| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
|
What is bad for both the USA and Canada is automatically bad for us.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The last known trip by a director of the CIA to Russia was that of Wiliam Burns, Nov 2021. This was to warn Vladdy the Baddy, that he should not invade Ukraine. Until that is Tuesday. The last known trip is now that of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, on Tuesday.
For what purpose?
I doubt this was a negotiation Witkoff and Kushner do those. Normally they do it badly.
This was something that the CIA were doing, a clear one way communication, "You are preparing to do this, if you do it, this will happen".
The question, (he didnt listen to Burns, he wont have listened to Ratcliffe) is what madness, is Vladdy now planning, that the CIA have the intel on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | The last known trip by a director of the CIA to Russia was that of Wiliam Burns, Nov 2021. This was to warn Vladdy the Baddy, that he should not invade Ukraine. Until that is Tuesday. The last known trip is now that of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, on Tuesday. For what purpose? I doubt this was a negotiation |
It's becoming a bit of a trend though. The Israelis sent the heads of Mossad and Sin Beit to negotiate 'peace' in the Middle East.
| Witkoff and Kushner do those. Normally they do it badly. |
You assume it was 'badly' because you were hoping for a settlement of the Ukraine War. This may not have been their brief. After all they were equally 'unsuccessful' when joining the Israeli intelligence chiefs in negotiating 'peace' in the Middle East.
| This was something that the CIA were doing, a clear one way communication, "You are preparing to do this, if you do it, this will happen". |
You are assuming that was his mission.
| The question, (he didnt listen to Burns, he wont have listened to Ratcliffe) is what madness, is Vladdy now planning, that the CIA have the intel on? |
But, yes, the same thought flashed through my mind as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It is said, and I believe it, that people are losing their faith in the police. An example of why was on show in the aftermath of the Middlesbrough car smash.
A few days after and a mile away from the crash, there was an arson attack on a family home resulting in the death of a woman and a toddler in her care. The following day Cleveland Police issued a statement that there was no connection between the two events.
Since (a) car crashes that result in seven fatalities are as rare as hen's teeth and (b) arson attacks that result in two fatalities are as rare as hen's teeth, the chances of this being true is close to zero. But even if it was true the police could not possibly have had the time to establish it as being true.
Now of course one can see why the police acted as they did. They wished to lower the general excitability of Middlesbrough and especially the general hostility to the minority group held to be responsible. But since nobody believed the statement for one minute only the credibility of Cleveland police was lowered.
It is important to understand that the British police are not institutionally racist or sexist or violent or corrupt. They are institutionally woke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
It is important to understand that the British police are not institutionally racist or sexist or violent or corrupt. They are institutionally woke. |
Not in my experience.
There are lots of folks calling the police racist.
There are lots of folks calling the police woke.
They cannot be instituionally be both. Can they?
They are doing their job, in the middle of a culture war, where folks on both of these sides are calling them out, sometimes correctly, sometimes not.
In Wileys opinion folks are losing faith, in institutions that overuse spin.
You cant polish a turd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | It is important to understand that the British police are not institutionally racist or sexist or violent or corrupt. They are institutionally woke.
Not in my experience. |
OK
| There are lots of folks calling the police racist. |
What's this got to do with me?
| There are lots of folks calling the police woke. |
What's this got to do with me?
| They cannot be instituionally be both. Can they? |
No, they can't. If you or anyone else can point me to an example of the police being institutionally racist, as opposed to police officers being racist, I'd be obliged. I do not need to supply examples of them being institutionally woke, do I? They are legion. Though I shouldn't think many British police officers are woke.
| They are doing their job, in the middle of a culture war, where folks on both of these sides are calling them out, sometimes correctly, sometimes not. |
I disagree. They have taken sides in the culture war. Something they must never do if they wish to 'police by consent'.
| In Wileys opinion folks are losing faith, in institutions that overuse spin. |
It is not overuse of spin that is the problem, it is the incompetence and partiality of the spin that is the problem.
A good example of the problem. The British police are broadly OK.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
We listened to the great and the good discuss Middlesbrough on Newsnight. Not a single person -- sofa guest, talking head, party spokesperson, a local journalist with an impeccable Teesside accent dragged into the national light of day -- referred to the actual cause. Not once, not even in code.
Which is, insofar as I can judge, gang wars between and antisocial behaviour among local Traveller families. Instead, our masters listed crime problems that affect all deprived areas. Always have, always will. But no more. Andy Burnham has promised to raise living standards in every postcode!
"Aye, pet, that should do it."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Instinctivly I would disagree.
Travellers often have a cultural aversion to bricks amd mortar, they do have family feuds that are bitter and go on a (very) long while, but they are not normally drawn into joining gangs.
Not saying your wrong, but I can see why the police would not see this link as obvious. The second incident does not seem obviously connected to the first.
I agree you are normally right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | Instinctivly I would disagree. Travellers often have a cultural aversion to bricks amd mortar |
I do not see the relevance of this.
| they do have family feuds that are bitter and go on a (very) long while, but they are not normally drawn into joining gangs. |
I accept the term 'travellers' is a bit vague and I also accept that they are not normally associated with organised crime in the sense we normally apply that term. But how exactly are 'bitter and long-standing family feuds' different from gang warfare?
| Not saying your wrong, but I can see why the police would not see this link as obvious. |
I did not say they would not 'see' this. I was only commenting on them not speaking about it publicly.
| The second incident does not seem obviously connected to the first. |
I was arguing that it 'must be' because otherwise the coincidence is on a scale that is beyond astronomical.
| I agree you are normally right. |
You could have fooled me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
