Also In The News - part 3

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, foxy boxing said:

A woman is missing and is thought she may have gone into the river in a case eerily similar to the Nicola Bulley case. Obviously no one knows at this stage what has happened to the woman but the chances of it happening again seems pretty suspicious to me. Apparently her coat has been found in the river.  Call me a conspiracy theorist but I do wonder if there is a person or persons pushing single women on there own into rivers.  Whether its a depressed person copycating what happened to Niicola Bulley or whether there is something more sinister happening the police need to find out quickly if something more suspicious is happening before it might happen to other women.

 

You're a conspiracy theorist.

 

If some person was pushing lone women into a river why would they first relieve them of their phone and other belongings and leave them over a mile away?

 

You can't just remove a persons clothing, glasses and jewellery against their will. There'd be evidence of a struggle.

 

Obviously, after the fallout from the Nicola Bulley case the police are going to keep shtum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 14 December 2023 by Parafox

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, String fellow said:

Talk of a two-state solution glosses over the problem of East Jerusalem, which has sacred sites for Jews, Moslems and Christians. It's not clear how that issue could be resolved, since it can't be physically divided into two. Maybe Israel also fears that an independent Palestine would end up as essentially an Iranian exclave, with the possibility of it eventually becoming armed with WMD. Such an outcome would probably result in a situation not dissimilar to that on the Korean peninsula, but with far higher risks, due to the very different religious ideologies underpinning the whole unending conflict. Another issue is that of the physical separation of Gaza from the West Bank, which further muddies the waters of the two-state solution. Israel wouldn't accept a land corridor between the two regions. 

It surely wouldn’t be so expensive to build a decent sized tunnel from the West Bank to Gaza - gazans seem pretty good at tunnelling! 

 

there is also no way that any state of Palestine would be allowed a military by Israel. - certainly not for the initial decades. Its security would have to be guaranteed by the Americans, Egyptians, Jordanians.  

 

as for the comments of the ambassador- what would you expect to see from a Torquay hotel window?  She is a long standing ‘settler’ and her politics are firmly on the right of Likud. BN has to keep the extremist parties onside to maintain his govt once the conflict has stopped.  He’s going to be under enormous political pressure as the enquires begin. It would probably only take one  party to withdraw support for a GE to happen.  Whilst it would seem ridiculous for one of the extremist parties to come away from the coalition, politics  is a strange place. 
 

 

[String fellow]

15 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

It surely wouldn’t be so expensive to build a decent sized tunnel from the West Bank to Gaza - gazans seem pretty good at tunnelling! 

 

there is also no way that any state of Palestine would be allowed a military by Israel. - certainly not for the initial decades. Its security would have to be guaranteed by the Americans, Egyptians, Jordanians.  

 

as for the comments of the ambassador- what would you expect to see from a Torquay hotel window?  She is a long standing ‘settler’ and her politics are firmly on the right of Likud. BN has to keep the extremist parties onside to maintain his govt once the conflict has stopped.  He’s going to be under enormous political pressure as the enquires begin. It would probably only take one  party to withdraw support for a GE to happen.  Whilst it would seem ridiculous for one of the extremist parties to come away from the coalition, politics  is a strange place. 
 

 

Maybe the elephant in the room is the proposed Ben Gurion Canal, which would link the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean Sea, and might be routed through Gaza. It would infuriate Egypt and maybe blow apart the Camp David Accord. When the idea of such a rival to the Suez Canal was originally considered, the Americans had the idea of detonating over 500 nuclear devices buried under the Negev Desert as a quick way of excavating the route! 

[Tuna]

!

Edited 14 December 2023 by Tuna

[Jon the Hat]

13 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Going back to my original point. There are many similarities between Hamas and the current Israeli government. Both have far right, extreme priorities which advocates for the complete destruction of the other. Whether that be the amabassador, the security minister, the defence minister or the deputy PM - none of them want the Palestinians to live. The same approach Hamas has to Israel. Both military factions have countless cases of rape, mutilation and destruction. Both cannot be part of any genuine peace process. 

 

The one difference, however is that with Israel we (albeit indirectly) fund and support the actions. Why ? In short, we, the Birtish Govt are not helping the process by treating advocates of destruction (like the ambassador) as genuine political figures. 

You see you were doing well then you took the logic well past any sensible conclusion.  There are similarities yes, but also huge difference.  dsr-burnley has it right.  The Israelis are imperfect, but they would bloody love an outcome where they have security, where there are no rockets, no suicide bombers; but whatever they do, the other side never stops.  Just like when we were dealing with ISIS, you cannot negotiate with a death cult.  So they are left with a series of awful choices, for which the world happily judges them from the safety of no rockets, no bombers, no sworn enemy coming across the border every day for work.  It is an impossible situation, and even now a huge gamble.  It might not work, they might as many have said just be kicking the can down the road until a new generation of hatred grows up, but really what choice do they have?  

[Jon the Hat]

9 hours ago, Lionator said:

It's interesting that now Biden & allies have started to really push on Israel, the rhetoric coming out is becoming more and more extreme. Anyone who opposes a two state solution wants the violence to continue in my opinion. I'd just like Israeli and Palestinian citizens to live in neighbouring states, with their differing cultures respected and their current leaderships utterly destroyed. 

And no rockets or suicide bombers.  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

Maybe the elephant in the room is the proposed Ben Gurion Canal, which would link the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean Sea, and might be routed through Gaza. It would infuriate Egypt and maybe blow apart the Camp David Accord. When the idea of such a rival to the Suez Canal was originally considered, the Americans had the idea of detonating over 500 nuclear devices buried under the Negev Desert as a quick way of excavating the route! 

Never going to happen.  Dead 60 years ago.

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

You see you were doing well then you took the logic well past any sensible conclusion.  There are similarities yes, but also huge difference.  dsr-burnley has it right.  The Israelis are imperfect, but they would bloody love an outcome where they have security, where there are no rockets, no suicide bombers; but whatever they do, the other side never stops.  Just like when we were dealing with ISIS, you cannot negotiate with a death cult.  So they are left with a series of awful choices, for which the world happily judges them from the safety of no rockets, no bombers, no sworn enemy coming across the border every day for work.  It is an impossible situation, and even now a huge gamble.  It might not work, they might as many have said just be kicking the can down the road until a new generation of hatred grows up, but really what choice do they have?  

I don’t think you’re understanding my point. Stick Hamas, IJ etc. to one side. Stick the Israeli people to one side and the current Govt to the other. Now apply logic. 
 

The ambassador of a country we fund, blindly back and associate with the good guys has said (in much nicer terms, granted) that a group of people do not deserve an identity. Now the ambassador is a right wing nut who has made similar comments well before 7th Oct. But today, a similar statement has been made by by Mark Regev  a man not really associated with the madness of his far right colleagues. Criticism of the current Israeli govt for some here does mean you’re a) advocating for Hamas to be part of a future peace process; or b) challenging the right for Israel to exist. 
 

The reality is for those who have been there. Spoken to both sides. Eaten dinner with both is that neither want their current rulers anywhere near future decisions. Hamas are bonkers and shunned by many of its Arab counterparts. It’s why, Hamas a Sunni majority organisation is seeking aid, assistance from the Shia Iranian govt - that’s crazy  - the Palestinian people ? Not by a long shot. They will and will continue to have the support of the Arab nations for their own homeland and rightly so. 
 

Any group which feels hard done by. Abused. Trampled on will continue to seek some sort of resistance. Including armed resistance. History tells us that - one needs to take away the reason to fight to avoid future generations to die for the cause. If I walked into your house now slapped you, kicked your child and told you to be in bed by 8pm - your patience will run thin very quickly. 
 

What I am saying (and this was before the PM and the Foreign Secretary both slapped down the ambassador and basically agreed with my initial point) is shouldn’t one, regardless of sides demand that the ambassadors comments be withdrawn and criticised ? It’s a horrendous comments which Israelis in their many feel are well below the belt. How is that unreasonable that has led to some quoting the entire Hamas charter as if it needs to be compared. It doesn’t, Hamas are bad guys - anyone who has watched this conflict pre 7th Oct will know that. There was another suggestion that the PA would be better to handle negotiations ? The PA led by Mahmoud ****ing Abbas. Mahmoud I’ve lost that cheque for $10m Abbas. Do me a favour. It is a very common thought within Palestinian ranks that no Palestinian state is a good thing for Abbas as he continues to get richer, like his mentor Arafat. Another crook.
 

People like Ben Givir, Nethanyahu (who openly supported Hamas being in charge of Gaza as he said, gave him the freedom to do what he wanted) and the ambassador cannot be part of any peace negotiations going forward just like Hamas cannot - I’d be flabbergasted if anyone advocates for them to be. 

[Jon the Hat]

40 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I don’t think you’re understanding my point. Stick Hamas, IJ etc. to one side. Stick the Israeli people to one side and the current Govt to the other. Now apply logic. 
 

The ambassador of a country we fund, blindly back and associate with the good guys has said (in much nicer terms, granted) that a group of people do not deserve an identity. Now the ambassador is a right wing nut who has made similar comments well before 7th Oct. But today, a similar statement has been made by by Mark Regev  a man not really associated with the madness of his far right colleagues. Criticism of the current Israeli govt for some here does mean you’re a) advocating for Hamas to be part of a future peace process; or b) challenging the right for Israel to exist. 
 

The reality is for those who have been there. Spoken to both sides. Eaten dinner with both is that neither want their current rulers anywhere near future decisions. Hamas are bonkers and shunned by many of its Arab counterparts. It’s why, Hamas a Sunni majority organisation is seeking aid, assistance from the Shia Iranian govt - that’s crazy  - the Palestinian people ? Not by a long shot. They will and will continue to have the support of the Arab nations for their own homeland and rightly so. 
 

Any group which feels hard done by. Abused. Trampled on will continue to seek some sort of resistance. Including armed resistance. History tells us that - one needs to take away the reason to fight to avoid future generations to die for the cause. If I walked into your house now slapped you, kicked your child and told you to be in bed by 8pm - your patience will run thin very quickly. 
 

What I am saying (and this was before the PM and the Foreign Secretary both slapped down the ambassador and basically agreed with my initial point) is shouldn’t one, regardless of sides demand that the ambassadors comments be withdrawn and criticised ? It’s a horrendous comments which Israelis in their many feel are well below the belt. How is that unreasonable that has led to some quoting the entire Hamas charter as if it needs to be compared. It doesn’t, Hamas are bad guys - anyone who has watched this conflict pre 7th Oct will know that. There was another suggestion that the PA would be better to handle negotiations ? The PA led by Mahmoud ****ing Abbas. Mahmoud I’ve lost that cheque for $10m Abbas. Do me a favour. It is a very common thought within Palestinian ranks that no Palestinian state is a good thing for Abbas as he continues to get richer, like his mentor Arafat. Another crook.
 

People like Ben Givir, Nethanyahu (who openly supported Hamas being in charge of Gaza as he said, gave him the freedom to do what he wanted) and the ambassador cannot be part of any peace negotiations going forward just like Hamas cannot - I’d be flabbergasted if anyone advocates for them to be. 

The difference I think is that the Israeli government is democratically elected, so we don't get to say they can't be involved.  That is up to the Israeli people.  Hamas on the other hand while elected originally have not held free and fair elections for over a decade, so cannot be said to be democratically elected, and everyone feels free to say they cannot be a part of the future government of Gaza.  I don't believe that means anyone on the world stage thinks Netanyahu is going to be in power for long after the shooting stops, or that is nutty ministers etc speak for the majority any more.

[Mickyblueeyes]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

The difference I think is that the Israeli government is democratically elected, so we don't get to say they can't be involved.  That is up to the Israeli people.  Hamas on the other hand while elected originally have not held free and fair elections for over a decade, so cannot be said to be democratically elected, and everyone feels free to say they cannot be a part of the future government of Gaza.  I don't believe that means anyone on the world stage thinks Netanyahu is going to be in power for long after the shooting stops, or that is nutty ministers etc speak for the majority any more.

Not telling a country how to govern itself does not mean we should as a country keep quiet when they have individuals in power who say inflammatory (I’m being kind) things. No matter how better worded some thing those things are said, they have impact. Our foreign office will, whether they like it or not, have to deal with such people and it isn’t right to brush it under the carpet. 
 

Thankfully, we haven’t on this occasion which is the right approach. 

[SecretPro]

Piers Morgan

[Daggers]

14 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Piers Morgan

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Piers Morgan is FURIOUS.

 

As for me, I just don't know who to believe. Why would Piers Morgan lie?

 

Of all people!

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Piers Morgan is FURIOUS.

 

As for me, I just don't know who to believe. Why would Piers Morgan lie?

 

Of all people!

I hadn’t realised that Morgan did not give evidence at all during this trial until I read his statement. 

 

I’m not denying that he’s an odious toad but interesting nonetheless ! 

[String fellow]

'Piers Morgan' is rich in anagrams. Here are a few:-

A grim person

Grim persona

More rasping

Edited 15 December 2023 by String fellow

[Bellend Sebastian]

42 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I hadn’t realised that Morgan did not give evidence at all during this trial until I read his statement. 

 

I’m not denying that he’s an odious toad but interesting nonetheless ! 

I must admit I don't know why he didn't, and I've just looked and the judge asked that very question (and of others) in the summer but I cannot see that it was answered.

 

Any legal folk on here that can shed any light on why that would have been?

[foxy boxing]

14 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I must admit I don't know why he didn't, and I've just looked and the judge asked that very question (and of others) in the summer but I cannot see that it was answered.

 

Any legal folk on here that can shed any light on why that would have been?

Because he didn't want to be found to have lied under oath. Its that simple!.

[Mike Oxlong]

13 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I must admit I don't know why he didn't, and I've just looked and the judge asked that very question (and of others) in the summer but I cannot see that it was answered.

 

Any legal folk on here that can shed any light on why that would have been?

He wasn’t asked to by either side and so he didn’t have any locus standi to appear to answer the evidence against him 

[Daggers]

19 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I must admit I don't know why he didn't, and I've just looked and the judge asked that very question (and of others) in the summer but I cannot see that it was answered.

 

Any legal folk on here that can shed any light on why that would have been?

Mirror’s team could trust him to give evidence that wouldn’t damage their case or force him to perjure himself again (as he did at the Leveson Inquiry)

[Bellend Sebastian]

54 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Because he didn't want to be found to have lied under oath. Its that simple!.

 

54 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

He wasn’t asked to by either side and so he didn’t have any locus standi to appear to answer the evidence against him 

 

49 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Mirror’s team could trust him to give evidence that wouldn’t damage their case or force him to perjure himself again (as he did at the Leveson Inquiry)

You see, being on here can be informative as well entirely soul destroying.

 

I stand by my previous posts. Not good guy Piers! Guy Piers! Piers! Del Piers-o!

 

It's a very humbling day

[SecretPro]

Ad Daggers said, The Mirror could have called him to defend himself....they didn't. Wonder why that was? 

[Mike Oxlong]

4 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Ad Daggers said, The Mirror could have called him to defend himself....they didn't. Wonder why that was? 

The mirror only have an interest in calling him if it helps their case - Whilst you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel if your prospects of success rest with Morgan but nonetheless interesting that the judge made a finding against him without hearing from him 

 

I wasn’t aware of the Morgan/Levison outcome but nonetheless judges  must caution themselves against concluding that a witness must be lying because they have lied about other matters in sworn evidence  (a specific direction to themselves) and I’m not sure how Omid Scobie is described as credible given his account of events re the publication of names in his recent book 

 

Any how, I’m out of this one as, whilst understanding how his experiences have shaped Harry, I still think they are all a bunch of c***s 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wymsey]

It seems like the 'migrant crisis' is getting worse, despite repeated promises by the government that they'll sort it out (no, migrant barges aren't the answer personally)..

Edited 16 December 2023 by Wymsey

[Sampson]

Hate the term "migrant crisis" and the way "migrant" and "migration" is used in the media these days with an absolute passion, especially when 99% of the time it refers to a handful of people crossing the channel, yet deliberately uses the generic term "migrate" and "migration" to muddy the waters. There's a clear deliberate attempt by the media to lump anyone who moves to the UK (and even 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants who were born in the UK in some cases) all in as one and to create a profoundly negative image around the term "migrant" and to lump absolutely anyone who dares to move to another country, regardless of reasons and status, into the same group of people. If you listen to certain people on the hard right of the debate they almost talk about "migrants" as a whole being on the same level as rapist and murderers, it's absurd.

Edited 16 December 2023 by Sampson

[MPH]

 

Unfortunately, the more I read into it, the more I realize that a 2 state solution will never be possible Whilst Hamas are around. I would advise everyone to read the Hamas covenant of 1988 ( their constitution, basically). I posted it on here but it got deleted. They explicitly state that their state will be developed not by negotiation but by an uprising. They also explain that the only way Jews will be able to live peacefully in the area is by being under Muslim control. 
 

 

I long for the day of parity and two states.  But Hamas has to go for that to happen.

Edited 16 December 2023 by MPH