they squealed". When it came to it the rich had hidden their wealth so he was forced to tax the workers on PAYE and we all know how that worked out

    Well remembered. A good punchline for Boris.

    1 True, but they can cause disruption if they win some seats. Look at the effect that the DUP has had until now.

    2 Again, I agree, but it's the same thing. I they win enough seats, they can cause enough disruption in parliament to at least delay things, if not stop Brexit.

    3 Normally, I would agree with all that, but Trump has just thrown a grenade (deliberately) into the fray here. It's difficult for Boris to argue that Britain faces a brighter future outside the EU if he is unable to agree a trade deal with the Americans. Although, I've no doubt Trump said that, just to help his mate out, but it still doesn't play well with the electorate.

    1 You're right, Farage's mob could cause disruption. Much depends on Boris getting a big enough majority to ride roughshod over these pests, including the DUP.

    2 Same point as 1. We are banking on Boris not being Theresa.

    3 No one is questioning or even trying to define what Trump is talking about when saying he is unable to agree a trade deal with Britain. Is it a psychological block or a legal block or the gibberings of rapidly advancing senility or were we over-impresssed when he came to power simply because the alternatives were even worse? I think Boris needs to have a quiet word with Trump. Because, frankly, if this is Britain's expectation of a long-standing trading ally, then it's just as well we have the opportunity over the next year or two to forge a solid trading relationship with the EU. (BTW: have you notice the lack of analysis by the media to these ambiguous announcements? Media interviewers have become just microphone holders and the $64000 questions just lie on the floor unasked and not even speculated upon.

    Excellent analysis, except I think you underestimate the LibDem potential - Remain voters have no other home to go to

    And the very radical Marxist Labour policies which have yet to be fully attacked

    You're right, the LibDems could thwart Brexit. Okay, everyone knows, including the daftest Remainers, that there there is no chance the Lib-Debs will march into 10 Downing Street and that might be enough of a reason not to waste one's vote on a 1-trick pony that can't even achieve its trick. But I agree my judgement here is coloured by a contempt for the phoniness of Jo Swinson (she reminds me of those management trainees who have been overtaught how to present themselves in public speaking - every banal utterance is given an over-animated facial expression - sometimes extending to her whole body - like an android that has blown a fuse).

    I also agree with you that Labour's Marxist policies need to challenged. My biggest fear here is in not knowing the proportion of the population who believe that their lives will be significantly improved from a massive re-distribution of wealth or, failing that, they will feel a whole better from dragging down the ultra-haves to the same miserable existence of the hate-filled have-nots or begrudging under-achievers. Schadenfreude is pleasure in the discomfort of others and I suppose Marxist Schadenfreude is pleasure in witnessing once-wealthy or privileged suffering from the same deprivations as all the other poor slobs, idealists or Utopians. How does one proposition these wretches if they know deep down that they haven't got what it takes to respond positively to equal opportunity? Or if they believe everyone is entitled to be a winner? Or believe that the ugly-face of capitalism prevails and trickle-down economics is, at best, tokenism (like throwing a penny into a pavement beggar's hat) or is just complete utter bullshit?

    Without the benefit of any depth research, my recommended tactic would be both stick and carrot. The stick part is fear of recession and unemployment as companies (offices and factories) close down and move to other countries, while the wealthy and wealth-creators take themselves and their money or potential to sunny climates, while global investors avoid us like the plague (Corbyn-twinned with Venezuela), with the punchline question as to how a government can afford social benefits when there are no companies or individuals left to be taxed. The carrot part is to describe the complete opposite scenario once the politics of envy are expunged, people are made to understand that inequality is a human condition to enjoy, that equality is only possible for robots, and that the only fuel for a decent standard of living is wealth and a sane, caring and effective government.

    For what it's worth, here's my take on how it will pan out

    This is a Leave vs Remain election. Boris has engineered Leaving with a deal and it looks to be the most likely and tolerable outcome by which Leavers and Remainers can call a truce, uniting in a good enough compromise which can only happen by voting Conservative.

    Leaving without a deal is less attractive to voters because it seems unnecessarily hostile, denying what now looks like a reasonably amicable relationship with the EU.

    Besides which, only the Brexit Party favours leaving without a deal and everyone knows the Brexit Party hasn't a hope in hell of getting enough seats to railroad that through an utterly resistant Parliament. I reckon Farage is playing the only card left in his hand and it's not a strong enough card

    Similarly, the Liberal Party hasn't a hope in hell of getting enough seats to rescind Article 50. The Labour Party hasn't decided on its proposition. It could be a second referendum - on the assumption that the Liberals would support that, as well as the SNP, probably the DUP too, perhaps also a few Tory MP's might come out from under a stone. Implicit in this is that the latest polls show consistently that a second referendum would now favour rescinding Article 50 in the ratio of 52% vs 48%. But the delay and hassle in agreeing on the content of the referendum question(s) plus the uncertainty that the outcome would be automatically implemented plus the argument that the present package of leaving with a deal could be an improvement over reverting to the very formula that created divisiveness in the first place - all of that may add up to a good enough reason to go forward with Boris Johnson.

    It's just possible that the Labour Party's proposition would be to claim they can obtain a better deal than Boris Johnson's. I think that proposition would get the horse laugh it deserves and kill off Labour's chances of forming a government. Phew!

    Much will depend on Boris Johnson demolishing Labour's lies and absurd fantasy predictions and explain that by leaving the EU with the deal he has won from them he will have married the needs of Remainers and Leavers. To put it another way, let's stop being preoccupied with the extreme or over-simplified labels of "Leave vs Remain. Compromise is not just the art of politics, it's the art of successful relationships. As part of that thinking Boris will need to assure voters that the next stage, of constructing a mutually beneficial trading relationship with the EU, should not be viewed as a nail-biting watershed but simply the natural way that countries develop a good relationship with one another. In short, it's back to business for Britain, to attend the many things which have been neglected or overshadowed by these shamefully embarrassing last 3 or 4 years.